What is RP's argument that Income is not Federally Taxable

[BLS]

I did a google search and found that the 16th Amendment gave them the right to collect income taxes.

so what is the argument? That the 16th amendment violates other amendments?

[LibertyEagle]

Here's the video Freedom to Fascism, if you're interested in seeing it:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173


---------------

And here is the section of the interview that they're talking about in the paper:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4710607797448605118&hl=en

[angelatc]

I'm not clear either. My guess, and it is only a guess, is that even though the16th Amendment allows them to pass laws to collect taxes, they never actually did pass the law.

[LibertyOrDie]

There are multiple post on this site that have covered this.

Watch "America: Freedom to Fascism" - Ron Paul is in it. This will explain most, or at least getting you studying the right information.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173

[KingTheoden]

I did a google search and found that the 16th Amendment gave them the right to collect income taxes.

so what is the argument? That the 16th amendment violates other amendments?

In part, yes. But primary the issue is that 'income' has never been defined to mean wages. Think of it this way: when I work for someone, I am trading my labor for capital (dollars). There is no profit here because the mutual benefit is by definition an equilibrium. The tax was initially sold to the country as being one that would tax income on capital i.e. the appreciation of money in some investment.

There is also serious question about whether the 16 Amendment was properly ratified (some states passed different versions- something that is unconstitutional but Wilson's Secretary of State did not care).

[denvervoipguru]

http://perspectives.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=113076&forum_id=98

[Trevorjustco]

In part, yes. But primary the issue is that 'income' has never been defined to mean wages. Think of it this way: when I work for someone, I am trading my labor for capital (dollars). There is no profit here because the mutual benefit is by definition an equilibrium. The tax was initially sold to the country as being one that would tax income on capital i.e. the appreciation of money in some investment.

There is also serious question about whether the 16 Amendment was properly ratified (some states passed different versions- something that is unconstitutional but Wilson's Secretary of State did not care).

Wilson's secretary of state DID care, but considered the notion that a misplaced semi-colon, missing plurals, or improperly capitalized words were irrelevant to the content of the amendments which the states approved, and he went ahead and declared the amendment ratified.
People here will say that the amendment was not ratified by the states, but that is frankly nonsense. The requisite number of states ratified the amendment, and thus it was declared an amendment.

I know I'm going to get shat on for saying this, but it must be said:
Income tax is legal, and Aaron Russo is (was?) a right-wing Michael Moore. A:F to F is a factually inaccurate hatchet-job "shockumentary" like any of Moore's.


As for income not being properly defined:

For the present purpose we require only a clear definition of the term ‘income,’ as used in common speech, in order to determine its meaning in the amendment....

Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206-7 (1935), (holding that “Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets.” 252 U.S. at 207).


Ultimately, the war must be waged on and through legislation. Legal battles will be pointless.

[Blowback]

I will fight against it regardless of legality because of the immorality of it.

A tax on wages means slavery. Except it's only 25... 30... 40... 50% slavery.

You may get no services in return and you will be imprisoned (or worse) if you do not comply.

There are certainly a lot of strong arguments that it is illegal as well. There is no debate that the tax IS AGAINST what the founders wanted (as is true of 95% of our gov. today).

No matter what don't let anyway tell you that the IRS has refuted all of the claims. Of course they would say that. They are criminal mercenary thugs.

Do your research and decide for yourself.

[torchbearer]

I did a google search and found that the 16th Amendment gave them the right to collect income taxes.

so what is the argument? That the 16th amendment violates other amendments?

With a little bit of research and calling your state government, you'll find that the 16th amendment was never ratified by the states. A small little detail that didn't keep them from sticking it on the constitution as a legal amendment.

[Aeschylus]

The 16th was not ratified and even if it is argued that it was, the Supreme Court ruled on multiple occasions that it did NOT add any new tax to the American People. A tax on labor is Unconstitutional and is considered slavery.

[burnice]

I will fight against it regardless of legality because of the immorality of it.

A tax on wages means slavery. Except it's only 25... 30... 40... 50% slavery.

You may get no services in return and you will be imprisoned (or worse) if you do not comply.

There are certainly a lot of strong arguments that it is illegal as well. There is no debate that the tax IS AGAINST what the founders wanted (as is true of 95% of our gov. today).

No matter what don't let anyway tell you that the IRS has refuted all of the claims. Of course they would say that. They are criminal mercenary thugs.

Do your research and decide for yourself.

This is kinda my take on the situation as well. Who knows whether the income tax laws in this country are "legal" or "Constitutional," but one thing is for sure -- that a graduated income tax is a plank of the communist manifesto.

[BLS]

http://perspectives.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=113076&forum_id=98

wow...thanks!

[LibertyOrDie]

I know I'm going to get shat on for saying this, but it must be said:
Income tax is legal, and Aaron Russo is (was?) a right-wing Michael Moore. A:F to F is a factually inaccurate hatchet-job "shockumentary" like any of Moore's.


Just to save me some time, I copied this from a rant I had on another site, but I think it is pretty relevant to this issue.


"That is simple. In the Colonies, we issue our own paper money. It is called 'Colonial Scrip.' We issue it in proper proportion to make the goods and pass easily from the producers to the consumers. In this manner, creating ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power and we have no interest to pay to no one." -- Benjamin Franklin

"The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters, had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction. The inability of the colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George III and the International Bankers was the Prime reason for the Revolutionary War." -- Benjamin Franklin

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." -- Thomas Jefferson

The Federal Reserve and IRS are exactly the kind of institutions our Founding Fathers fought against for our freedoms. America lasted over a hundred years without the need, until our government was tricked into establishing the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Woodrow Wilson, the acting President at the time even regretted his mistake:

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -- Woodrow Wilson

Which, of course, the Federal Reserve Act lead to the 16th Amendment that is claimed to have allowed for the IRS to collect Income Tax. Which many argue was never properly ratified. See the court case from 2003 - United States District Court: Sullivan vs. USA.
http://www.givemeliberty.org/rtplawsuit/...

"I think if you were to go back and try to find and review the ratification of the 16th Amendment, which was the internal revenue, Income Tax, I think if you went back and examined that carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment." -- Federal Judge James C. Fox (page 23)

But the ratification doesn't even matter, since we don't have any courts with enough guts to rule on it ( also discussed by Judge James C. Fox in the previous case), because the 16th Amendment did not authorize any new tax. Check Supreme Court case Brushaber v. Union Pacific, this is what a 1980 Congressional Research Report stated about it:

"The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White, first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution... Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes were still subject to the rule of uniformity." -- 1980 Congressional Research Report

This is also backed up by Supreme Court case: Stanton v. Baltic, "...the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation..."

I think it is pretty obvious where the law is. Which is exactly what Ed and Elaine Brown stated, "Show us the law and we will pay!". They even stated that they would be willing to pay any penalties and interest, if just shown the law.

They requested this in a letter to the IRS every month since 1995 or 1996 ( not positive on the year they started this ). After receiving no response from the IRS after 2 years, they decided not to pay their Income Tax until they were shown a law. When they were charged and taken to court, the judge would not allow them to have any witnesses, cross-exam the prosecution's witnesses, or even make a statement to the jury. How are you suppose to make a defense?!!

As for the people that question how the country will run if we have no Income Tax, how will things get paid for? It is simple, I will put this in very basic terms. Congress wants money for something, they have the Constitutional authority to create it, but instead they go to the Federal Reserve ( a private corporation ) and ask for X amount of money. The Federal Reserve creates this out of thin air, and agrees to give it to Congress with interest.

