Illegal Income Tax?

[Anonymous]

Michelle Steffes

Geekfire and rankandfile, the specific law that authorizes the collection of taxes is this. We have all agreed to be bound by what nine men and women in Washington tell us is the law and they have said that the government can collect these taxes. If you do not like this fact then propose a better one or even better you should reread Plato’s Crito

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/crito.html

It describes what one should do if they disagree with the law.

Also, it does not matter what the Supreme Court decided in 1916, just like it doesn’t matter what the Supreme Court decided in 1986 when in 2003 Lawrence v. Texas overturned Bowers v Hardwick

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

As a matter of fact you probably have heard about people who believe the Constitution is a living document and so what it says today (or in 1916) will be different that what it says in the future (see Grutter v Bollinger) where Justice O’Conner decided that affirmative action is constitutional now but won’t be in 50 years.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-241.ZS.html

So again the specific law that authorizes the IRS to collect taxes is the 16th Amendment to the Constitution which the current Supreme Court believes was correctly ratified and says they can collect the taxes.

[Anonymous]

Michelle Steffes

Geekfire and rankandfile, the specific law that authorizes the collection of taxes is this. We have all agreed to be bound by what nine men and women in Washington tell us is the law and they have said that the government can collect these taxes. If you do not like this fact then propose a better one or even better you should reread Plato’s Crito

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/crito.html

It describes what one should do if they disagree with the law.

Also, it does not matter what the Supreme Court decided in 1916, just like it doesn’t matter what the Supreme Court decided in 1986 when in 2003 Lawrence v. Texas overturned Bowers v Hardwick

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

As a matter of fact you probably have heard about people who believe the Constitution is a living document and so what it says today (or in 1916) will be different that what it says in the future (see Grutter v Bollinger) where Justice O’Conner decided that affirmative action is constitutional now but won’t be in 50 years.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-241.ZS.html

So again the specific law that authorizes the IRS to collect taxes is the 16th Amendment to the Constitution which the current Supreme Court believes was correctly ratified and says they can collect the taxes.

[RottedOak]

My, my, rankandfile, that’s a lot of venom towards me for simply pointing out the fact that trying to use these arguments in a tax case will not work and will result in additional penalties. I didn’t call anyone serfs or kooks or silly. Others have already pointed to the very detailed “Tax Protester FAQ” at http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html, which addresses all of the specific arguments you bring up, so I won’t repeat most of it. I will point out the rather clear language of the 16th Amendment itself:

“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.”

Note the words “from whatever source derived” (no exception for labor and wages). The reason the courts ruled that the amendment didn’t create any new taxing power is because they held that Congress always had the power to tax incomes — the issue clarified in the amendment is that this could be done without regard to “apportionment among the several States.”

I’d prefer that the income tax be abolished, but that doesn’t mean I will swallow every argument someone tries to make against it. The arguments made in this thread (and elsewhere) claiming that the US Constitution doesn’t allow an income tax, etc., are entirely unconvincing to me.

[RottedOak]

My, my, rankandfile, that’s a lot of venom towards me for simply pointing out the fact that trying to use these arguments in a tax case will not work and will result in additional penalties. I didn’t call anyone serfs or kooks or silly. Others have already pointed to the very detailed “Tax Protester FAQ” at http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html, which addresses all of the specific arguments you bring up, so I won’t repeat most of it. I will point out the rather clear language of the 16th Amendment itself:

“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.”

Note the words “from whatever source derived” (no exception for labor and wages). The reason the courts ruled that the amendment didn’t create any new taxing power is because they held that Congress always had the power to tax incomes — the issue clarified in the amendment is that this could be done without regard to “apportionment among the several States.”

I’d prefer that the income tax be abolished, but that doesn’t mean I will swallow every argument someone tries to make against it. The arguments made in this thread (and elsewhere) claiming that the US Constitution doesn’t allow an income tax, etc., are entirely unconvincing to me.

[Anonymous]

I.e., the taxation laws were as they always have been since the formation of the Constitution: the government has the right to tax corporate gains and profits, but it does not have the right to tax the labor and wages of the American people.

This is incorrect.

