Why do you all pay this tax?!?
THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX.
It's COMPLETELY unconstitutional,and there is NO law forcing you to pay it!
Yes there Is a law for INCOME TAX, but INCOME is defined in the Constitution as PROFIT RESULTING FROM CORPORATE ACTIVITY.
Monetary compensation for labor is a PERSONAL EXCHANGE OF GOODS, NOT income.
Watch this for more info:
"America: Freedom to Fascism"
Search it on http://video.google.com/
Sorry, Joe, that's simply wrong.
Apparently, you don't know what corporate activity is...
Well emarker, I guess you better get your own gun then...
I'm not afraid of those IRS thugs...
Let them come.
See what I said a sec ago, Joe.
It's unapportioned, and therefor unconstitutional.
Dogtear, they deduct it because at some point, when they handed you those tax forms, you filled them out.
Just become self-sufficient (like humans are SUPPOSED to be) , don't get a job, and don't pay that nonsensical tax...
And in addition, what you said about us not being free...
We're economic slaves, it's a fact...
We're forced to either work or die... sound familiar?
The only difference is that domestic slavery requires the slavemasters to house and feed their slaves.
Economic slavery forces you to house and feed yourself...
Fang, you need to watch the whole movie.
It's 1hour and 45minutes, it's a documentary about the search for the law that requires citizens to pay it... and there is none.
And it IS unconstitutional!
The constitution says all taxes on the public must be APPORTIONED (the same for everyone)
However, the Federal Income Tax is not.
In three other supreme court cases (they're mentioned in the movie) it was actually ruled unconstitutional, and also pointed out that a sufficient number of states never ratified the 16th Amendment, which is cited by many as the reason you have to pay the Fed. Income Tax.
No, "Healthy Person", it WASN'T ratified.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."
Joe, most of the money from the Federal Income Tax DOES NOT pay for Infrastructure. Almost all of it goes to pay the interest on the debt to the Federal Reserve... Surprise surprise.
Guys, here's the link to that movie:
Bostonia, we KNOW not to raise this in court.
They're a bunch of goddamn criminals...
For all of you doubting that it's unconstitutional...
Look up these cases:
Stanton vs. Baltic Mining
Stratton Independence Ltd. vs. Howbert
The ruling of both cases was that the 16th Amendment conferred no new powers of taxation, and therefor, the unapportionment of the Fed. Income Tax is STILL UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Zero is right
This government is built to run without taxes...
And even as it is now with the Fed., the government can borrow money at will, so why taxes?
That is, except to pay our debt to those pirates...
from 1776 to 1913 we survived just fine, with no real taxes.
- NGC6205Lv 71 decade agoFavorite Answer
1. The Federal Income Tax is not unconstitutional. The 16th amendment removed the apportionment requirement for any and all income taxes.
2. Income is not limited to corporate activity and income is NOT defined in the Constitution.
3. Income or gain is the difference between what you paid for something and what you sell it for. It is not the difference between value. If it were, there would never be any gain for anybody, anywhere, including corporations. You paid nothing for your labor. If you sell it to your employer for however much you get paid (I'm guessing minimum wage), your income is the difference between what you paid for your labor and how much your employer has paid you for it. Since you paid nothing for your labor, then your income is the amount your employer has paid you.
The "equal exchange" argument is complete bull*** and has been defeated in court every single time it has been used. Here are just two cases (there are many others) that refute that ridiculous argument.
"The taxpayer next argues that wages are not income but an exchange of property. As money is property and labor is property, so his argument goes, his work for wages is a non-taxable exchange of property. Wrong again. Wages are income. See, e.g., Schiff v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 116, 117 (2d Cir. 1984). The argument that they are not has been rejected so frequently that the very raising of it justifies the imposition of sanctions." - Connor v. Commissioner, 770 F.2d 17, 20 (2nd Cir. 1985)
"According to Buras, income must be derived from some source. Wages cannot be taxed because the wage earner enjoys no gain from that source. Since the wage earner exchanges his labor and personal time for its equivalent in money, he derives no gain and therefore cannot be taxed. ... Appellant’s argument is refuted by one of the cases he cites. In Stratton’s Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415, 34 S.Ct. 136, 140, 58 L.Ed. 285 (1913), the Court did define income as gain derived from labor. The Court went on to explain, however, that ‘the earnings of the human brain and hand when unaided by capital’ are commonly treated as income." - United States v. Buras, 633 F.2d 1356, 1361 (9th Cir. 1980)
4. The movie, "America: Freedom to Fascism" is inaccurate conspiracy theory nonsense. I suggest you go to http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html and lookup almost every point in the film. I also recommend that you try and verify different quotes from the film from RELIABLE websites.
BTW, the book, "The Law that Never Was" by Bill Benson, where he claims that the 16th amendment was not ratified, has been completed refuted. Also, no court has EVER accepted any of the arguments brought forth in that book. See U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986) http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/788/788.F...
5. The "no new powers of taxation" quote from Stanton v. Baltic Mining is an incomplete quote that is used by tax protesters. Here is a more complete quote:
"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"
What the above statement means is that the 16th amendment did not create a new power of taxation but simply ensured that the power to tax incomes, which Congress had since the original Constitution was signed, would always be considered as INDIRECT taxes in a Constitutional sense.