Now look at this, if I create the money, and you come to me and ask for $100.00 and I say sure, but you owe me $110.00 back. Then I create the $100.00 and never create the extra $10.00, how are you suppose to pay me back? You can't, you have to come back and borrow more, just to pay me back. See why our Founding Fathers saw this as slavery. Now, mind you, it is even more complex than that, but in simple terms, that is exactly what it equates to.

So when you pay your Income Tax to the IRS, all you are paying is that $10.00 interest on the loan. It is pure profit to a private corporation. Schools, roads, etc. are paid by other taxes and licenses ( i.e. Sales Tax, City Tax, State Tax, DMV, etc. ). You see, people that don't support the Income Tax, aren't against all taxes, just the Income Tax.

Well, I have ranted enough. There is more but, I'll save it for another time. Also, look into HJR-192.

[foofighter20x]

The 16th was not ratified and even if it is argued that it was, the Supreme Court ruled on multiple occasions that it did NOT add any new tax to the American People. A tax on labor is Unconstitutional and is considered slavery.

What you are citing is a passage in a USSC ruling that is continually taken out of context.

What the USSC said, were you to read the whole thing, is that the 16th created no new power to tax, but instead delimited the scope of income taxation.

That is: Congress already had the power to tax incomes, but only so long as it apportioned the amounts to the States in proportion to their populations. The 16th simply removed the requirement for apportionment.

[Trevorjustco]

Just to save me some time, I copied this from a rant I had on another site, but I think it is pretty relevant to this issue.


Quotes
Valid points
Invalid points
Misrepresentations of court judgements

I am just saying, those people who are suggesting that the IRS is some bully who is trying to enforce laws that don't exist and "don't want anyone to know this dirty secret" are not based in reality, and will only come off as such should they attempt to say these things to people less tolerant of such views.

Income tax is legal in the here and now(Title 26 of the U.S. Code). Whether it was the founding fathers' intentions to allow income taxes or not is another thing, and really is irrelevant to the world of jurisprudence.

[emilysdad]

I did a google search and found that the 16th Amendment gave them the right to collect income taxes.

so what is the argument? That the 16th amendment violates other amendments?


The 16th Amendment was not ratified by the required 3/4 of the states:

http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/home.asp

[foofighter20x]

The 16th Amendment was not ratified by the required 3/4 of the states:

http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/home.asp

Using the same argument they use for the 16th amendment, then it could also be argued the Bill of Rights was never ratified either...

Just sayin'

[AZJV]

The truth of the matter is that the legal definition of "income" from clear back in the colonial days meant "profit" from business and corporations. NEVER did it include payment in exchange for labor. That definition has NEVER been legally changed.
Watch this video and get the true facts on income taxing. It is wonderful and very educational.

Theft By Deception - Deciphering The Federal Income Tax 1hr 28 min
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8325647335088938687

Trust me , you won't be sorry you watched it.

[PatriotOne]

The truth of the matter is that the legal definition of "income" from clear back in the colonial days meant "profit" from business and corporations. NEVER did it include payment in exchange for labor. That definition has NEVER been legally changed.
Watch this video and get the true facts on income taxing. It is wonderful and very educational.

Theft By Deception - Deciphering The Federal Income Tax 1hr 28 min
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8325647335088938687

Trust me , you won't be sorry you watched it.


I was just looking for that video to post here. It may be as little dry but it is an excellent video that explains in detail why FIT are illegal and how they went about tricking the public to believe otherwise.

I highly recommend everybody watch this video as we will probably have to defend Ron's position in blogosphere. This will help some people to understand the issues.

[DrStrabismus]

I think Ron's argument, I've heard him make this argument for several other topics anyway, would revolve around the original intent. He would probably suggest looking at the history of it and seeing what the people who wrote it were intending it to do and stick to that.

[Erazmus]

The truth of the matter is that the legal definition of "income" from clear back in the colonial days meant "profit" from business and corporations. NEVER did it include payment in exchange for labor. That definition has NEVER been legally changed.
Watch this video and get the true facts on income taxing. It is wonderful and very educational.

Theft By Deception - Deciphering The Federal Income Tax 1hr 28 min
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8325647335088938687

Trust me , you won't be sorry you watched it.

That was weird. I tried the link you posted; it initially tried to load, and then said the video "might not be available, try to reload." Now it just says it’s unavailable.

*edit* Really strange, it's working now.

[Trevorjustco]

The truth of the matter is that the legal definition of "income" from clear back in the colonial days meant "profit" from business and corporations. NEVER did it include payment in exchange for labor. That definition has NEVER been legally changed.

No, the truth of the matter is that the legal definition of "income" from clear back in the colonial days included funds paid to employees that was DERIVED FROM profit.
If "profit" was legally equivalent to "income," then how come they are/were not used interchangeably?

[Swmorgan77]

I did a google search and found that the 16th Amendment gave them the right to collect income taxes.

so what is the argument? That the 16th amendment violates other amendments?

That's wrong. The Supreme court ruled 8 separate times after the 16th was "passed" that it did not grant any new taxation powers. Furthermore, there would still have to be a Federal law requiring it which there is not. The amendment simply pretends to allow the Federal government the power to tax, but without the existence of an actual law creating the tax liability itself it still is not there.

Also, the 16h amendment is provable to not have been legally ratified, but this is a red herring since it doesn't grant the power anyway according to the Supreme Court.

Check out this film for the details: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&q=freedom+to+fascism&total=908&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

[Trevorjustco]

That's wrong. The Supreme court ruled 8 separate times after the 16th was "passed" that it did not grant any new taxation powers. Furthermore, there would still have to be a Federal law requiring it which there is not.

Also, the 16h amendment is provable to not have been legally ratified, but this is a red herring since it doesn't grant the power anyway according to the Supreme Court.

Check out this film for the details: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&q=freedom+to+fascism&total=908&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

If you would read the complete rulings (Brushaber and Stanton) you would realize that the Supreme Court's rulings that while the 16th amendment did not grant new powers to tax incomes, it merely permanently clarified that the income tax was an indirect tax. It was established before the passage of the 16th amendment that the federal government could tax income.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am16

Your assertion that the 16th amendment does not say what it clearly says is utter lunacy.

[kylejack]

Using the same argument they use for the 16th amendment, then it could also be argued the Bill of Rights was never ratified either...

Just sayin'

Please explain what the heck you're talking about. 12 amendments were submitted for ratification and ten passed by 11/14 (78.6%), becoming the first ten amendments to the Constitution.

" * New Jersey, November 20, 1789; rejected article II
* Maryland, December 19, 1789; approved all
* North Carolina, December 22, 1789; approved all
* South Carolina, January 19, 1790; approved all
* New Hampshire, January 25, 1790; rejected article II
* Delaware, January 28, 1790; rejected article I
* New York, February 27, 1790; rejected article II
* Pennsylvania, March 10, 1790; rejected article II
* Rhode Island, June 7, 1790; rejected article II
* Vermont, November 3, 1791; approved all
* Virginia, December 15, 1791; approved all"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#Ratification_dates

The Sixteenth Amendment, on the other hand, was not ratified by 75% of the states. It was announced as ratified even though the bar had not been met.

Anyway, the legal argument is pretty pointless. Income tax should be fought on practical and ethical grounds instead.

[foofighter20x]

Please explain what the heck you're talking about. 12 amendments were submitted for ratification and ten passed by 11/14 (78.6%), becoming the first ten amendments to the Constitution.