“The power, in the eighth section of the first article, to lay and collect taxes, included a power to lay direct taxes, (whether capitation, or any other) and also duties, imposes, and excises; and every other species or kind of tax whatsoever, and called by any other name. … I consider the Constitution to stand in this manner. A general power is given to Congress, to lay and collect taxes, of every kind or nature, without any restraint, except only on exports…” Justice Chase, Hylton vs United States (1796).

“It was, however, obviously the intention of the framers of the Constitution, that Congress should possess full power over every species of taxable property, except exports. The term taxes, is generical, and was made use of to vest in Congress plenary authority in all cases of taxation.”

Justice Patterson, Hylton vs United States (1796).

He was a member of the Constitutional Convention so he knews what was intended.

From the beginning, the Constitution gave Congress “plenary authority” to tax as it so votes, with virtually no restriction, except prohibiting taxation of exports.

If wages were intended to be excluded, then why wasn’t this mentioned?

Indeed it was later ruled that Congress retains power to tax things and actions which even Constitutionally are ‘regulated’ by the States and not Congress.

In 1895 or so there was a confusing Supreme Court decision which appeared to change the status of compensation for wages to a direct tax (as it was understood to be indirect previously) and thereby require apportionment—this was rectified by the 16th Amendment to go back to the previous understanding and explicitly remove apportionment requirement for incomes. No matter what, incomes were always potentially taxable in some form since the adoption of the Constititution.

In this language “direct taxes” means property taxes, in essence, and the US does not now generally impose such taxes.

There is NO ambiguity in Constitutional, statutory or case law.

In sum, the only restrictions are exactly as they were in 1791:

1) direct taxes: apportionment by state population

2) indirect taxes: rule of uniformity (can’t vote for a specific person to have a higher tax than somebody else versus a specific condition).

3) no taxation of exports

and otherwise Congress has unrestricted taxation authority in all forms over everything.

For only practical reasons it seems likely that incomes as we know it were not taxed back then.

Typically governments taxed specific government-required functionality (‘stamp duty’, i.e. like a fee for transfering title of property, etc.) because that is where government officials specifically interacted with the people, or directly and objectively observable permanent property (acres of land, agricultural or industrial production).

The government had to tax in a way which was not incredibly easy to cheat on.

[Anonymous]

I.e., the taxation laws were as they always have been since the formation of the Constitution: the government has the right to tax corporate gains and profits, but it does not have the right to tax the labor and wages of the American people.

This is incorrect.

“The power, in the eighth section of the first article, to lay and collect taxes, included a power to lay direct taxes, (whether capitation, or any other) and also duties, imposes, and excises; and every other species or kind of tax whatsoever, and called by any other name. … I consider the Constitution to stand in this manner. A general power is given to Congress, to lay and collect taxes, of every kind or nature, without any restraint, except only on exports…” Justice Chase, Hylton vs United States (1796).

“It was, however, obviously the intention of the framers of the Constitution, that Congress should possess full power over every species of taxable property, except exports. The term taxes, is generical, and was made use of to vest in Congress plenary authority in all cases of taxation.”

Justice Patterson, Hylton vs United States (1796).

He was a member of the Constitutional Convention so he knews what was intended.

From the beginning, the Constitution gave Congress “plenary authority” to tax as it so votes, with virtually no restriction, except prohibiting taxation of exports.

If wages were intended to be excluded, then why wasn’t this mentioned?

Indeed it was later ruled that Congress retains power to tax things and actions which even Constitutionally are ‘regulated’ by the States and not Congress.

In 1895 or so there was a confusing Supreme Court decision which appeared to change the status of compensation for wages to a direct tax (as it was understood to be indirect previously) and thereby require apportionment—this was rectified by the 16th Amendment to go back to the previous understanding and explicitly remove apportionment requirement for incomes. No matter what, incomes were always potentially taxable in some form since the adoption of the Constititution.

In this language “direct taxes” means property taxes, in essence, and the US does not now generally impose such taxes.

There is NO ambiguity in Constitutional, statutory or case law.

In sum, the only restrictions are exactly as they were in 1791:

1) direct taxes: apportionment by state population

2) indirect taxes: rule of uniformity (can’t vote for a specific person to have a higher tax than somebody else versus a specific condition).

