Pottapaug1938 , Lpc, and Framspear Is this crap?

[notorial dissent]

I can't imagine how Vieira could ever possibly qualify as an expert witness at anything, despite, or more to the point, in spite of his credentials, he isn't an expert on anything except making outlandish pronouncements.

[Pottapaug1938]

This link applies to Vieira and Jamey, I think:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

Wikipedia also has a nice article on this logical fallacy.

[Duke2Earl]

It is not about reading of cases,or articles, or movies, or who has what degrees. None of that matters at the bottom line. What does matter is does it work? I'm easy to convince. All the current troll has to produce is one, ONE verifiable case of anyone being relieved of paying income tax by using any of the quotes, readings, bluster, articles or whatever. Just one case. Not staying out of jail, but rather and most importantly not having to pay the income tax. Never happened, never will. And all the screaming in the world won't change that.

[JamesVincent]

Yup, crap. That was all that was needed.

[notorial dissent]

Going to be a LONG and fruitless wait then I fear.

[The Operative]

Actually, it all boils down to, does anybody WHO MATTERS agrees with you? In regards to the tax laws and the interpretation of those laws, the courts are the one that matter. In regards to the tax laws and the interpretation of those laws, the opinions of John Turner, Tommy Cryer, Edwin Viera Jr., Joe Bannister, Aaron Russo, Pete Hendrickson, Sherry Peel Jackson, Irwin Schiff or any other tax protester you can think of, do not matter.

The rulings of the courts on the tax laws are consistent with the statements made by LPC, Famspear, and many others on this site.

The rulings of the courts (the ones who actually matter) are NOT consistent with Jameson3171's statements and are NOT consistent with the interpretation presented in "America: Freedom to Fascism".

[Hyrion]

America: Freedom to Fascism

I keep stumbling over that title.

I'm sure they really want to say "Freedom From Fascism"

However, every time I initial read that it comes across as:

• From a state of Freedom to a state of Fascism [in 10 easy steps]

[Famspear]

America: Freedom to Fascism

I keep stumbling over that title.

I'm sure they really want to say "Freedom From Fascism"

However, every time I initial read that it comes across as:

• From a state of Freedom to a state of Fascism [in 10 easy steps]

Yeah, and when the movie first came out, the title was listed in the promotions for the movie two different ways:

America: Freedom to Fascism

and

America: From Freedom to Fascism

In other words, the people who released the movie couldn't even get the title right half the time.

[Famspear]

Here's how some of the critics reviewed this piece of crap:

One-time Libertarian presidential candidate and Rude Awakening auteur Aaron Russo has some very good news for you: You don't have to pay income taxes anymore! Congrats! Don't spend all that extra money in one place! According to Russo, at least, there's no law on the books forcing individuals to pay any kind of graduated income taxes. In fact, according to Russo's documentary America: Freedom To Fascism, income taxes are downright unconstitutional. Now the bad news: any day now, jackbooted thugs will break down your door, seize your belongings, and insert a computer chip inside you so you can be monitored at all times by the looming one-world international government. Yes, America: Freedom To Fascism gives the Michael Moore muckraking-underdog treatment to the kind of delirious conspiracy theories generally associated with mentally ill homeless people screaming at passersby to stop stealing their brainwaves.

[ . . . ]

[The movie] rails semi-coherently against bogeymen on the left and right, employing public-access production values and a world-changing sense of purpose wildly disproportionate to its paltry resources and amateurish direction. The film somehow manages the formidable task of being far more paranoid and hysterical than even its screaming tabloid-headline title would suggest.

--from Nathan Rabin, The Onion (July 26, 2006).

Scott Moore, movie critic of the Portland Mercury wrote (downloaded Sept. 29, 2006):

There are a lot of stupid people in this world, and some of those stupid people are going to see America: From Freedom to Fascism and buy into its halfbaked, hole-ridden, libertarian rhetoric about the alleged illegality of the federal income tax. And that's a shame, if for no other reason than it'll be a small defeat for logic.

[ . . .]

