I remember there's allegedly no support in the constitution for public taxes, and you could skip it if you referred to it. What's the deal?

Considering this must be widespread knowledge across the states, I'd suppose everyone would take advantage of it, but I seriously doubt every american skip their taxes =)

So, can you really do it? Does anyone here use it?

I find it amazing and quite funny if this is useable. I guess you pay about 30% in tax or something, I bet many would like that in their own pockets instead =)

taxes are not optional. Their are many anti-tax lawyers out their, but their clients usually just get screwed in the process of trying to get out of taxes. I actually know a tax protester that did. If the Billionaire Jack Simplot could not get out of paying his taxes, then i doubt anyone else can.

also taxes vary considerably on where you live, how much you make, and types of income. a very rough range is 10% - 60's% (federal + state + local).

Taxes are very complicated, and many people just quit trying to understand them. It is simply easier to take the standard deductions, pay someone $100 to take care of the paperwork and be on your way.

As damam said, taxes vary. Not only by state but where the money comes from and also what you do with it. There are taxes from income (work), from capital gains (stocks, investments), etc. You can open funds with pre-tax money that get taxed when you finally take money out (IRA when you are 65 years old). Or, you can use taxed money to open a fund and not have to pay taxes when you finally take it out (Roth - IRA again at 65), etc. You can also open a personal corporation, that you pay yourself from, and all the money the corporation loses, you can use as a tax write-off. Hell, I do computer work in 6 Tax stores, and I don't have the smallest notion of how this stuff works. I am probably wrong with something I just wrote.

Most people don't know this, but being an employee is the worst possible way to earn money. Employees that earn $1000 only get a $500 paycheck. Being self-employed you take home more, and being an investor you take home even more. But, there is less security in being self-employed (many hours of work) or an investor (minimal work involved) as you can lose everything. I think being an investor should be everyone's goal, but it takes a lot of money and time to get there. Most don't even try.

BTW, One of the things Ron Paul is campaigning with is getting rid of income tax. People that control the money don't like that, so unfortunately it won't happen. It would be nice if we could get some ethical people in charge though.

are you sure your not confusing the constitution with the articles of confederation?

k's, eliminating income tax sounds great, but they would just take the money from elsewhere. ron wants to ad a national sales tax, right?

Yes and no. He thinks each state should tax and spend as they need. The federal government shouldn't be in control of local issues. But, he is also a huge advocate for cutting government spending. Such as cutting programs that aren't needed and just cost money, like the IRS, if he gets rid of the income tax. He also want to reduce the amount of foreign spending as well. Ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would save us Tens of Trillions of dollars. In turn, reducing the amount of taxes needed. He also wants to end the war on drugs, which has cost the people Trillions of dollars and led America to be the largest prison nation, percentage-wise, which costs even more money.

I don't want to turn this into a political debate, I think Ron Paul is a good human being, and we need more of those in the government. But, he does believe in some things that I do not.

Saying that, I also believe Good Human > Political Beliefs, when running for office.

I tried searching for it, and it was in the documentary called "Zeitgeist" http://zeitgeistmovie.com/ a free documentary online... Though I'm not sure of its validity. About 1h23m in the movie they talk about it as not being constitutional.

@gronned
well the federal courts have ruled that it is constitutional . . . there is no higher authority. like i said, some the richest people in america have tried to fight it under the guise that it is not constitutional and have lost. So zeitgeist is definitely not right on that.

@throwingks
i thought the fact that as an owner you had to pay 15% on social security (ss) as opposed to 7.5% as an employee, and therefore your paycheck as an owner was even less for say a an equivalent 50,000/yr income. Is that not right?

i think we should really just eliminate the different types on incomes all together or atleast make it equivalent for people who's primary income comes from capital gains and say earn more than a million dollars/yr. My family pays like 22 - 25% or something like that from employment checks, and my double uber rich ex boss pays 17% because all his cash comes from capital gains. That is completely unfair. I dont mind paying my share, so long as everyone is paying the same proportion.

I think it is. However, as an owner you pay your personal corporation, then pay yourself from that. You could then buy a Hummer for your "corporation", and expense $25,000 because of it. A regular employee making the same money couldn't ever do that. So, I kinda worded my statement wrong. Being Self-employed gives you the opportunity to own more at the end of the day, compared to an employee who earns the same dollar-wise.

In a sense I am against personal corporations, but they are legal. On the other hand, they can serve as a protection for you, so I am considering getting one for myself. There are some people with many and individual ones can go bankrupt and the damage is minimal.

I have read Rich Dad, Poor Dad by Robert Kiyosaki and he gets into it. There is some more info here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kiyosaki
I do not recommend the book. He is not detailed enough and leaves too many questions unanswered. But, the concepts appear to make sense. I am not a rich dad nor do I have one, so I don't know.

I can find out more details tomorrow. I am suffering from Dunning-Kruger right now.

well i am not a tax expert, but a lot of mormons here in eastern idaho do that sort of thing and I did talk to an accountant about it. what i understand is you can have a corporation, and that corporation can buy a hummer before it is taxed and write it off. However, you still have to pay taxes on all use of that hummer that was not used for corporation purposes.

Also, a corporation has to make money 4 out of 7 years otherwise it is considered a hobby (the IRS method of getting rid of tax shelters).

so lets say corp A buys a hummer and gives it to corp A president. then corp A president uses the hummer for 20% corp related purposes, and 80% cruisin the town and going to the beach. The president then has to pay 80% taxes for the hummer that comes out of her paycheck after taxes have been applied. Of course their are equations and what not to determine the actual amount you pay, but I tuned that portion out. None-the-less, the president is supposed to pay taxes on the hummer for personal use.

the only other thing that I have been told, is that if you live in a small regional area say eastern idaho, the IRS tends to leave you alone on these types of things cause they are scared your going to bring out a shotgun when they step foot on your property (no joke the accountant actually told me that ). If you happen to live in the big city, its just luck of the draw as to whether or not they come after you.