" * New Jersey, November 20, 1789; rejected article II
* Maryland, December 19, 1789; approved all
* North Carolina, December 22, 1789; approved all
* South Carolina, January 19, 1790; approved all
* New Hampshire, January 25, 1790; rejected article II
* Delaware, January 28, 1790; rejected article I
* New York, February 27, 1790; rejected article II
* Pennsylvania, March 10, 1790; rejected article II
* Rhode Island, June 7, 1790; rejected article II
* Vermont, November 3, 1791; approved all
* Virginia, December 15, 1791; approved all"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#Ratification_dates

The Sixteenth Amendment, on the other hand, was not ratified by 75% of the states. It was announced as ratified even though the bar had not been met.

Anyway, the legal argument is pretty pointless. Income tax should be fought on practical and ethical grounds instead.

What you've provided from Wikipedia doesn't prove your case.

Ratification isn't a simple up or down vote in most cases. Typically, the state legislature submits a bill on the floor of either of its two houses (if they have two) in which the proposed amendment is copied.

The copies of the amendment don't always have the same capitalization, punctuation, or wording, and even if they do, that doesn't guarantee they don't get altered by the state lawmakers via statehouse amendments to the proposed amendment.

More here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_constitutional_arguments#Sixteenth_A mendment_ratification_arguments) (Since you like Wikipedia)

[kylejack]

What you've provided from Wikipedia doesn't prove your case.

Ratification isn't a simple up or down vote in most cases. Typically, the state legislature submits a bill on the floor of either of its two houses (if they have two) in which the proposed amendment is copied.

The copies of the amendment don't always have the same capitalization, punctuation, or wording, and even if they do, that doesn't guarantee they don't get altered by the state lawmakers via statehouse amendments to the proposed amendment.

More here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_constitutional_arguments#Sixteenth_A mendment_ratification_arguments) (Since you like Wikipedia)

I wasn't trying to "prove a case", I was discussing this with you. The wikipedia entry on the Sixteenth Amendment does not address Benson's most critical claims, llike the fact that it was reported as ratified in Kentucky and other states when the legislature had not actually ratified it.

To wit:

Knox had received responses from 42 states when he declared the 16th amendment ratified on February 25, 1913, just a few days before leaving office to make way for the administration of Woodrow Wilson. Knox acknowledged that four of those states (Utah, Conn, R.I. and N.H.) had rejected it, and he counted 38 states as having approved it. We will now examine some of the key evidence Bill Benson found regarding the approval of the amendment in many of those states.

In Kentucky, the legislature acted on the amendment without even having received it from the governor (the governor of each state was to transmit the proposed amendment to the state legislature). The version of the amendment that the Kentucky legislature made up and acted upon omitted the words "on income" from the text, so they weren't even voting on an income tax! When they straightened that out (with the help of the governor), the Kentucky senate rejected the amendment. Yet Philander Knox counted Kentucky as approving it!

In Oklahoma, the legislature changed the wording of the amendment so that its meaning was virtually the opposite of what was intended by Congress, and this was the version they sent back to Knox. Yet Knox counted Oklahoma as approving it, despite a memo from his chief legal counsel, Reuben Clark, that states were not allowed to change it in any way.

Attorneys who have studied the subject have agreed that Kentucky and Oklahoma should not have been counted as approvals by Philander Knox, and, moreover, if any state could be shown to have violated its own state constitution or laws in its approval process, then that state's approval would have to be thrown out. That gets us past the "presumptive conclusion" argument, which says that the actions of an executive official cannot be judged by a court, and admits that Knox could be wrong.
http://www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/notratified.htm

[dude58677]

Congress does not have the power to punish tax evaders only the States are to punish tax evaders. It only has the power to punish treason, counterfitting, and piracy on the high seas.

[ecliptic]

The 16th was not ratified and even if it is argued that it was, the Supreme Court ruled on multiple occasions that it did NOT add any new tax to the American People. A tax on labor is Unconstitutional and is considered slavery.

precisely!

Tax was intended to be levied on the gains of corporations, never on the wages of working stiffs. By returning to constitutionally intended taxation and eliminating all corporate tax-dodging of any kind we can achieve a fair and approximately 40% - 60% smaller federal government. I think there is easily 40% of uselessness and corruption we could cut right out of the federal budget, though the screaming and wails of agony from whatever affected special interests would be heard across the land from sea to shining sea!!!

[kylejack]

Congress does not have the power to punish tax evaders only the States are to punish tax evaders. It only has the power to punish treason, counterfitting, and piracy on the high seas.

Yeah, but that's a more generalized argument, and tougher to prosecute as it would invalidate quite a few federal crimes.

[foofighter20x]

Congress does not have the power to punish tax evaders only the States are to punish tax evaders. It only has the power to punish treason, counterfitting, and piracy on the high seas.

You left out offenses against treaties...

I hate to counter ya, but this is where the Necessary and Proper Clause comes into play.


To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for
carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other
powers vested by this Constitution in the government of
the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

What good is making federal laws if they can't enforce them?

[kylejack]

You left out offenses against treaties...

I hate to counter ya, but this is where the Necessary and Proper Clause comes into play.


To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for
carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other
powers vested by this Constitution in the government of
the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

What good is making federal laws if they can't enforce them?
Necessary and proper to carry into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States. That gives them the power to enact laws for vested powers, not for infinite powers. A federal law against murder, for example, is not based on any vested power in the current format. Maybe if they were to limit it to murder on the seas they could tie it to piracy.

[Erazmus]

I found this article interesting.

http://www.ottoskinner.com/articles/breakthrough.html

[foofighter20x]

Necessary and proper to carry into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States. That gives them the power to enact laws for vested powers, not for infinite powers. A federal law against murder, for example, is not based on any vested power in the current format. Maybe if they were to limit it to murder on the seas they could tie it to piracy.

Umm... Helloooooo... One of those foregoing powers in Article I, Section 8 was the power to levy taxes... :rolleyes:

Thanks for playing.

[kylejack]

Umm... Helloooooo... One of those foregoing powers in Article I, Section 8 was the power to levy taxes... :rolleyes:

Thanks for playing.
Yes, when properly apportioned, and the Sixteenth Amendment purported to remove the apportionment requirement, and we find ourselves back at the ratification argument. You're welcome.

[DrStrabismus]

It seems to me that contending that there is no law now is just asking for them to write a law that makes it absolutely explicit and that would not be an improvement. It might be better to base the case against the tax on philosophical grounds rather than legal grounds. If everyone comes to the agreement that it is a bad idea philosophically, then the practice will stop, but if everyone comes to the conclusion that it is not legal, then congress will just close the loopholes and we'll still get taxed all the same.

[foofighter20x]

Yes, when properly apportioned, and the Sixteenth Amendment purported to remove the apportionment requirement, and we find ourselves back at the ratification argument. You're welcome.

Haha... You are trying to have your cake and eat it too...

A lot of the tax protestor articles claim that the income tax was an excise tax (thus an indirect tax). The USSC then ruled in Pollack that some income taxes are indirect and some aren't (those being direct taxes subject to apportionment). So... The 16th Amendment was proposed and--questionably--ratified to remove the limitation of apportionment from the income taxes considered to be direct taxes.

The USSC later tried the question over whether the ratification was in fact legit, and found it to be so. Question it all you want, but I doubt the courts are going to overturn that decision...

Besides, you said yourself the ratification argument is pointless and that we should combat it from a moral and ethical standpoint. So then, why are you arguing the very point you said was irrelevant?

Let's just get Dr Paul elected, k? :D

[acstichter]

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 1
§ 1. Tax imposed

(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of—
(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, and
(2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2 (a)),
a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

If taxable income is: The tax is:
Not over $36,900 15% of taxable income.
Over $36,900 but not over $89,150 $5,535, plus 28% of the excess over $36,900.
Over $89,150 but not over $140,000 $20,165, plus 31% of the excess over $89,150.
Over $140,000 but not over $250,000 $35,928.50, plus 36% of the excess over $140,000.
Over $250,000 $75,528.50, plus 39.6% of the excess over $250,000.


http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/taxprot.htm


http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159932,00.html


Aaron Russo's film was non objective. I learned alot from it, but I found the counter points against it much more legitimate.