By presenting half -baked ideas with the faux certainty that comes through sheer repetition and bending historical facts to fit his agenda, Russo manages to portray the legality of the income tax as something actually worthy of debate. Thing is, it's only up for debate among anti-tax conspiracy theorists who have anarchist, anti -social tendencies.

[Red Cedar PM]

This guy is not crockpot

Well that's something we can certainly agree on. A Crockpot is something that is actually useful.

[LightinDarkness]

In my experience the validity of someone's argument is almost always proportional to the speed in which they bring up their academic credentials. I worked for a Harvard PhD once, and the women had no idea what she was doing. But she made sure you knew she had that PhD at every possible opportunity. I think she was more in love with that Dr. title than life itself.

Conversely, I've worked for people that have multiple graduate degrees - one of them had two PhDs, actually, and they never brought it up. Never hanged the degrees on their office wall. Never slapped ", Ph.D." after their name in emails. I only found out because I ended up talking with them about our college/grad school experiences.

This works for masters degrees too, by the way. I have yet to come across someone who had a valid argument on anything who felt the need to defend their position with "but I have a masters degree!" On a side note, no one cares if you have a masters degree (or PhD, these days). Many graduate schools are laughably easy to get into and many schools hand out masters degrees like its candy. Some still stand for quality, but they are increasingly rare.

An ivy league graduate degree will get most people to listen to you...until you start spouting utter crap.

[Pottapaug1938]

50 or so years ago, when I was in junior high school, one of my Jewish classmates pointed out a fellow student who was very annoying, particularly in the way which he bragged, at every opportunity, about the many expensive things his prosperous father was able to give him. "He's such a nudnik," my friend said to me; and then seeing that I had no idea what the word meant, she defined it for me. Years later, I was thumbing through "The Joys of Yiddish", by Leo Rosten; and I came across the variant "phudnik" -- meaning a nudnik with a Ph. D. That variant seems to describe LiD's Harvard Ph. D perfectly.

[fortinbras]

from my compilation:

