- Nothing--it's denying that taxes apply to you when all the guys with guns and jails say different that betrays a lack of reality-based thinking. --Gulik 15:02, 9 November 2007 (EST)
- "Tax denier" is probably the more accurate term (as there are quite a few tax protesters, many even on the left, who protest taxation for one reason or another but are willing to go to jail for their stance (i.e. civil disobedience) rather than try to bamboozle a court that has heard it all before), but it is not the preferred nomenclature; it's sort of like how the hacker community has been fighting a losing battle for decades against cultural usage of "hacker" for "cracker". EVDebs 14:22, 18 November 2007 (EST)
RA--what are you doing?
Why move this? PFoster 19:49, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
- Don't you believe in the spirit of wandalism? Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 19:50, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
Allow these persons who protest about doing so to 'not pay taxes.'
Then disallow them from using #anything# funded by taxation (including the roads, water supply and sewage system, 'health and safety, consumer protection and anti-adulteration legislation')... and no, they can't use the courts to enforce anything or go to their elected representation, because they are partially funded by taxation.
You'll need to check but afaik 'poll tax' means 'head tax' i.e. an equal tax per person. Likewise I imagine a vote is called a 'poll' because it is essentially a 'head count', but I don't believe there is any direct connection between a poll tax and the right to vote. Certainly I'm fairly sure the UK poll tax was applied to all adult residents to pay for local government services regardless of whether or not they were eligible to vote (e.g. they might be aliens from the US!) 188.8.131.52 (talk) 06:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep in mind legal terminology between two different countries doesn't always line up, even when they speak the same language. Poll taxes in the US are tied to voting rights and are explicitly unconstitutional. EVDebs (talk) 07:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Non-US tax pseudolaw; British protests
Are tax protesters (the kind who use lawquackery in an attempt to get out of their taxes) all that common outside of the US? I've never heard of any and the article doesn't cite any examples. Also, should the British tax protests be a separate article? Other than the word "protest" there is really no connection between people making reasonable arguments about the tax system and a bunch of cranks pushing pseudolaw? Godspeed (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Some drive-by left this.
... aside from one by Tommy Cryer where a federal jury unanimously found Cryer not guilty on two misdemeanor counts of failure to file.
And according to Cryer, the prosecution dismissed two felony charges of tax evasion prior to trial… Cryer stated: “The court could not find a law that makes me liable or makes my revenues taxable,” Cryer said. “The Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot impose an income tax on anything but the profits and gains. When you work for someone you give your service and labor in exchange for money, so everything you make is not profit or gain. You put something into it.”
Also Lloyd L. Long in 1993, and one Gabriel Scott in Alaska was also acquitted by jurors, and Vernice Kuglin where a Memphis federal jury acquitted the FedEx airplane pilot of six counts of tax evasion and willful failure to file tax returns Friday, August 8, 2003. Also Dr. Lois Somerville was acquitted by Judge Patricia Fawsett who entered an order of acquittal before jury deliberation. “Essentially, she [Judge Fawcett] felt the government was unable to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt,” said Somerville attorney Steven L. Sands. And then there's the trials of Dick Simkanin where in the first trial a Texas federal jury hung 11-1 in favor of acquitting New Bedford businessman Dick Simkanin, 59, of willful failure to withhold taxes from his employees’ wages. In Simkanin's second trial, Judge McBryde granted a pre-trial government motion to deny Simkanin the ability to present any of the evidentiary exhibits upon which he relied to form his beliefs about the tax code. When Simkanin’s attorney Arch McColl tried to ask government witnesses about the legal definition of “wages,” Texas Star-Telegram reporter Max Baker wrote that Judge McBryde “told the jurors they could not question the constitutionality of the tax code.”
- Except for what the judge says in the last sentence, no. Godspeed (talk) 17:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
"Right of government to tax" vs "legality of taxation"
From the article:
- Individuals who protest taxes for one reason or another, while not denying the government's right to tax, are called tax resisters.