"I've read the law"
"There is a law"

NOW CHANGE IT!

[foofighter20x]

26 USC 6011 (http://uscode.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00006011----000-.html) - Looks like a requirement to file to me...

[constituent14]

Here is a suggestion looking at this from the "philosophical" perspective...

It is my opinnion that when one individual comes to terms with an organization/employer that they will provide that organization with X# of hours out of their lives in exchange for X# of dollars, and both parties agree a sale has taken place. The employer needed the labor in order to create a product or service so that the company might generate some revenue, just as we purchase gas (or any number of things) because we need to drive to work so that we may ensure incoming revenue.

What happens when you purchase non-food items? You are charged a percentage of the goods' retail value as a sales tax, since something was sold and something was purchased. You pay this tax at the point-of-sale and it is the retailer's duty to forward those taxes on to the govt.

I do not see why selling your time/labor (because that is what you are doing when you work for someone, selling it) should be treated any differently than selling any other good or service. Your employer figures the expense of paying you into the price of their goods. That expense is then passed to the consumer who in turn pays a higher sales tax (X percent of Y increase in cost).

So, why should the system of taxation work any differently for labor? How about workers charge their employer the appropriate rate of sales tax based on their locality. When the employer purchases your labor (via paycheck) this tax should be included in the total printed on your check. (The best part, if you want to be pro-business, allow for the employers to deduct this sales tax from any number of other taxes they already pay). Then it will be the responsibility of the employee to forward that tax money on to the appropriate "authorities," just as it currently stands for retailers and independent contractors.

Furthermore, if you want to get philosophical with your attacks on the income tax system this is the answer. Because think about it, when you borrow money from an institution you are charged interest as the fee for the liquidity sacrificed by the lending institution (if you Keynesian, which our gov't is). In our system they are thereby entitled to some degree of return. As long as you are a bank or connected to a bank... b/c...

You know that much of your income tax will ultimately be refunded (ignoring the invisible inflation tax), but nevertheless it irks you every two weeks to see that a significant portion of your day (atleast your first two hours) you spent working for the govt. But you say, "oh it's ok b/c i'll be happy when that return check arrives in the mail." However the check will be missing any interest payment for your sacrifice in liquidity. Shouldn't you be able to charge the gov't atleast the current interest rate as set by the (uggh!) Fed?

[1776jedi]

Oddly the IRS will charge interest on your taxes that they have deducted from your paycheck when you fail to file a return. On the other I want to know exactly where that withheld tax sits all year until it is refunded to me. Is it in a bank account held by the Treasury or does it go directly to the FED to earn interest for them? Either way our money is being held to earn somebody interest before it is refunded.

[kylejack]

Haha... You are trying to have your cake and eat it too...

A lot of the tax protestor articles claim that the income tax was an excise tax (thus an indirect tax). The USSC then ruled in Pollack that some income taxes are indirect and some aren't (those being direct taxes subject to apportionment). So... The 16th Amendment was proposed and--questionably--ratified to remove the limitation of apportionment from the income taxes considered to be direct taxes.

The USSC later tried the question over whether the ratification was in fact legit, and found it to be so. Question it all you want, but I doubt the courts are going to overturn that decision...

Besides, you said yourself the ratification argument is pointless and that we should combat it from a moral and ethical standpoint. So then, why are you arguing the very point you said was irrelevant?

There seems to be pretty strong evidence of improper ratification, and I also don't believe the Supreme Court ruled appropriately. They shouldn't even have the sole right to interpret Constitutionality. That's a power they seized in Marbury v. Madison.

I just don't think the legality arguments are particularly practical for getting rid of the income tax. That doesn't mean I don't think they have merit.

[AZ Libertarian]

This was received by the organizer of the Yahoo! Group 'Ron Paul Graphics'.

I believe it relates to the topic at hand:

The word has come down from Headquarters that the Ron Paul campaign is
asking EVERYONE to stay clear of distributing any materials or displaying
any signs that could be construed as fringe, radical or in any way outside
the mainstream.

Ron Paul’s run for the presidency is not the appropriate venue for
promoting any of the controversial theories that are circulating these days.
Such actions will only assure that Ron Paul is soundly defeated. Whether we
like it or not, he absolutely must attract the mainstream to win. Let’s get
him elected first; we can “educate” the mainstream later.

The campaign leaders have asked that all signs contain fairly generic
messages. As an example of how even the most well-intentioned supporter can
cause controversy, someone had a sign that said “Ron Paul is against
immigration”. That is simply not true. No doubt, the follower meant he was
against the latest immigration “legislation”…which is true. But, people
reading the sign would misinterpret it. And, Ron Paul does not want us
stating things that are not representative of his platform. So please,
let’s keep this simple and totally non-controversial. Otherwise we will
actually be doing Hillary and Rudy a very big favor.
One more thing, I think many of us, me included are new to this political
process. We have never before found a candidate that we loved enough to
donate to, never mind work for. This is a particularly difficult problem
when newbies like us are working for a candidate who is not given fair
treatment by the press and who is being described as “fringe” to the blindly
obedient public. It makes us angry; even outraged at the unfairness of the
process. We must be smart; we must quell the urge to show indignation. We
must represent ourselves exactly as Dr. Paul represents himself; in a calm,
intelligent and courteous manner. Even if we do not win the hearts of the
voters we talk to; we will have their respect and if they respect us; they
will respect Ron Paul.. maybe even enough to listen to him speak. That’s
the best we can ask for.. the willingness of the people we meet to just
listen to Ron Paul speak. Ron Paul can sell himself; his message resonates
in the hearts and minds of the American people. The irony is, the grassroots
movement is the only way Ron Paul can get elected; and it also contains
elements which are most likely to derail his campaign. Ron Paul’s
opponents know this; they want nothing more than to have us all out there
with “911 was an inside job” signs. Nothing would turn the general public
off more. If you participate in other activism it is crucial you keep it
separate. Do not even bring it up at Ron Paul meetings. Let us remember
Howard Dean who was storming the country in his bid for the presidency only
to be totally derailed over one overzealous comment that the news used to
make him look like a radical. Let’s not let this happen to our beloved Ron
__________________________________________________ _________

I have very strong opinions on this subject BUT I also think it's as 'fringe' as '911 conspiracy/complicity', and as such only DETRACTS to the positive work we can be doing for the campaign.

[Swmorgan77]

It seems to me that contending that there is no law now is just asking for them to write a law that makes it absolutely explicit and that would not be an improvement.

It WOULD be an improvement, because if they passed a law it could be challenged and thrown out under the 8 cases which held that the 16th amendment granted "no new powers of taxation" and then it would clear at that point that the Income Tax is still unconstitutional and unlawful.

As it stands now, with quasi-law, bogus convictions under penatly clauses and a public perception of a legal obligation that does not exist, we are in much worse shape.

Let them pass it!

[1776jedi]

This was received by the organizer of the Yahoo! Group 'Ron Paul Graphics'.

I believe it relates to the topic at hand:

The word has come down from Headquarters that the Ron Paul campaign is
asking EVERYONE to stay clear of distributing any materials or displaying
any signs that could be construed as fringe, radical or in any way outside
the mainstream.

Ron Paul’s run for the presidency is not the appropriate venue for
promoting any of the controversial theories that are circulating these days.
Such actions will only assure that Ron Paul is soundly defeated. Whether we
like it or not, he absolutely must attract the mainstream to win. Let’s get
him elected first; we can “educate” the mainstream later.