3) no taxation of exports

and otherwise Congress has unrestricted taxation authority in all forms over everything.

For only practical reasons it seems likely that incomes as we know it were not taxed back then.

Typically governments taxed specific government-required functionality (‘stamp duty’, i.e. like a fee for transfering title of property, etc.) because that is where government officials specifically interacted with the people, or directly and objectively observable permanent property (acres of land, agricultural or industrial production).

The government had to tax in a way which was not incredibly easy to cheat on.

[greekfire]

I would not go as far as rankandfile in my argument against the income tax. I have faith that our government took (and continues to take) the necessary steps to ensure that all forms of taxation are legal in the eyes of our Constitution. My main point was to provoke thought on the subject – which is exactly what occurred with me when I came across the videos.

[greekfire]

I would not go as far as rankandfile in my argument against the income tax. I have faith that our government took (and continues to take) the necessary steps to ensure that all forms of taxation are legal in the eyes of our Constitution. My main point was to provoke thought on the subject – which is exactly what occurred with me when I came across the videos.

[Anonymous]

Perhaps we are all asking the wrong question about this subject. It is not a matter of right or wrong, but a matter of what we plan to do about it. When the income tax was first administered Congress had originally intended that it be a tax shifted more toward the wealthy, and had set exemptions to protect the lower classes.

“In view of the increased cost of living at this day, as compared with other times, the difference between either of those amounts and $4,000 is not so great as to justify the courts in striking down all of the income tax provisions. The basis upon which such exemptions rest is that the general welfare requires that in taxing incomes such exemption should be made as will fairly cover the annual expenses of the average family, and thus prevent the members of such families becoming a charge upon the public.”
POLLOCK v. FARMERS’ LOAN & TRUST CO., Cite as 3 AFTR 2602 (15 Sup.Ct. 912), 05/20/1895

Translated to todays current value of the dollar, the amount of $4,000 then would transmit to close to $100,000 in todays standards on the CPI.

http://measuringworth.com/calculators/uscompare/

So the question must be asked when 80% of our taxes are payed by 20% of the population, why is the exploition of the underclasses being allowed when it is not nessecary? Not to mention over $1 trillion a year goes unnaccounted for. Google it, “rumsfield on CBS”

More over, I suppose most of you didn’t know that the IRS has, for over the last 20 years, had the Tax Courts have rulings go unpublished. A good old supreme court ruling fixed this in 2003. ESTATE OF KANTER v. COMM

On top of this the Supreme Court ruled that unpublished rulings may now be cited in federal cases. “Rule 32.1”. This includes tax cases. Why would the IRS request rulings go unpublished if they’ve always won?

People this is not a question of material trivialites, this is a question of democracy. When the income tax was first administed, congress took every effort to protect the rights of the middle class. Somewhere this has changed. When the freedom of the middle class is imposed, and only by stict dedication to work and nothing else happens, then democracy has fallen. When the people have lost their freedom, their freedom to time, then the people effectivly stop running the government.

In Orswell’s nightmare, the ruling class had total control over the weak. This was possible because the “proles” were always keep ignorant, never questioned, and were merely concerned with trying to live. The main character, Winston, believe with all his heart, that only through the strenght of the lower class could cause change. Sadly, the arguement was always against each other an not together.

This is the problem we face today. We have failed to address the real issues, and learned to depend on those that do not matter. Democracy is the real loss, not the money. I suggest you all start realizing this, or perhaps soon enough, we may start saying the income tax is “doubleplusbad”.

[Anonymous]

Perhaps we are all asking the wrong question about this subject. It is not a matter of right or wrong, but a matter of what we plan to do about it. When the income tax was first administered Congress had originally intended that it be a tax shifted more toward the wealthy, and had set exemptions to protect the lower classes.

