Getting tax payers to stop paying taxes wont happen. The IRS has to much power to imprison, cease and basically treat you like they are a king and you are their surf with no rights to property or liberty (life is still protected but what kind of life is that).

The rug being pulled out from under the bottom feeders will happen. Its a mater of if we choose to do it, or are forced to do it through the eventual loss of economy that those programs that feed the bottom will eventually cause. If it happens by consequence of bad policies (economic and entitlement policies) it will be a lot more painful for us all. The problem is you are right, that is likely the only way it will ever happen.

The tax code is 60k pages. My accountant goes to weekly seminars to keep up on it. Even then its not an easy task. The section of atlas where the government passes laws to have people break them so that they have leverage over that person comes to mind every time I think of the tax code. That is the only purpose it serves.

I agree that the violence must be avoided. We must do this by revolution of law. That is why the american revolution worked where so many failed. Even when fighting broke out it was a revolution of law. That is very rare, but to fix the issues we must have every avenue be explored and all of our actions declared legally before we do anything. I also think its a requirement that the other side move to physical violence first. Right now they are using force by way of law and politics. That allows us to use the same force back. We do not go to physical force until after they do and even then it must have a declaration of whatever wrongs we fight over before we start fighting.

The reply was fast, the action taken long ago. I am pleased you see the validity in the point and when I take a deep breath and pause, I understand the reticence in taking such an action. The prudent man would first, at the very least, take the time to read the "tax code" - a five volume set with millions of words - before determining they aren't even liable for the tax, and of course, some actually are liable for the tax, but if anyone is being told that it is Section 1 of Title 26 that makes them liable for the tax, this should certainly give the reasonable man pause.

Section 1 of Title 26 leads to a tautological game of circumlocution that would make Abbott and Costello's "Who's on First?" look simply pedestrian. The truth of the matter is that there is not a single soul who understands the tax code and it is that vagueness alone that makes the whole thing dubious and probably void. The key is are you liable? If you are then this liability should be easily determined in that "tax code". I don't think it is easily determined, and further, when reading the "tax code" it is clear and concise when someone is made liable for a tax, but when they are it is a specific taxed activity that is the subject of the tax. If people are not liable for the tax and only voluntarily assessing their own liability because they have a legal obligation to do so when they don't then this is a void contract under the law.

LOL that was fast. You have a valid point...I believe it would work.

Yanking the rug out from under the bottom feeders sounds more likely than getting 100 million tax payers to stop paying simultaneously. Albeit neither sound very likely.

Done. Now you.

Okay.... you go first.

A violent uprising is not the only road to return this nation back to the rule of law, and a violent uprising should be avoided until all possible avenues of peace have been exhausted.

There is an argument to be made that there are certain rogue elements within government and the military industrial complex that would love to see a violent uprising in this country and from a military stand point it is easily predicted that the military could - even if a large number of military personnel obeyed their oath of office and stood with the people - could be dramatically stultified if not easily quelled.

The more people who wake up to the legal scam of this so called "income" tax and realize that the contract they voluntarily signed was due to mistake of fact, misinterpretation of law and flat out fraud, the sooner more people will begin declining to file any valid tax return. Where a mass violent uprising could not so easily withstand the military might of the United States, a peaceful non-violent non acquiescence would be a much stronger strategy to cripple rogue bureaucrats. Mowing down a 100 million people with military grade weapons is far easier and cost effective than using due process of law to convict 100 million people for failure to file a tax return and conspiracy to defraud the United States government.

Most government social programs are funded by so called "income taxes". Every tax has a subject of that tax and yet few people have not even bothered to ask what the subject of the so called "income tax" they file a valid tax return for each year actually is. Very few people even bother to ask how it was they became liable for this seeming subjectless tax and most people have only been made liable for this tax by their voluntary signature on a valid tax return which swears under pains and penalty of perjury - to the best of their knowledge - that "all of the above is true and correct". Tax accountants and tax attorneys will tell you that this means you are swearing - under pains and penalty of perjury - that you are answering honestly about the income reported, but of course this is not what you are swearing to at all. You are swearing that "all of the above" is true and correct which includes more than just the income reported. The tax return is addressed to "Dear Taxpayer -"

Taxpayer is a statutorily defined word by Title 26, not once, but twice. Surely that sworn oath - under pains and penalty of perjury - includes the honorific of Taxpayer.

How one became a "Taxpayer" to begin with is a pertinent question that few even bother to ask and instead complain that the money is taken by force. Contract law comes into play regarding this insidious tax and people should be wary of signing anything under penalty of perjury, but especially wary of signing under penalty of perjury that "all the above is true and correct" regarding a tax code they most likely have not even looked at let alone bothered to read.

I didn't mean to imply that a violent uprising should be avoided, as it's the only road to solve the entitlement issue, but there are so many "compassionate" people that just can't bare to see anyone down and out, even if they're there by their own horrible choice making, and they (the "compassionate") would fight tooth and nail to "help" them (the uprisers). Thus interfering with the solution.

The violence is all ready here. Today the government takes money from us by force to give to these people. Removing the programs would simply cause them to take the violence into there own hands and be a bit more honest about it. A significant number would choose to turn to violence of some form as that is what they are living by today.

Sounds like the perfect plan I'm all for it! Although I do think there is an element of the poor that would immediately turn to violence the instant they hear the word "no". Probably a bigger element than we want to believe.

We have become too soft as a society. To correct this problem we must be much harder on ourselves and what we require a person do to exist. Perhaps Ben Franklin said it best when he said "I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I [have] observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."

It is much harder to watch your child really struggle through something in their lives than it is to intervene for them. If you intervene you rob them of a learning experience that would make them better and by so doing make them worse. Even though I understand this principle it is hard to not step in and assist because that would be easier for them and for you.

To step in and make poverty easier is to remove the learning experiences that would make some of the poor rich in the long run. Among the 25% of the US population that is dependent on the government in whole or part are some that necessity would be the mother of invention. They would find a way to eat, to live and to thrive and in so doing would create businesses and innovations that would turn the economy around, change the world and make them rich beyond anything they see as possible today.

The assistance that we provide through government theft enslaves these great minds and ideas rather than allows them to go through the pain that would eventually liberate them.

The best way to fix it, is to very slowly pull the rug out from under the process of theft the government engages in. A first step was requiring those who receive the assistance are looking for work, attending higher education, in some way improving. The next step should have been to shorten it down, to require those receiving the stolen loot to do something for it. The next step would be for the government to start pulling out of the charity work and put that responsibility back on non-profits and religious organizations to perform where the funds are given freely rather than taken by force.

This process will happen, either in a planned way or by the collapse of our society we still have time to choose which way it will happen and I wonder how much longer we have to make the choice before economics makes it for us.

I'm ALL for everybody having skin in the game and I hate that the successful are presented as being greedy because they want to keep the money that THEY EARNED instead of shelling it out to the UNearners. And honestly I don't how it's ever going to get turned around without an uprising by those who are convinced they are entitled to other people's earnings. Anybody have any ideas?

Haven't had a chance to watch it yet but since it's Bill Whittle I'm gonna go with - it must be good.