6. It is a MYTH that income taxes only go to the Federal Reserve as interest on the debt. Any reasonably thinking person who bothers to do a modicum of research can see that.
7. BTW, the first income tax law in the U.S. was enacted in 1861. The Bureau of Internal Revenue was created in 1862. Also, there were plenty of other taxes within the U.S. The Federal Government collected excises and tariffs. Tariffs restrict trade and cause other governments to retaliate by enacting tariffs of their own on U.S. products.
EDIT: The income tax law mentioned above was never declared unconstitutional. In fact, in 1880, the Supreme Court specifically stated that the income tax was a constitutional duty or excise and NOT a direct tax. In 1894, Congress again enacted an income tax. This time, in two separate, but related, decisions, the Supreme Court decided that a tax on income from property (i.e. rental income) was the same as a tax on the property itself. Since a tax on property is a direct tax, the law was declared unconstitutional.
I will pay $100,000 to you if you can prove the following three statements are false:
1. There is a law imposing an income tax on the taxable income of the average American citizen and resident.
2. Most wages are within the tax law definition of gross income.
3. Tax protesters and tax deniers are idiots.
You can't win, because all three statements are true.
- Bostonian In MOLv 71 decade ago
"Snow White" is more factual than that silly F2F movie is. I've watched it several times and get a new laugh out of it every time from it's massive collection of lies, disinformation, and misinterpretation of the law.
As an 18 year old, you simply have not bothered to investigate all of the issues involved here. Raising any of the "defenses" you cite in court will pull a $25,000 fine for wasting the court's time. NOBODY had EVER won a civil case regarding their tax liability based upon these claims. And most of those idiots wound up paying 10 to 50 times as much as the original tax was once fines, attorney's fees, court costs, etc. are tacked on. If that's not the definition of STUPID, I don't know of one.
The LAW is Title 26, US Code. Google it if you want to read it -- all 64,000 odd pages of it.
Edit: Your out-of-context mis-interpretation of the court cases is typical of the crackpot tax protesters. If you actually READ the rulings this will be painfully obvious. And by the way, if you fail to pay your taxes, no IRS "goons" will show up at your home. Your bank and employer will get levy letters and they will simply turn over whatever monies are due you. In the event that the IRS refers the case for prosecution the US Attorney for your district will decide if prosecution is warranted. If he or she feels that you might be a flight risk they would obtain an arrest warrant from a Federal magistrate and the US Marshalls Service would execute the warrant.
You can be a fool and swallow the tax kook rhetoric or you can be sane and pay your taxes. Your choice.
- Joe FinkleLv 71 decade ago
Personal exchange of goods is corporate activity if undertaken for profit. Hence profit that results is income. Registering some sort of partnership or corporate entity is not part of the definition.
EDIT: That's not what corporate activity means? I guess my professors in Corporations and Income Tax class, as well as the Board of Law Examiners who issued the Bar Exam must not be the legal experts they claimed. Oh well, I'll let them know that you said they were wrong.
Note that the 16th amendment specifically says "from whatever source derived".
EDIT: Stanton stands principally for the proposition that principal cannot be taxed, only income. According to the case, "Net income is the gain or profit derived from the use of capital, without impairment thereof." As distinguished from cash you've previously accumulated and is just sitting in the bank. That's still the law today. Everything else is dicta, useful as an interpretive aide, but not given the weight of law. However, you've also misunderstood that dicta. It argued that the 16th amendment did nothing more but affirm the Supreme Court's post-Pollack decisions where they backed off their original position to the point of essentially reversal.
Stratton, decided in 1913, was based on the law as it existed before the 16th amendment, since the controversy arose before the amendment was ratified:
"As to what should be deemed "income" within the meaning of § 38, it of course need not be such an income as would have been taxable as such, for at that time (the Sixteenth Amendment not having been as yet ratified)..."Source(s): http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt16_user... On the question of ratification, read this: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1115/is-u... Especially read the note at the end. It addresses the issue pretty conclusively. The argument against proper ratification turns on Ohio's statehood. Here's the counter-argument: Ohio was a State even though Congress, through an obvious oversight, neglected to pass a resolution so stating until 1953 because the procedure in 1803 required no such resolution. It was a rather informal process. Further, the retroactive resolution in 1953 means that Ohio was made a state retroactively to 1803. (Ex post facto issues don't apply because this is a procedural, rather than criminal statute, that's the case sometimes even if there are consequences to criminal law.) Further, Ohio's vote wasn't necessary for ratification (though this doesn't solve the questions about Taft's status as a "natural born citizen") Ohio, even if not a state at the time of Taft's birth, was still a US territory, which is sufficient for natural born citizen. (McCain was not born in a State, but rather on a US base in Panama and was ruled eligible to run for President by the Court.) Further, just because someone is ineligible to hold office does not make their actions while holding that office illegitimate, based on quite a bit of case-law. A case would have had to have been brought to challenge the election before he took the action you want to challenge. It's too late now. Finally, much weight is given to actual historical practice in constitutional interpretation. Ohio was thought to be a state and treated as a state, hence it's actions as a de facto state were valid.
