If you want an interesting take on this, read Pete Hedrickson at LostHorizons.com.
Not the typical "patriot rantings." He walks through what the 16th Amendment says, what the Supreme Court has said about it, how the system actually works, and how a lot of people have received 100% refunds (federal income tax and social security tax) from the IRS and also state income tax refunds from states, along with testimonials.
Compelling.
No need for revolt. Just follow the law -- once you understand it.
This attorney in the video does NOT understand the law on income tax.
Her strategy is simply to maximize withholding allowances to minimize taxes withheld (which they recently changed, btw, and not for the better), and then "pay your fair share," hoping that the feds will be worried that they didn't get their money during the year. I'm sure they will be crying all year, getting printed money from the Federal Reserve, until you "pay your fair share" at the end of the year.
As if.
She is an attorney who has NO IDEA what the law is, or even how to figure it out, apparently.
She is like the doctors who have never researched vaccines or viruses, and just push the "official" narrative. That is what she is doing regarding tax law.
What if your "fair share" is $0 -- legally?
I have a few minutes to give more info if people are interested.
Haven't looked into Hedrickson but from what you say it just relieves each individual who applies it. I don't think KrisAnne got to finish her idea here but she was leading up to something that would change it for everyone. She is extremely well versed in the Constitution. I wouldn't be so casually dismissive of her ideas if I were you.
from what you say it just relieves each individual who applies it.
If by that you mean that each individual must take a particular action, then that is true ... and it is ALSO true of what this woman says. No difference, in terms of the individual being responsible for their own actions.
I wouldn't be so casually dismissive of her ideas if I were you.
You really don't know what you would do if you were me. KEK. In fact, if you were me, you would do exactly what I do. Double KEK.
Just because she has "JD" behind her name doesn't impress me. No more than "MD" does, which is to say it does not.
Have I misstated her strategy? If not, then I stand by what I said: she does not understand the law on income tax.
What I got was she advocates to maximize deductions, pay "your fair share" at the end of the year, and somehow that will have some impact in some way. I don't buy it.
If I have misstated, then you should clearly state what her strategy is.
Doing away with the system would require an act of Congress. No individual or group of individuals can do that on their own.
Also, you seem to be acknowledging that I do understand her strategy: maximize deductions, pay at the end of the year (like a lot of small businesses do), and somehow that will bring down the system.
Did she mention that they can print unlimited money until they get yours?
Did she mention that they will also want INTEREST paid when you finally get around to paying?
It is strange to me that you have proposed an idea to help solve the income tax problem for many people (and I am happy that you have done so), but you seem to be locked into this one idea, and are unwilling to consider any other idea that might be as good or better.
Maybe you are this woman. Or the interviewer. Whatever, you have your mind set on it. Go for it if you want, but I see no reason to believe it will have any real value. Just waiting to pay the tax, and pay interest on top of it. What does that accomplish?
Good luck.
For anyone else reading this, check out the website I cited. You can thank me later. ;-)
Her website has 67 entries just on Taxes. I do not go just on her JD, I go on her clear and earnest explanations of complex topics. You don't seem to have any idea who she is, that is ignorant given the assumptions you made. She veered off into talking about Property taxes and not only Income tax which is apparently where she lost you. I don't believe she finished her thoughts on what everyone not paying until the end of the year would cause to happen, we are left to speculate. I don't care for your attitude in the least and will not be further engaging.
You apparently have time on your hands to argue, I have pies to bake.
I don't believe she finished her thoughts on what everyone not paying until the end of the year would cause to happen, we are left to speculate.
So then ... why do you think it is such a great idea?
I don't care for your attitude in the least and will not be further engaging.
Well, YOU are the one who created this thread and seem to think this is a great idea. You title says, "she CLEARLY EXPLAINS taxes and how we could REVOLT. PRACTICAL."
When I go to 1:20:00 of the video, and she says her idea is to maximize withholdings, and then YOU say there is more to it but she didn't say what that is, then ... WHY is this such a good idea?
I know you don't want to respond. That's fine.