“In view of the increased cost of living at this day, as compared with other times, the difference between either of those amounts and $4,000 is not so great as to justify the courts in striking down all of the income tax provisions. The basis upon which such exemptions rest is that the general welfare requires that in taxing incomes such exemption should be made as will fairly cover the annual expenses of the average family, and thus prevent the members of such families becoming a charge upon the public.”
POLLOCK v. FARMERS’ LOAN & TRUST CO., Cite as 3 AFTR 2602 (15 Sup.Ct. 912), 05/20/1895

Translated to todays current value of the dollar, the amount of $4,000 then would transmit to close to $100,000 in todays standards on the CPI.

http://measuringworth.com/calculators/uscompare/

So the question must be asked when 80% of our taxes are payed by 20% of the population, why is the exploition of the underclasses being allowed when it is not nessecary? Not to mention over $1 trillion a year goes unnaccounted for. Google it, “rumsfield on CBS”

More over, I suppose most of you didn’t know that the IRS has, for over the last 20 years, had the Tax Courts have rulings go unpublished. A good old supreme court ruling fixed this in 2003. ESTATE OF KANTER v. COMM

On top of this the Supreme Court ruled that unpublished rulings may now be cited in federal cases. “Rule 32.1”. This includes tax cases. Why would the IRS request rulings go unpublished if they’ve always won?

People this is not a question of material trivialites, this is a question of democracy. When the income tax was first administed, congress took every effort to protect the rights of the middle class. Somewhere this has changed. When the freedom of the middle class is imposed, and only by stict dedication to work and nothing else happens, then democracy has fallen. When the people have lost their freedom, their freedom to time, then the people effectivly stop running the government.

In Orswell’s nightmare, the ruling class had total control over the weak. This was possible because the “proles” were always keep ignorant, never questioned, and were merely concerned with trying to live. The main character, Winston, believe with all his heart, that only through the strenght of the lower class could cause change. Sadly, the arguement was always against each other an not together.

This is the problem we face today. We have failed to address the real issues, and learned to depend on those that do not matter. Democracy is the real loss, not the money. I suggest you all start realizing this, or perhaps soon enough, we may start saying the income tax is “doubleplusbad”.

[Anonymous]

Perhaps we are all asking the wrong question about this subject. It is not a matter of right or wrong, but a matter of what we plan to do about it. When the income tax was first administered Congress had originally intended that it be a tax shifted more toward the wealthy, and had set exemptions to protect the lower classes.

“In view of the increased cost of living at this day, as compared with other times, the difference between either of those amounts and $4,000 is not so great as to justify the courts in striking down all of the income tax provisions. The basis upon which such exemptions rest is that the general welfare requires that in taxing incomes such exemption should be made as will fairly cover the annual expenses of the average family, and thus prevent the members of such families becoming a charge upon the public.”
POLLOCK v. FARMERS’ LOAN & TRUST CO., Cite as 3 AFTR 2602 (15 Sup.Ct. 912), 05/20/1895

Translated to todays current value of the dollar, the amount of $4,000 then would transmit to close to $100,000 in todays standards on the CPI.

http://measuringworth.com/calculators/uscompare/

So the question must be asked when 80% of our taxes are payed by 20% of the population, why is the exploition of the underclasses being allowed when it is not nessecary? Not to mention over $1 trillion a year goes unnaccounted for. Google it, “rumsfield on CBS”

More over, I suppose most of you didn’t know that the IRS has, for over the last 20 years, had the Tax Courts have rulings go unpublished. A good old supreme court ruling fixed this in 2003. ESTATE OF KANTER v. COMM

On top of this the Supreme Court ruled that unpublished rulings may now be cited in federal cases. “Rule 32.1”. This includes tax cases. Why would the IRS request rulings go unpublished if they’ve always won?

People this is not a question of material trivialites, this is a question of democracy. When the income tax was first administed, congress took every effort to protect the rights of the middle class. Somewhere this has changed. When the freedom of the middle class is imposed, and only by stict dedication to work and nothing else happens, then democracy has fallen. When the people have lost their freedom, their freedom to time, then the people effectivly stop running the government.

In Orswell’s nightmare, the ruling class had total control over the weak. This was possible because the “proles” were always keep ignorant, never questioned, and were merely concerned with trying to live. The main character, Winston, believe with all his heart, that only through the strenght of the lower class could cause change. Sadly, the arguement was always against each other an not together.

