Then you are an American earning income from a FOREIGN SOURCE (from OUTSIDE the United States), just like it says there.
I, and many like me, however, are Americans earning income from INSIDE (and not OUTSIDE) the United States.
So, while I am in no way giving people advice on whether or not to pay taxes (no way am I doing that), I am asking if anyone can prove to me that *I* or any other American earning income from sources INSIDE the United States are liable to pay federal income taxes. The instruction booklet bothers to mention foreign source income but nowhere (that I can find) mentions domestic source income.
There is much more information (for instance, the tax code) that makes it appear that we [Americans earning income from inside the United States] do not, but I thought I'd start the discussion off with something simple--i.e., the 1040 instruction booklet, which is easily accessible.
The point, if people will choose to discuss this topic, will eventually be, not taxes so much, but the amazing degree (and how easily) to which we, the public, can be fooled by propaganda when we trust, unquestioningly, those who appear to have "authority".
it is pretty much obvious where you report your income earned while in the US. It is, after all, a US tax return and the very first section after the demographic information is labeled in big, huge letters: "Income." All of lines 7 through 22 are "Income."
So, the booklet doesn't need to mention domestic income because it is "obvious" that I am required to report it?
Page 12 of your instructions tells you who has to file the return. It also says, "Use Chart A, B, or C to see if you must file a return. U.S. citizens who lived in or had income from a U.S. possession should see Pub. 570."
Okay, this emphasizes that income from a U.S. possession requires one to refer to Pub. 570. Taxpayers (those to whom this booklet applies), need to look at the charts. I believe that the tax law DOES impose a tax on income earned from U.S. possessions, but such income is subject to special rules (I think), and, thus, those earning such income are directed to Pub. 570. But this says nothing of an American’s DOMESTIC INCOME!
Chart A mentions:
"Gross income means all income you received in the form of money, goods, property, and services that is not exempt from tax, including any income from sources outside the United States (even if you may exclude part or all of it).”--emphasis mine
What income is “exempt from tax?” Is domestic income of Americans exempt from tax? Why doesn’t the booklet ever specifically mention the domestic income of Americans? Once again, it DOES specifically mention income from OUTSIDE the United States.
So it would seem that "income" is, indeed, defined in the instructions. You did read the instructions, didn't you? They go through every single line of the return, explaining what it is you need to enter. All of them taken together represent "Income."
The question is still, “What income is “exempt from tax?” This booklet is very clear that I must report all forms of income from foreign sources (except under special circumstances). It is clear that I must look to Pub. 570 if I have income from U.S. possessions. What is NOT CLEAR is what Americans should with their DOMESTIC income.
You assume that domestic income of Americans is taxable. I wonder if the tax law supports this assumption.
Finally, we hope (and I believe) that this booklet is based on the tax laws, which define these terms. I actually should not utterly rely upon these booklets to determine whether the tax laws impose taxes upon my income. I was merely pointing out some odd qualities in the booklet that make me wonder what the law says. This booklet, of course, doesn’t carry the same weight as the law.
People who can send me to jail have authority, no question about it.
Funny. Your profile indicates that you are from the USA. Based on this statement, though, I feel it is more likely that you reside in North Korea or China or some similar country.
Obviously you are not aware of things like the 4th and 5th amendments of the Constitution.
Fourth Amendment The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Of course, popular TV programming usually makes it appear that for police to need to obtain proper warrants impedes justice. Odd, no? But, then, it is absolutely impossible that our government influences popular media in order to propagandize the American public! It's happened in other countries, sure, but there is no way it could happen here!
Also, this amendment is actually saying that a policeman cannot MAKE you present your driver's license or any other documents to him unless he first presents you with a proper warrant issued upon probable cause (that a crime has been committed) and supported by Oath (i.e., someone swears that they saw you commit a crime) or affirmation. Do you feel like you have a choice when a cop asks to see your driver's license?
FifthAmendment No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
What? Police can't hold you for questioning about crimes unless they first obtain an indictment against you from a Grand Jury (except in certain circumstances like war)? The law can't seize your property without the due process of law?
Wow! Restrictions on police activity? Imagine that!
Of course, if you live in some totalitarian country that doesn't have a Constitution like ours, well that's a different story, but this government is BY, OF and FOR the PEOPLE (or so I thought).
It is my understanding that the Constitution requires that Congress formally declare war on a nation before we attack it. It is also my understanding that no such declaration was made in the case of Iraq, yet Congress "authorized" Bush to make war (what?). That would make Congress, Bush, and popular media (did Tom Brokaw or Dan Rather or PBS repeatedly decry the unconstitutional actions of Congress and the President?) complicit in sidestepping our country's Constitution. I do not take this lightly.
I am enraged by Bush's crimes. I doubt Kerry would have been any better, though. Kerry has said nothing of the greater atrocity that the Congress, of which he was part at the time, did not declare war but somehow "authorized" Bush to commit these atrocities. So, either Kerry (and most of the other Congressman) are completely ignorant of the Constitution (not too complex of a document) or they don't respect it or they hate it. Either way, the whole lot of them have failed in their oath to defend the Constitution and ought all to be removed and possibly jailed. (Bush would maybe need to be jailed for other things as well--the torture, for instance).
But don't you feel much safer now that Bush has established "Fatherland Securi...uh...I mean "Homeland Security?"