Seems to me like a half-baked idea that will result in nothing, and you can't seem to defend it other than to say just watch the video.
If you want an interesting take on this, read Pete Hedrickson at LostHorizons.com.
Not the typical "patriot rantings." He walks through what the 16th Amendment says, what the Supreme Court has said about it, how the system actually works, and how a lot of people have received 100% refunds (federal income tax and social security tax) from the IRS and also state income tax refunds from states, along with testimonials.
Compelling.
No need for revolt. Just follow the law -- once you understand it.
This attorney in the video does NOT understand the law on income tax.
Her strategy is simply to maximize withholding allowances to minimize taxes withheld (which they recently changed, btw, and not for the better), and then "pay your fair share," hoping that the feds will be worried that they didn't get their money during the year. I'm sure they will be crying all year, getting printed money from the Federal Reserve, until you "pay your fair share" at the end of the year.
As if.
She is an attorney who has NO IDEA what the law is, or even how to figure it out, apparently.
She is like the doctors who have never researched vaccines or viruses, and just push the "official" narrative. That is what she is doing regarding tax law.
What if your "fair share" is $0 -- legally?
I have a few minutes to give more info if people are interested.
Haven't looked into Hedrickson but from what you say it just relieves each individual who applies it. I don't think KrisAnne got to finish her idea here but she was leading up to something that would change it for everyone. She is extremely well versed in the Constitution. I wouldn't be so casually dismissive of her ideas if I were you.
If by that you mean that each individual must take a particular action, then that is true ... and it is ALSO true of what this woman says. No difference, in terms of the individual being responsible for their own actions.
You really don't know what you would do if you were me. KEK. In fact, if you were me, you would do exactly what I do. Double KEK.
Just because she has "JD" behind her name doesn't impress me. No more than "MD" does, which is to say it does not.
Have I misstated her strategy? If not, then I stand by what I said: she does not understand the law on income tax.
What I got was she advocates to maximize deductions, pay "your fair share" at the end of the year, and somehow that will have some impact in some way. I don't buy it.
If I have misstated, then you should clearly state what her strategy is.
To your first point. Only people who apply the strategy get tax relief vs doing away with the entire tax system. Big difference.
Doing away with the system would require an act of Congress. No individual or group of individuals can do that on their own.
Also, you seem to be acknowledging that I do understand her strategy: maximize deductions, pay at the end of the year (like a lot of small businesses do), and somehow that will bring down the system.
Did she mention that they can print unlimited money until they get yours?
Did she mention that they will also want INTEREST paid when you finally get around to paying?
It is strange to me that you have proposed an idea to help solve the income tax problem for many people (and I am happy that you have done so), but you seem to be locked into this one idea, and are unwilling to consider any other idea that might be as good or better.
Maybe you are this woman. Or the interviewer. Whatever, you have your mind set on it. Go for it if you want, but I see no reason to believe it will have any real value. Just waiting to pay the tax, and pay interest on top of it. What does that accomplish?
Good luck.
For anyone else reading this, check out the website I cited. You can thank me later. ;-)
Her website has 67 entries just on Taxes. I do not go just on her JD, I go on her clear and earnest explanations of complex topics. You don't seem to have any idea who she is, that is ignorant given the assumptions you made. She veered off into talking about Property taxes and not only Income tax which is apparently where she lost you. I don't believe she finished her thoughts on what everyone not paying until the end of the year would cause to happen, we are left to speculate. I don't care for your attitude in the least and will not be further engaging.
You apparently have time on your hands to argue, I have pies to bake.
So then ... why do you think it is such a great idea?
Well, YOU are the one who created this thread and seem to think this is a great idea. You title says, "she CLEARLY EXPLAINS taxes and how we could REVOLT. PRACTICAL."
When I go to 1:20:00 of the video, and she says her idea is to maximize withholdings, and then YOU say there is more to it but she didn't say what that is, then ... WHY is this such a good idea?
I know you don't want to respond. That's fine.
Seems to me like a half-baked idea that will result in nothing, and you can't seem to defend it other than to say just watch the video.
Have fun with your pies.