This is the problem we face today. We have failed to address the real issues, and learned to depend on those that do not matter. Democracy is the real loss, not the money. I suggest you all start realizing this, or perhaps soon enough, we may start saying the income tax is “doubleplusbad”.

[Anonymous]

Perhaps we are all asking the wrong question about this subject. It is not a matter of right or wrong, but a matter of what we plan to do about it. When the income tax was first administered Congress had originally intended that it be a tax shifted more toward the wealthy, and had set exemptions to protect the lower classes.

“In view of the increased cost of living at this day, as compared with other times, the difference between either of those amounts and $4,000 is not so great as to justify the courts in striking down all of the income tax provisions. The basis upon which such exemptions rest is that the general welfare requires that in taxing incomes such exemption should be made as will fairly cover the annual expenses of the average family, and thus prevent the members of such families becoming a charge upon the public.”
POLLOCK v. FARMERS’ LOAN & TRUST CO., Cite as 3 AFTR 2602 (15 Sup.Ct. 912), 05/20/1895

Translated to todays current value of the dollar, the amount of $4,000 then would transmit to close to $100,000 in todays standards on the CPI.

http://measuringworth.com/calculators/uscompare/

So the question must be asked when 80% of our taxes are payed by 20% of the population, why is the exploition of the underclasses being allowed when it is not nessecary? Not to mention over $1 trillion a year goes unnaccounted for. Google it, “rumsfield on CBS”

More over, I suppose most of you didn’t know that the IRS has, for over the last 20 years, had the Tax Courts have rulings go unpublished. A good old supreme court ruling fixed this in 2003. ESTATE OF KANTER v. COMM

On top of this the Supreme Court ruled that unpublished rulings may now be cited in federal cases. “Rule 32.1”. This includes tax cases. Why would the IRS request rulings go unpublished if they’ve always won?

People this is not a question of material trivialites, this is a question of democracy. When the income tax was first administed, congress took every effort to protect the rights of the middle class. Somewhere this has changed. When the freedom of the middle class is imposed, and only by stict dedication to work and nothing else happens, then democracy has fallen. When the people have lost their freedom, their freedom to time, then the people effectivly stop running the government.

In Orswell’s nightmare, the ruling class had total control over the weak. This was possible because the “proles” were always keep ignorant, never questioned, and were merely concerned with trying to live. The main character, Winston, believe with all his heart, that only through the strenght of the lower class could cause change. Sadly, the arguement was always against each other an not together.

This is the problem we face today. We have failed to address the real issues, and learned to depend on those that do not matter. Democracy is the real loss, not the money. I suggest you all start realizing this, or perhaps soon enough, we may start saying the income tax is “doubleplusbad”.

[Anonymous]

Perhaps we are all asking the wrong question about this subject. It is not a matter of right or wrong, but a matter of what we plan to do about it. When the income tax was first administered Congress had originally intended that it be a tax shifted more toward the wealthy, and had set exemptions to protect the lower classes.

“In view of the increased cost of living at this day, as compared with other times, the difference between either of those amounts and $4,000 is not so great as to justify the courts in striking down all of the income tax provisions. The basis upon which such exemptions rest is that the general welfare requires that in taxing incomes such exemption should be made as will fairly cover the annual expenses of the average family, and thus prevent the members of such families becoming a charge upon the public.”
POLLOCK v. FARMERS’ LOAN & TRUST CO., Cite as 3 AFTR 2602 (15 Sup.Ct. 912), 05/20/1895

Translated to todays current value of the dollar, the amount of $4,000 then would transmit to close to $100,000 in todays standards on the CPI.

http://measuringworth.com/calculators/uscompare/

So the question must be asked when 80% of our taxes are payed by 20% of the population, why is the exploition of the underclasses being allowed when it is not nessecary? Not to mention over $1 trillion a year goes unnaccounted for. Google it, “rumsfield on CBS”

More over, I suppose most of you didn’t know that the IRS has, for over the last 20 years, had the Tax Courts have rulings go unpublished. A good old supreme court ruling fixed this in 2003. ESTATE OF KANTER v. COMM

On top of this the Supreme Court ruled that unpublished rulings may now be cited in federal cases. “Rule 32.1”. This includes tax cases. Why would the IRS request rulings go unpublished if they’ve always won?

