Long’s Shot

Warren Buffet laments that he isn’t paying enough income taxes. Well, he can either put up or shut up. Nothing prevents him from sending more money than required; for Buffet is so rich he never needs to make another dime. Taxes could be raised to confiscatory rates, and he’d still have enough money to live the high life.

Conversely, people who want wealth would be impeded. The dirty little secret is that many rich people support higher income tax rates because they know this tax won’t make them poor. Instead income taxes keep poor people from becoming rich. Buffet isn’t being altruistic. Instead he’s protecting his Berkshire Hathaway shares from small upstart companies who would compromise his investments by challenging market share.

His attitude might be different if his net worth were directly taxed, balking as the government chips away at his financial empire.

But, Buffet isn’t the only super rich guy who supports the so-called “party of the poor.” Democrats have so successfully perpetuated this myth; it’s paradoxical the many rich supporters they have. So, as they move further into socialism, Democrats are the party of the mega rich and the despotic poor.

It’s possible that Buffet and his fellow travelers believe that they will be protected from economic harm by advocating a tax that really doesn’t affect them. Never realizing it’s only a matter of time for governmental thievery to reach them, as the nation’s wealth producers are decimated, ala Venezuela.

Because of its destructiveness, the income tax should be eliminated, but how? Many believe a national sales tax like the Fair Tax is the answer. The theory is once enough citizens become familiar with the concept, the resulting political movement will succeed at repealing the 16th amendment, abolishing the IRS, and then implementing a new consumption based tax altogether.

Unfortunately, politicians especially of the liberal persuasion will never relinquish a tax that gives them great power to implement their version of social justice. And repealing or even challenging the legality of the 16th amendment in the Supreme Court given its current political composition, these justices aren’t likely to revoke it since a court has never before repealed a constitutional amendment.

And Bush will probably not get another chance to appoint a justice. Even if he did, the Democrats would never allow his nominee to be conservative enough to ever consider abolishing the income tax. So, what’s an anti income, over taxed citizen to do?

Back in 1993, the IRS proved conclusively in court that Lloyd Long had received gross income and then willfully failed to file a return. Yet, even though Long admitted his earnings under oath, he still beat the rap. How did he do it?

His defense began with Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad that determined the 16th amendment really didn’t give congress any new power to tax new subjects. The income tax was only an excise tax on corporate privileges and privileged occupations. The Congressional Research Service has also confirmed this finding.

Then, in Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. Long’s defense argued that an excise tax can only be levied on the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the US, licensed occupations and corporate privileges.

Next, in Redfield v. Fisher an individual cannot be taxed for his existence and his property is exempt from excise taxes. In Jack Cole v. Commissioner, the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled by right that citizens can earn income, and it cannot be taxed as a privilege.

Finally, the coup d’etat, another Tennessee Supreme Court decision, Corn v. Fort, determined individuals have a right to form partnerships that are independent and antecedent of government.

Fast forward to July 2007, a jury in U.S. District Court in Louisiana voted 12-0 to find Tom Cryer, not guilty of failure to file income taxes. Cryer argued that the Supreme Court has already upheld the right of free exchange of labor for compensation. In other words, the salary a worker receives cannot and should not be taxable. Yet, the IRS has determined that a person’s time and talents are worthless.

There are basically three important arguments that Cryer makes. “There's no law making the average working man liable [for income taxes]; there's no law or regulation that allows the IRS to contend that earnings are 100 percent profit received in exchange for nothing, and the right to earn a living through any lawful occupation is a constitutionally protected fundamental right, and it is exempt from taxation.”

Ten years ago, Cryer started his quest to defeat the IRS. He researched not only tax laws, but also the documents behind the U.S. Constitution. During his trial, he offered to pay his taxes if the IRS could demonstrate their taxing authority. They never did. Could it be that the income tax is truly “voluntary?”