The campaign leaders have asked that all signs contain fairly generic
messages. As an example of how even the most well-intentioned supporter can
cause controversy, someone had a sign that said “Ron Paul is against
immigration”. That is simply not true. No doubt, the follower meant he was
against the latest immigration “legislation”…which is true. But, people
reading the sign would misinterpret it. And, Ron Paul does not want us
stating things that are not representative of his platform. So please,
let’s keep this simple and totally non-controversial. Otherwise we will
actually be doing Hillary and Rudy a very big favor.
One more thing, I think many of us, me included are new to this political
process. We have never before found a candidate that we loved enough to
donate to, never mind work for. This is a particularly difficult problem
when newbies like us are working for a candidate who is not given fair
treatment by the press and who is being described as “fringe” to the blindly
obedient public. It makes us angry; even outraged at the unfairness of the
process. We must be smart; we must quell the urge to show indignation. We
must represent ourselves exactly as Dr. Paul represents himself; in a calm,
intelligent and courteous manner. Even if we do not win the hearts of the
voters we talk to; we will have their respect and if they respect us; they
will respect Ron Paul.. maybe even enough to listen to him speak. That’s
the best we can ask for.. the willingness of the people we meet to just
listen to Ron Paul speak. Ron Paul can sell himself; his message resonates
in the hearts and minds of the American people. The irony is, the grassroots
movement is the only way Ron Paul can get elected; and it also contains
elements which are most likely to derail his campaign. Ron Paul’s
opponents know this; they want nothing more than to have us all out there
with “911 was an inside job” signs. Nothing would turn the general public
off more. If you participate in other activism it is crucial you keep it
separate. Do not even bring it up at Ron Paul meetings. Let us remember
Howard Dean who was storming the country in his bid for the presidency only
to be totally derailed over one overzealous comment that the news used to
make him look like a radical. Let’s not let this happen to our beloved Ron
__________________________________________________ _________

I have very strong opinions on this subject BUT I also think it's as 'fringe' as '911 conspiracy/complicity', and as such only DETRACTS to the positive work we can be doing for the campaign.

I though part of Ron Paul's platform was to remove the IRS and income tax on wages?

[Gee]

I wouldn't listen to those videos... Wikipedia's page on the IRS and tax protester arguments has impartial arguments on both sides.

[dseisner]

[QUOTE=Trevorjustco;38239]People here will say that the amendment was not ratified by the states, but that is frankly nonsense. The requisite number of states ratified the amendment, and thus it was declared an amendment.
QUOTE]

Whether or not that's true, is irrelevent. Go back the constitution and you will see there are two types of LEGAL taxes - direct and indirect. Indirect are excise taxes like gas tax, etc. Income tax is a direct tax and according to the constitution, only one type of direct tax is allowed to be levied, a flat tax equally apportioned to all the people. The supreme court ruled on this 3 times in the early 20th century and all 3 times concluded that the passing of the 16th amendment was unconstitutional. That's all that can really be said...and there is plenty of documentation to prove it.

[Gee]

Uh, constitutional amendments can add powers to the government. It doesn't really matter what the articles say, an amendment can change whatever it wants...

[kylejack]

This was received by the organizer of the Yahoo! Group 'Ron Paul Graphics'.

I believe it relates to the topic at hand:

The word has come down from Headquarters that the Ron Paul campaign is
asking EVERYONE to stay clear of distributing any materials or displaying
any signs that could be construed as fringe, radical or in any way outside
the mainstream.

Ron Paul’s run for the presidency is not the appropriate venue for
promoting any of the controversial theories that are circulating these days.
Such actions will only assure that Ron Paul is soundly defeated. Whether we
like it or not, he absolutely must attract the mainstream to win. Let’s get
him elected first; we can “educate” the mainstream later.

The campaign leaders have asked that all signs contain fairly generic
messages. As an example of how even the most well-intentioned supporter can
cause controversy, someone had a sign that said “Ron Paul is against
immigration”. That is simply not true. No doubt, the follower meant he was
against the latest immigration “legislation”…which is true. But, people
reading the sign would misinterpret it. And, Ron Paul does not want us
stating things that are not representative of his platform. So please,
let’s keep this simple and totally non-controversial. Otherwise we will
actually be doing Hillary and Rudy a very big favor.
One more thing, I think many of us, me included are new to this political
process. We have never before found a candidate that we loved enough to
donate to, never mind work for. This is a particularly difficult problem
when newbies like us are working for a candidate who is not given fair
treatment by the press and who is being described as “fringe” to the blindly
obedient public. It makes us angry; even outraged at the unfairness of the
process. We must be smart; we must quell the urge to show indignation. We
must represent ourselves exactly as Dr. Paul represents himself; in a calm,
intelligent and courteous manner. Even if we do not win the hearts of the
voters we talk to; we will have their respect and if they respect us; they
will respect Ron Paul.. maybe even enough to listen to him speak. That’s
the best we can ask for.. the willingness of the people we meet to just
listen to Ron Paul speak. Ron Paul can sell himself; his message resonates
in the hearts and minds of the American people. The irony is, the grassroots
movement is the only way Ron Paul can get elected; and it also contains
elements which are most likely to derail his campaign. Ron Paul’s
opponents know this; they want nothing more than to have us all out there
with “911 was an inside job” signs. Nothing would turn the general public
off more. If you participate in other activism it is crucial you keep it
separate. Do not even bring it up at Ron Paul meetings. Let us remember
Howard Dean who was storming the country in his bid for the presidency only
to be totally derailed over one overzealous comment that the news used to
make him look like a radical. Let’s not let this happen to our beloved Ron
__________________________________________________ _________

I have very strong opinions on this subject BUT I also think it's as 'fringe' as '911 conspiracy/complicity', and as such only DETRACTS to the positive work we can be doing for the campaign.
There's no credible source for this alleged message from the campaign, and abolishing the IRS is not extremism, but rather one of Ron Paul's main planks, so no, I don't think this is relevant here.

[Swmorgan77]

Uh, constitutional amendments can add powers to the government. It doesn't really matter what the articles say, an amendment can change whatever it wants...

It CAN, but the Supreme Court said it didn't, and there is no act of Congress creating a tax obligation based on that supposed new power.

[ecliptic]

I rank this as one of the best threads ever in any forum. Absolutely fascinating argument. It seems a major point of contention whether or not the 16th amendment was ratified properly. From a moral standpoint it can be said that the way it was brought before a mostly empty congress was sneaky at best and deceptive, much like how the Federal Reserve came into being.

$300,000 REWARD FOR PROOF OF INCOME TAX LAW (http://www.livefreenow.org/30K_challenge.cfm)

... should be a piece of cake, right?


Freedom Law School is offering $100,000 to the first person who can demonstrate any of the three propositions listed below. The winner can collect up to $300,000 if he or she can prove all of the propositions below.

1. Show what statute written by the Congress of the United States requires Americans to file an income tax “CONFESSION” (return) and pay an income tax.

2. How can Americans file an income tax “CONFESSION” (return) without giving up their 5th amendment right not to give any information to the government that may be used to prosecute them.

3. Prove that the 16th amendment to the United States Constitution, which, according to the IRS and modern American courts permitted the income tax to exist was, lawfully added to the United States Constitution.