Wouldn't be more accurate to say "while not pretending that there a loopholes which mean that taxation is not legally enforceable?" There are people who deny that the government has a moral right to tax the people, but don't claim that there's any silly legal loopholes regarding taxation. -- Matthew Cline (talk) 03:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
RE: Tax protestor
this article makes references to people that protest taxes as morons, but you clearly state within this article that the courts will enforce the taxes regardless of any argument put forward.(by force) I do not believe that you quite get where these people are coming from. The very fact that the government has the will and might to enforce their will on innocent people shows that they are unlawful in their actions.
"Every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowman without his consent." [Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E.]
Yes it might be legal but not lawful. These are bully tactics by the Governments around the world to milk energy value from the people, note that the gold standard was abolished in favor of fiat currency with the gold standard being able to be traded for money ( Gold and Silver) and Fiat currency being traded for human energy. So these people aren't protesting tax for the sake of it but rather to keep their worth, ( their energy value). NO one can claim ownership over your energy value except the owner or creator. by saying taxes are lawful they must have had consent..i.e you must have either agreed to pay in some form or another, either by being or becoming a member of that society ( citizen) or by force or slavery.The tax obligation lies with the employer not the employee,.. a fee for trading within that society. Taxes are truly voluntary since it is your value that created the fiat currency that represents your energy value whether it be minimum wage or a salary, except where you are a citizen or have agreed to pay. When you are a citizen then you are a member of that society and fall under the rules that govern that society thus an agreement exists that you will pay taxes and levies and registration etc. The freeman movement see this, and aims to bring a discussion framework and work within the realm of the law so as to create a peaceful understanding of their beliefs and standing, anything else would require war. which no one wants. to call these people morons shows a one sided approach to this informational topic which is not in the best interest of education and understanding. — Unsigned, by: Flyblown / talk / contribs
- Let's enumerate the ways you are wrong:
- There is nothing unlawful about the government enforcing laws. The clue is in the words 'unlawful' and 'law'. The distinction between 'legal' and 'lawful' you are trying to make does not exist in reality.
- "Fiat currency being traded for human energy." Just plain wrong. The value of fiat currency is only the faith in the government that controls it.
- "but rather to keep their worth, ( their energy value)." Except, they do not have any. What they do have is labour, which they can sell in exchange for currency.
- "NO one can claim ownership over your energy value except the owner or creator." This is a nonsense as your idea of 'energy value' is bunk.
- "by saying taxes are lawful they must have had consent." That's not how laws work. Laws do not require consent. Otherwise, anyone could rob banks all day with no penalty by claiming they had not consented to the laws regarding bank robbery.
- "tax obligation lies with the employer not the employee" It commonly lies with both, actually, but income tax is applied to what the employee earns, one way or another.
- "Taxes are truly voluntary " Hilariously inaccurate.
- "it is your value that created the fiat currency", again, displaying a fundamental misunderstanding of what fiat currency is.
- "When you are a citizen then you are a member of that society and fall under the rules that govern that society" We actually have an almost accurate statement here, except that non-citizens are equally subject to those rules when they are in that jurisdiction, whether they want to be or not.
- In short, everything underpinning your weird diatribe is not true. Like other freemen, you have a mixed-up idea of how the world works and what law is, and seem curiously unable to appreciate that the rest of the world is under no obligation to play along with those delusions. Queexchthonic murmurings 21:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I changed the part about "Due Process of Law" and the Thirteenth Amendment with a detailed explanation of why as it didn't make sense to me the way it was - it implied Congress could just pass a law legalizing slavery and that would be OK. But then, after saving, I realized "Due Process of Law" doesn't even appear in the 13th Amendment - that's the 14th, talking about depriving someone of life, liberty, or property (which is probably another tax protester argument, but isn't mentioned.) The Thirteenth makes an exception for a crime of which one has been duly convicted, not for Due Process of Law. Which is probably why it didn't make sense to me. So clearly it's not a rebuttal to anything about the 13th Amendment. Though the original argument is rather ridiculous to begin with, and the 16th Amendment would supersede the 13th anyway.
And if someone can verify that tax protesters actually claim the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits income tax on the "Life, Liberty, and Property" clause, we can add that in too. And in that case, I'd say income tax would be considered "Due Process of Law" and in any case the Sixteenth supersedes it. Gak92 (talk) 03:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
UK taxation 2017
Should there be some mention of the UK Chancellor being forced to backtrack on the National Insurance payments - and the complaints about Business Tax rates?