People this is not a question of material trivialites, this is a question of democracy. When the income tax was first administed, congress took every effort to protect the rights of the middle class. Somewhere this has changed. When the freedom of the middle class is imposed, and only by stict dedication to work and nothing else happens, then democracy has fallen. When the people have lost their freedom, their freedom to time, then the people effectivly stop running the government.

In Orswell’s nightmare, the ruling class had total control over the weak. This was possible because the “proles” were always keep ignorant, never questioned, and were merely concerned with trying to live. The main character, Winston, believe with all his heart, that only through the strenght of the lower class could cause change. Sadly, the arguement was always against each other an not together.

This is the problem we face today. We have failed to address the real issues, and learned to depend on those that do not matter. Democracy is the real loss, not the money. I suggest you all start realizing this, or perhaps soon enough, we may start saying the income tax is “doubleplusbad”.

[Anonymous]

When the first taxes hit in the early 1900’s (ignoring the civil war taxes) the income tax was aim at the wealthy, plus the return was a size of a postcard! A straight flat tax. Now as we know you need advisor’s in both taxes and business to legally spread your wealth, increase deductions, and reduce your taxes. Add in the state cut (about 9%), sales tax, gas tax, etc. most middle class people hit about 40 – 50% in California.

One guy was mention in the press, gets over 80k in K-1 income from rentals, makes no salary so tax wise pays very little and qualified for the poor tax credit! Rather then avoid taxes he just played by the rules and beat the gov at their own game! The paper tried to make him look bad, heck I applauded the guy!

I know many people that tried the “pay no tax I am not a citizen” method, they cave in after a few years. When the IRS grabs your home, business or show up with guns and flak jackets to collect back taxes most people do cave. All true by the way as told to me by several people that tried it!

Better to learn the rules and work within the system. By the way, recent study I heard on the radio showed Brazil had the highest tax system of the world at 120% because so many people cheat and go underground. In Italy, the business taxes are so high you hire a legal rep every year just to negotiate with the government how much you need to legal pay.

In Australia (back when I was there 20 yrs ago, heard it has not change much) once you hit 30k you hit 50% tax right so everybody goes underground, cash only. You find American kids working as maids, cleaners, repairing highways in the hot sun since the locals don’t want to work (“get off the dole, mate”) since they make money not doing anything. They get paid to go to school, more if they stay on the dole and don’t pay tax!

And France where at age 30 you can retire at 80% of pay from the state and get another job!

So it is tough here but worse elsewhere!

mglsharkson

[Anonymous]

When the first taxes hit in the early 1900’s (ignoring the civil war taxes) the income tax was aim at the wealthy, plus the return was a size of a postcard! A straight flat tax. Now as we know you need advisor’s in both taxes and business to legally spread your wealth, increase deductions, and reduce your taxes. Add in the state cut (about 9%), sales tax, gas tax, etc. most middle class people hit about 40 – 50% in California.

One guy was mention in the press, gets over 80k in K-1 income from rentals, makes no salary so tax wise pays very little and qualified for the poor tax credit! Rather then avoid taxes he just played by the rules and beat the gov at their own game! The paper tried to make him look bad, heck I applauded the guy!

I know many people that tried the “pay no tax I am not a citizen” method, they cave in after a few years. When the IRS grabs your home, business or show up with guns and flak jackets to collect back taxes most people do cave. All true by the way as told to me by several people that tried it!

Better to learn the rules and work within the system. By the way, recent study I heard on the radio showed Brazil had the highest tax system of the world at 120% because so many people cheat and go underground. In Italy, the business taxes are so high you hire a legal rep every year just to negotiate with the government how much you need to legal pay.

In Australia (back when I was there 20 yrs ago, heard it has not change much) once you hit 30k you hit 50% tax right so everybody goes underground, cash only. You find American kids working as maids, cleaners, repairing highways in the hot sun since the locals don’t want to work (“get off the dole, mate”) since they make money not doing anything. They get paid to go to school, more if they stay on the dole and don’t pay tax!

And France where at age 30 you can retire at 80% of pay from the state and get another job!

So it is tough here but worse elsewhere!

mglsharkson

[Author]

Posts