Freedom Law School declares:

There is no statute that makes any American Citizen who works and lives in the United States of America liable or responsible to pay an income tax. Individuals only become liable to pay the income tax when they “voluntarily” file a tax return and the IRS follows their assessment procedures as outlined in the Internal Revenue Code.
If there were a statute, which clearly and unequivocally required the filing of such tax returns, such a statute would be unconstitutional under the present income tax system to the extent that it would require individuals to give the government information which could be used against them to prosecute them criminally. Although the IRS and the modern American Courts claim that the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution permitted the income tax to be imposed on the compensation for labor of the average working man, the 16th Amendment was not properly added to the United States Constitution. See www.thelawthatneverwas.com for documentaion of this issue.
The IRS, under the United States Constitution, cannot legally require information on 1040 returns from individuals. This is the reason the IRS continually refers to the income tax as "voluntary.”
For more information, you may want to investigate the resources listed below:
www.freedomabovefortune.com This is the site of Joe Banister, the former gun-carrying IRS Criminal Investigation Agent, who resigned from his prestigious job with the IRS because his superiors would not answer his findings of fraud within the IRS (See this page). Mr. Banister's report on the IRS confirms our opinions about the Federal Income Tax in great detail.

www.givemeliberty.org Bob Schulz, founder of We The People Foundation, has attempted several times, with Joe Banister and many other intelligent Americans, to debate the legality of the income tax system with high ranking government officials. Each time, no government official ever showed up to debate! Any intelligent American would think the government would be more than happy to show up and answer a few questions to set the record straight once and for all, wouldn't you…? Or does the government have something to hide…? Do your own research and decide if the government is hiding something. See this page. Also see the DVD America Freedom to Fascism at www.freedomtofascism.com.

[Brandybuck]

The Sixteenth Amendment WAS ratified, by more states than was required. Congress DID implement a tax code, it's Title 26 USC. I'm not going to my get my tax education from people in jail or who have been disbarred. I'm getting my tax education from a tax law professor.

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/IncomeTax.htm

The income tax sucks, and sucks big time. But it is not a myth. You're not going to get rid of it by wishing it into the cornfield. You get rid of it by getting congress to repeal the tax codes.

[Wyurm]

The Sixteenth Amendment WAS ratified, by more states than was required. Congress DID implement a tax code, it's Title 26 USC. I'm not going to my get my tax education from people in jail or who have been disbarred. I'm getting my tax education from a tax law professor.

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/IncomeTax.htm

The income tax sucks, and sucks big time. But it is not a myth. You're not going to get rid of it by wishing it into the cornfield. You get rid of it by getting congress to repeal the tax codes.

Then collect 200k by going to the site posted above your post.

[Highmesa]

The Sixteenth Amendment WAS ratified, by more states than was required. Congress DID implement a tax code, it's Title 26 USC. I'm not going to my get my tax education from people in jail or who have been disbarred. I'm getting my tax education from a tax law professor.

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/IncomeTax.htm

The income tax sucks, and sucks big time. But it is not a myth. You're not going to get rid of it by wishing it into the cornfield. You get rid of it by getting congress to repeal the tax codes.


Go collect your $300k.

[Wyurm]

Go collect your $300k.

he didnt prove #2

[angrydragon]

Change the green text.

[Highmesa]

he didnt prove #2

Yeah, but with #1 and #3 in the bag it should be no problem to make the logical step to #2.:)

[CJLauderdale4]

The 16th amendment overrides an Article of the Constitution written by the Founders that said all taxes should be levied in "direct proportion" to the population as defined by the census. The Fed needs $100,000 and there's 100,000 people, we all pay $1. That was the only way Congress was "allowed" by the Constitution to do it.

Once the 16th Amendment was "pronounced" ratified by Philander Knox, even though many states worded the amendment differently, it allowed Congress to choose whatever method and from whatever source they wanted to tax.

Initial jurisprudence showed that the courts thought that the 16th Amendment didn't change anything (Brushaber case). Now, courts routinely side with the IRS.

The issues to me are that the IRS Code, and its enforcement, are not completely Constitutional (5th amendment breech, etc.), its not what the Founders intended (heavens! they fought against this crap), if you break the IRC you're guilty until you prove yourself innocent, why am I guilty if I don't keep records, why are employers FORCED to be withholding agents of the Fed and State, etc, etc.

And bottom line - we went 125+ years in this country without an income tax. Cut useless spending and we just don't need it.

[Brandybuck]

Then collect 200k by going to the site posted above your post.
That's a tired gimmick. Put forward a challenge, then include impossible restrictions on compliance. Even if I meet these restrictions, my claim will still be denied because it doesn't meet the submitters strict interpretation of them. For example, what the eff does "CONFESSION" mean? There is no law that you have to file a "CONFESSION", so this is his out. There is a law to file a tax return, but since there is no law to file a "CONFESSION", no one can claim the prize. Get it?

Not only is this cheating, it's in-your-face piss-on-your-shoes cheating! Notice they don't have any legal statement for the challenge? It's just a few sentences on a webpage. Where's the actual challenge itself? I want to know what the actual rules are!

But let's look at the first one. I'm generous, so I'll waste my time on you looking this up:

"1. Show what statute written by the Congress of the United States requires Americans to file an income tax “CONFESSION” (return) and pay an income tax."

(I'm going to ignore the "CONFESSION" part of it, because it's bogus.)

26 U.S.C. § 6151(a) (http://http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00006151----000-.html)

(a) General rule
Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, when a return of tax is required under this title or regulations, the person required to make such return shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed, and shall pay such tax at the time and place fixed for filing the return (determined without regard to any extension of time for filing the return).

That is the statute. It was written by the Congres of the United States. And it requires a tax return. Where's my $300,000?

[ecliptic]

Change the green text.

OK if it really bothers you - it's "the color of money"

I think it's interesting that no one has collected the $300,000 yet...

I'm keen to learn more, and no one has made a conclusive case one way or the other. I am interested in Otto Skinner (http://www.ottoskinner.com/index2.html) as well as Freedom Law School (http://www.livefreenow.org/). It seems clear that the patriot / tax freedom movement has been victimized by a series of "false prophets" teaching faulty methods resulting in a lot of well-intentioned people going to jail. Every substantial political movement can expect to be infiltrated and these traitors will attempt to lead it astray one way or another.

[Highmesa]

(a) General rule
Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, when a return of tax is required under this title or regulations...,

That is the statute. It was written by the Congres of the United States. And it requires a tax return. Where's my $300,000?

You're not there yet. Where is the part of the code that tells us "when a return of tax is required under this title?"

Not that I want to debate this, and not that I believe either side of the argument. I've looked at it enough to decide that I personally am not going to risk incarceration or death to stand up to the IRS over this. I say we elect Dr. Paul and render the question moot.

[Brandybuck]

You're not there yet. Where is the part of the code that tells us "when a return of tax is required under this title?"
It's Title 26 of the U.S. Code. Look it up, I am not a librarian. Be beware, it's BIG. I have already posted two links on the subject, one of which is the law itself. Please go use those links. Don't argue with me, argue the tax law professor. Who, by the way, is not in jail for tax evasion. The same cannot be said of many "experts" in the tax conspiracy movement.

[ecliptic]

Don't argue with me, argue the tax law professor. Who, by the way, is not in jail for tax evasion.

You mean the professor whose tenure is funded in part with.... tax dollars?

I'm sure he's "fair and balanced"

[Brandybuck]

You mean the professor whose tenure is funded in part with.... tax dollars?

I'm sure he's "fair and balanced"
Oh come on! As if all the tax protest authors aren't making money off their books...

I'm not here to argue, I'm here to try to balance this out with a tiny bit of the truth. I've given you links, including links the actual law that everyone says doesn't exist. Use those links as starting points to find out the rest of the information. As the Truthers are so ironically fond of saying, go inform yourself. My job here is done.

[kylejack]

Oh come on! As if all the tax protest authors aren't making money off their books...