“It is clear beyond peradventure that the income tax on wages is constitutional.” Stelly v. CIR (5th Cir 1985) 761 F2d 1113 cert.den 474 US 851. Argument that wages are not taxable income rejected: US v. Connor (3d Cir 1990) 898 F2d 942 cert.den 497 US 1029 (“Congress exercised its power to tax income by defining income as, inter alia, ‘compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits and similar items.’ 26 USC sec 61(a). Every court which has ever considered the issue has unequivocally rejected the argument that wages are not income.”) Under 26 USC sec 61(a), compensation for services (including wages and salaries), interest, and dividends are counted as taxable income. A.H. Pugh v. CIR, TC Memo 2009-138. (“Every court which has ever considered the issue has unequivocally rejected the argument that wages are not income.”); Connor v. CIR (2d Cir 1985) 770 F2d 17 (argument is so frivolous that it can be penalized); Gavigan v. US (D.Conn 11/30/2000) 87 AFTR2d 808; Snyder v. Ind. Dept of State Revenue (Ind.Tax Ct 2000) 723 NE2d 487 app.den (Ind.Supm 2000) 735 NE2d 233; A.S. Montero v. CIR (5th Cir 11/19/09) 354 Fed.Appx 173, 104 AFTR2d 7380, 2009 USTC 50756 cert.den (10/31/11) _US_, 132 S.Ct 519; US v. Gardell (1st Cir 5/6/94) 23 F3d 395(t), 73 AFTR2d 2075 cert.den 513 US 869; Sisemore v. US (6th Cir 1986) 797 F2d 268 cert.den 479 US 849; Herriman v. US (MD Fla 12/3/09) 104 AFTR2d 7581, 2009 USTC 50784 affd 418 Fed.Appx 823, 107 AFTR2d 1359, 2011 USTC 50287; (“well settled”) Kramer v. CIR, TC Memo 2012-192; Boggs v. CIR (6th Cir 2009) 569 F3d 235; Abdo dba American Tax Planning Co. v. US IRS (MDNC 2002) 234 F.Supp.2d 553 affd 63 Fed.Appx 163 cert.den 540 US 1120 (the ‘exchange’ argument is “not new nor is it correct”); Perkins v. CIR (6th Cir 1984) 746 F2d 1187 (The 16th Amendment authorized a tax “on incomes from whatever source derived”, which did not exclude payment received for labor or services, and Congress properly included such compensation in its definition of gross income; the assertions that wages or compensation for labor or service cannot be taxed “are totally without merit”); R.C. Randall v. CIR, TC Memo 2008-138; Townsend v. USA (WD Mich 8/31/00) 2000 USTC 50749; Wm. Belz v. US (6th Cir 3/10/86) 787 F2d 588(t); Casper v. CIR (10th Cir 1986) 805 F2d 902; Samples v. CIR, TC Memo 2009-167; Tracy v. Wisconsin Dept of Revenue (1986) 133 Wis.2d 151, 394 NW2d 756; US v. E.G. Beeman (WD Penn 6/30/11) 108 AFTRS2d 5074, 2011 USTC 50506; Vann v. US (MD Tenn 1985) 615 F.Supp 6 (“the plaintiff resurrected the long-defunct argument that wages or salary ... did not constitute income”; penalized as frivolous pleading); Hamzik v. CIR, TC Memo 2004-223 affd 25 Fed.Appx 911, 2001 USTC 50773; and anyone raising this argument in future litigation should expect to be penalized. Hyslep v. US (11th Cir 1985) 765 F2d 1083; ditto Sisemore v. US (6th Cir 1986) 797 F2d 268 cert.den 479 US 849; Wilcox v. CIR (9th Cir 1988) 848 F2d 1007 (“First, wages are income. ... Second, paying taxes is not voluntary.”); US v. Jones (D NJ 1995) 877 F.Supp 907; S.R. Holmes v. CIR, TC Memo 2010-42; Fox v. CIR, TC Memo 1993-37 summ.judg. granted TC Memo 1996-79; US v. D.L. Taylor (6th Cir 3/29/93) 991 F2d 797(t); A.P. Hart vb. CIR, TC Memo 2001-306 (“utter nonsense”); Snyder v. Ind. Dept of State Revenue (Ind.Tax Ct 2000) 723 NE2d 487 app.den (Ind.Supm 2000) 735 NE2d 233; O’Brien v. CIR (6th Cir 1985) 779 F2d 52; Wellbaum v. US (D Ore 9/20/91); Ammel v. Cavuto (D Kan 1/29/96); Young v. IRS (ND Ind 1984) 596 F.Supp 141 (“in the clearest language ... wages are income”); US v. Gerads (8th Cir 1993) 999 F2d 1255 cert.den 510 US 1193; US v. Mullendore (5th Cir 8/17/93) 3 F3d 437(t) cert.den 510 US 1079; Motes v. US (11th Cir 1986) 785 F2d 928; tax evasion guru permanently enjoined from promoting this “false representation”. US v. Sweet (MD Fla 2/20/02) 89 AFTR2d 2189.

Vieira cites the Eisner case, which involved a tax on corporate dividends, not a situation involving wages or other payment for personal effort, so any extrapolation from the court's focus on dividends is (at best) shaky. But the court very pointedly cited the income tax law as taxing salaries & wages in the (very brief) decision in Lucas v. Earl (1930) 281 US 111, 50 S.Ct 241, 74 L.Ed 731. In the Congressional debates leading up to the proposal of the Sixteenth Amendment, and in the subsequent enactment of several revenue acts, it was clear that Congress intended that the income taxes should be applied to wages and salaries (and a great deal more). IF the income tax were not intended to apply to wages, then it follows that by now Congress would be aware of the effect of the income tax laws and would have revised them to exclude wages -- the income tax laws were revised many dozens of times but never to exclude wages. In fact, the addition of a provision for employers to make payroll deductions (in the 1940s), shows that Congress very clearly intended that the income tax should reach wages and salaries.

In resolving this, the Congress is essentially the dog that did not bark in the night.

[LPC]

from my compilation:

It makes Jameson/Micheal seem terse by comparison.

[fortinbras]

I am sorry I am so tedious. I wanted to make clear that the legal authority for my position is not insignificant.