I'm not here to argue, I'm here to try to balance this out with a tiny bit of the truth. I've given you links, including links the actual law that everyone says doesn't exist. Use those links as starting points to find out the rest of the information. As the Truthers are so ironically fond of saying, go inform yourself. My job here is done.

You have to admit that it is pretty interesting that an individual, not Congress, created the Internal Revenue Service.

[ecliptic]

I'm here to try to balance this out with a tiny bit of the truth.
... too bad your sig's a link to lies!!!

[ecliptic]

The Sixteenth Amendment WAS ratified, by more states than was required.
... how is it you are so certain?
... the Supreme Court ruled that it gave congress "no new powers of taxation"...
... what newer case law is applicable to this debate?
... Otto Skinner (http://www.ottoskinner.com/articles/all_articles.html) has some interesting info


Congress DID implement a tax code, it's Title 26 USC.
But that is not an end to this debate, as the question of the Constitution and taxes supercedes any huge code. Is the code applicable under the constitution? Who exactly is a taxpayer and who is not? What exactly is income? Is the income tax voluntary? Why won't the IRS answer thousands of letters from citizens demanding they show the specific law requiring ordinary workers to pay an income tax? Why do they evade questions? What are they hiding? Why does the IRS use bully tactics and intimidation if they have sound legal basis? A lot of things don't add up.

An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties. It
is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” And
that applies to any governmental action outside of the Constitution.
Norton v. Shelby County, 1886


I'm getting my tax education from a tax law professor.
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/IncomeTax.htm


Let's look at Jonathan R. Siegel:
• worked for IBM on Chart software
• worked at the Justice Department
• now a professor at GWU

... I somehow doubt this guy is the last word on this subject, but I will consume all info on this subject from many varied sources and seek only the truth no matter how shocking or unsettling ( or euphoric, in the case of shrinking the federal budget 60% overnight! ).

[Brandybuck]

... how is it you are so certain?
Why are you so determined to disbelieve it?

[foofighter20x]

Why are you so determined to disbelieve it?

I think he's got a bad case of wishful thinking (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wishthnk.html).

[ecliptic]

Why are you so determined to disbelieve it?

Because everything else the government tells me is a pack of lies, why should this be any different? And because anytime you can observe a cover-up, you can typically dig a little and find a lie, scandal, crime, etc etc etc etc ...

I am thinking, so you at least got that part right!

[foofighter20x]

... the Supreme Court ruled that it gave congress "no new powers of taxation"...

How 'bout we put that "quote" into a little context...


But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived,-that is, by testing the tax not by what it was, a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed. - Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103



So... what do we know?

1) Congress already had the power to tax incomes. (the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning)

2) There were limitations placed on the taxes Congress could lay: the taxes, if indirect, had to be uniform; if direct, the taxes had to be apportioned amongst the states. (from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment)

3) Congress could never be sure how the courts would rule on any income tax because some income taxes would be viewed as direct, some as indirect. (by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived,-that is, by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed)

Therefore, Congress passed the 16th so that, in respect to income taxes considered to be direct taxes, or which might have been considered direct taxes at some future point, the requirement to apportion the tax amongst the states would no longer apply, and thus would the income tax not be held unconstitutional via those "origin and source [deductions]."

You guys seriously need to not believe everything you read. Acknowledge it, yes, but don't just take their word for it. :rolleyes:

[foofighter20x]

why should this be any different?

Because you have free, open, unrestricted access to the raw text of the court decision and can read it yourself...

It's just simple reading comprehension, man...

[Shmuel Spade]

I did a google search and found that the 16th Amendment gave them the right to collect income taxes.

This is correct.


so what is the argument?

Who's argument? What argument?


What is RP's argument that Income is not Federally Taxable?

When did you ever hear Rep. Paul claim that?

[Shmuel Spade]

I will fight against it regardless of legality because of the immorality of it.

This is the correct argument. Ignore the pettifoggers.

[johngr]

I did a google search and found that the 16th Amendment gave them the right to collect income taxes.


This is correct.


Government agents do not have any right that you and I don't have. Since extortion is illegal under common law, I would call it a license. The "authority" they have depends on two things: 1) the barrel of a gun 2) government-educated sheep with dulled survival instincts who have been brainwashed largely through patriotic propaganda that their personal financial affairs are any of government agents' business (and that "governments" and other ficticious entities have "rights").

[Shmuel Spade]

Just to save me some time, I copied this from a rant I had on another site, but I think it is pretty relevant to this issue.


"The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters, had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction. The inability of the colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George III and the International Bankers was the Prime reason for the Revolutionary War." -- Benjamin Franklin

Source? The language of this quote doesn't even sound like 18th century English. Who in the 1700s would use the term "international bankers?"

Here's wikiquote's take on it: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin#Disputed

Seems like it dates back to a Canadian from 1913.



Woodrow Wilson, the acting President at the time even regretted his mistake:

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -- Woodrow Wilson

Manufactured quote.

Wilson never made that statement, but instead said things in a book that were used to construct that statement. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson#Misattributed

The source book is available online for all to read. The link is at wiki.



"I think if you were to go back and try to find and review the ratification of the 16th Amendment, which was the internal revenue, Income Tax, I think if you went back and examined that carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment." -- Federal Judge James C. Fox (page 23)

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/31/movies/31russ.html?ei=5088&en=05c0d0988f58fc50&ex=1311998400&partner=rssnyt&emc=rs&pagewanted=all
Quote from the NYT piece:


To buttress the claim that the 16th Amendment is invalid, the film displays a quotation from a federal district judge, James C. Fox. But the transcript from which the judge’s words were taken shows that while he spoke those words, they were in the context of laying out issues and that the conclusion he reached was the opposite of the words quoted.

Judge Fox, the transcript shows, concluded that no court would accept any argument that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified and therefore invalid.



"The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White, first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution... Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes were still subject to the rule of uniformity." -- 1980 Congressional Research Report

If you want to use Brushaber for support let's use the actual words of the decision (link) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=240&page=1). What did Cheif Justice White say?:


That the authority conferred upon Congress by 8 of article 1 'to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises' is exhaustive and embraces every conceivable power of taxation has never been questioned, or, if it has, has been so often authoritatively declared as to render it necessary only to state the doctrine. And it has also never been questioned from the foundation, without stopping presently to determine under which of the separate headings the power was properly to be classed, that there was authority given, as the part was included in the whole, to lay and collect income taxes.


This is the text of the Amendment:


'The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.'
It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense,-an authority already possessed and never questioned,-or to limit and distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another, but that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived.

What he's saying is that the Congress has always had the power to tax incomes (that may legitimately be disputed), but that the purpose of Amendment XVI was simply to remove the apportionment clause, and so solve the problem of the Pollock case. Stop citing Brushaber as if it supports your conclusions, it doesn't. It also concludes that the newer Amendment is not a violation of Amendment V's "takings clause." I saw you do this in the Yahoo! Answers thing earlier this week: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070623012346AASt9BR&show=7 You're not making your case any better by repeating things that don't support you.


This is also backed up by Supreme Court case: Stanton v. Baltic, "...the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation..."

Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. (link) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=240&invol=103) merely affirmed the Brushaber case decided one month earlier. Here's a quote in context:


But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived,-that is, by testing the tax not by what it was, a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed.


I think it is pretty obvious where the law is. Which is exactly what Ed and Elaine Brown stated, "Show us the law and we will pay!".

A stupid argument on behalf of the Browns. The law is clear for anyone willing to look it up. It's not an article of faith, it's there for the reading, like all of the other laws on the books.

What they should be saying instead of their stupid argument is that even though there is a law requiring people to pay income taxes, it is immoral because it represents the government initiating force against the citizens and we won't follow an immoral law.

And here is the law: Title 26 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26.html), Subtitle A (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26_10_A.html), Chapter 1 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26_10_A_20_1.html), Subchapter A (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26_10_A_20_1_30_A.html), Part I (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26_10_A_20_1_30_A_40_I.html).

Inside Part I we find first: that a tax is imposed (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000001----000-.html). And if you're unsure of the definitions of certain words like, "surviving spouse", or "head of household", the second part (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000002----000-.html) of Part I tells us what they mean.

[Shmuel Spade]

Government agents do not have any right that you and I don't have. Since extortion is illegal under common law, I would call it a license. The "authority" they have depends on two things: 1) the barrel of a gun 2) government-educated sheep with dulled survival instincts who have been brainwashed largely through patriotic propaganda that their personal financial affairs are any of government agents' business (and that "governments" and other ficticious entities have "rights").

The argument should be that the individuals who call themselves the government have no more natural rights than any other individuals. This would be correct. People tend not to use the term "right" in its original sense anymore, so instead of correcting BLS and giving a lecture on the difference between "rights", "privileges", "powers", "authority", and "soverignty" I'm simply going to go to his level and do it quickly.

Under the philosophy of the Declaration of Independece governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Note the modifier on powers there, "just." That puts government actions in a whole new light. I don't consider any taxation just, I consider it all theft. But I'm not going to fall for a fallacious legal argument, based on spurious facts and neither should anyone else.

I'll argue against any and all taxes on the basis of morality, not technicalities.

[Shmuel Spade]

I though part of Ron Paul's platform was to remove the IRS and income tax on wages?

Have you been to Ron Paul's site to see his "Issues" section?

[Shmuel Spade]

I want to say "Good Work" to Trevorjustco, foofighter20x, acstichter, and Brandybuck.

Good links:

http://warriorvisions.blogspot.com/2006/11/aaron-russos-america-freedom-to-fascism.html
(Debunking most of Aaron Russo's movie)

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
(Debunking just about all of the tax protestor arguments)

[Shmuel Spade]

Here is a suggestion looking at this from the "philosophical" perspective...

This actually was an interesting post.

[1776jedi]

Have you been to Ron Paul's site to see his "Issues" section?

Yes I have, but while he does not state this on his issues page I have also heard actual words come from his mouth to the effect that he wants to do away with the IRS and individual income tax. Look here and you can hear these words too.

<AHREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZl6202HJGQ">

<AHREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI5lC4Z_T80">

There is more to Dr. Paul's platform than his Issues page.

My previous post was a rhetorical/sarcastic question in response to another post stating that (and I'm paraphrasing here)"Paul supporters should refrain from taking fringe positions to prevent undue harm to his campaign."

[ecliptic]

I want to say "Good Work" to Trevorjustco, foofighter20x, acstichter, and Brandybuck.

Good links:

http://warriorvisions.blogspot.com/2006/11/aaron-russos-america-freedom-to-fascism.html
(Debunking most of Aaron Russo's movie)

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
(Debunking just about all of the tax protestor arguments)


I would also like to say "Good Work" and thanks for a new round of info to absorb and digest. I'll continue studying this subject - perhaps a moral / philosophical basis for fighting the income tax is better than "technicality arguments". Makes good sense. Aaron Russo should answer these issues - let's invite him to this thread?
Has he been 'called out" on his forum? Is there another good forum working on this debate? Please check out Douglas Gnazzo's Honest Money (http://www.honestmoneyreport.com/) - more about fiat currency and the Fed but relevant to this debate nevertheless.

Irvin Schiff info was used in "America Freedom to Fascism" though Otto Skinner (http://www.ottoskinner.com/index2.html) seriously questions most of his info. What do you think of Otto's information?

What about the fact that the IRS won't answer questions about the specific code requiring us to pay income tax? Why not? It would appear that you can answer this question - why is the IRS so deceptive and unwilling to cooperate with Tax Freedom people? What are they so afraid of? Why do they resort to intimidation if they can simply apply the law?

[johngr]

The argument should be that the individuals who call themselves the government have no more natural rights than any other individuals. This would be correct. People tend not to use the term "right" in its original sense anymore, so instead of correcting BLS and giving a lecture on the difference between "rights", "privileges", "powers", "authority", and "soverignty" I'm simply going to go to his level and do it quickly.

I gathered that. I just think it's important to distinguish there. The idea or implication that gov't agents have rights that no one else has particularly pernicious, imo.


Under the philosophy of the Declaration of Independece governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Note the modifier on powers there, "just." That puts government actions in a whole new light.

"Government" is an abstraction that I argue has no real, objective existence. I call men (and women) who have guns and badges and those they take orders from government agents (only because they consider themselves part of a fiction called government). Regarding consent, I never consented to be "governed" (nor will I). I never gave anyone power of attorney to consent in my stead. None of my ancestors consented either. Though their inaction could be construed as consent, I disagree that their tacit consent or anything else binds me to the contract.

[ecliptic]

... Regarding consent, I never consented to be "governed" (nor will I). I never gave anyone power of attorney to consent in my stead. None of my ancestors consented either. Though their inaction could be construed as consent, I disagree that their tacit consent or anything else binds me to the contract.

Amen.

Similarly, is it not true that we did not consent to having a Social Security Number and we can rescind this number retroactively to birth? I never wanted a number, I don't know about you... { Big Brother can take a hike - We the People are mad as hell and not going to take it anymore }

> watch "V for Vendetta" <

a simple plan for minor rebellion v0.6

Rescind your SSN, close all accounts linked to computer databases, reject all government "licenses" of any kind, reject fiat currency in favor of gold and silver- backed currency { both paper and online }, embrace local independent business, reject the intrusive Federal Postal system, reject all federal tyranny, reject steps towards world government, and take other privacy measures now necessary with the introduction of programs like Information Awareness Office (http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Paranoid.htm) !

[Lauxa]

I didn't read the whole thread, but personally I think the point is that whether income tax is legal or not, Ron Paul will get rid of it if elected. People will shake their heads when you explain to them the reasons you should not have to pay taxes under the current system -- there is too much precedent, and the IRS has too much clout. But who wouldn't like to keep 30% more money out of every paycheck? And avoid the hassle of all that paperwork every year with all their constantly-changing tax codes?

BTW, here's an interesting article I found:
http://ronpaulforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=40334

[aravoth]

It sweet how some people can run to a web page, extrapilate part of a phrase, and use it to suit thier needs.

Ron Paul never said it was illegal, period.

In my opinion? I think it's immoral, I think it's illegal. And not becuase of Aarron Russo.

And no, there was no power to lay an uapportioned direct tax on the income of americans citizens before the 16th amendment. Before the 16th amendment, your income could be taxed, but only if it was apportioned, which it is not. Then you say "OH buuutttt, loookey! It says here that they can weee!" And you would be right, if we are all resident aliens.

There are far more court cases than Stanton VS. Baltic mining out there.

And for the last @#$ing time. The Tax Code IS NOT THE LAW. It's the governing document for the collection of income taxes, which would be worth less than the toilet paper I just flushed down the toilet if the 16th amendment granted no new powers of taxation.

You know who you should write to? Joe Banister. He's a decorated IRS feild Agent that investigated the IRS, found they where breaking the law, quit, stopped paying his taxes, got audited, went to court, and won. And yes, there are many, many more like him.

I don't give a rats ass how many "debunk russo's movie" sites are out there. Take your intuitive debunking god-like prowess and use it to look into the 16th amendment, ALL the court cases, the IRS agents that left becuase of it. Don't just post a one-liner you found on wiki.