- Uncle PennybagsLv 71 decade ago
I want to take issue with the core of your argument. You state "but INCOME is defined in the Constitution as PROFIT RESULTING FROM CORPORATE ACTIVITY."
Completely untrue. "income" is not defined in the Constitution.
In fact, the 16th Amendment states "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."
Let me repeat "from whatever source derived."
You can peddle this tripe about income not being income, but that doesn't make it true nor legal.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
What neither Democrats or Republicans want you to know is that government can be paid for without ANY form of taxation and without ANY debt financing (deficits, borrowing, etc). This includes ALL federal taxes, ALL state taxes, ALL county taxes, ALL city and town taxes, ALL school taxes and ALL special district taxes like utility districts, etc. It applies to ALL user fees which some people don't think of as taxes. It applies to ALL license fees which others still don't think of as taxes. It also applies to any form of public debt.
Imagine NO taxes period! Imagine No public debt period!
Imagine how much extra money that would put in your hands and the hands of the average person.
Imagine the impact of extra cash for families and the arguments and divorces prevented.
Imagine what this means to businesses from home based operations to mega corporate giants.
Imagine a society without the need for taxes and without the burden of debt.
The endless job and career opportunities. The variety of business opportunities.
The opportunities to follow your dreams to the hilt. Those extra vacations and the good times just keep rolling.
What would you do with the extra money you have without the burden of debt and taxation?
What are your dreams?
What about your family?
- Anonymous1 decade ago
The 16th amendment was ratified by enough states to be written in the constitution.
They only need 75% of the states to ratify it.
I don't agree with that amendment but nonetheless it is legal and it is constitutional.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
The united states was a country designed to be run without a federal tax and after the civil war I believe, it stuck on.
The fact of the matter is that it is not unconstitutional. They are trapping you. Look on the IRS website, they say nowhere on it that you have to pay it. It is voluntary. If you refuse to pay it then you will be fined and jailed. They say we strongly suggest you pay it.
They are coercing the American people, which is illegal.
Ron Paul would abolish the IRS....
I do suggest paying a tax though because it funds the military, roads and pays for police and fire fighting. )much more too)
What we need is a lower flat tax. Look it up on google.
or dick armey
That is why I select a flat tax. Its purpose is to only pay for infrastructure and not for a government bank account.
If there was a law saying you have to pay it it would be unconstitutional. There is no law, coercion is what they do. They threaten you if you don't pay it which is also illegal
- ?Lv 61 decade ago
I take it that you do not pay income tax and are willing to be arrested and take your case all the way to the supreme court.
Otherwise quit wasting print space with old, tired rationalizations that don't hold up in court.Source(s): GOOD LUCK
- 1 decade ago
It depends on if you define yourself as a "citizen" or a "national" of the United States. If you declare yourself a "national" of the U.S. you can pretty much tell the government to go f*ck itself.
If you have a passport look at it.
"The Secretary of State of the United States of America hereby requests all whom it may concern to permit the citizen/national of the United States...."
A "citizen" of the U.S. is controlled by Congress; a slave given "rights." (Rights cannot be given) Citizens are ruled by Congress. A "national" is someone who declares that THEY rule the Congress. "We the People" are the masters and Congress are servants. Citizens give up their rights by saying they are "citizens" of the U.S. Nationals state that their rights cannot be taken away.
The order of power is this:
National of the U.S.
citizen of the U.S.
"Nationals" are BORN with rights. "Citizens" are GIVEN privileges by Congress that can be taken away. For example, Congress CANNOT take away your 2nd Amendment Rights to have a gun if you are a national of the U.S. But Congress can take away your privilege to have a gun if you are a citizen of the U.S. Same with Income Tax. A national of the U.S. can tell the IRS to jump in a lake, a citizen cannot.
It's all in the Constitution.
(Oh, BTW, the U.S. is NOT a democracy. A democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. The U.S. is a Constitutional Republic. Basically, the sheep has Rights to safety, its body is its own private property, and the wolves cannot eat the sheep because its Rights defend that property.) A democracy is "mob rule" and the "mob mentality" can be easily changed and is usually irrational. So, a democracy is the best form of government for a corrupt government. Congress is trying to make us a citizen of a democracy. A tool of an easily swayed mob.Source(s): Michael Badnariks' Constitution Class. IMPORTANT!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpUXGOqO1r0
- Illia KLv 41 decade ago
Here's the answer, when you are born your parents registers you and get a birth certificate. This certificate goes to the Treasury and notice that's in bold type, which then registers you as a corporation ( JON DOE, aka the STRAW MAN). You the man is the fiduciary.When you register for a Social Security #, license for driving,marriage lic# all are BOLD TYPE. All these are then privileges given to the straw man. They cannot tax you for labour but they can tax the straw man and you are made responsible for the straw man. We pay taxes because we volunteered, when you file your 1040 returns (w2) etc. The taxes do not go to the Federal gov't as you know it it goes to the elite's ( US and Not the USA) The UNITED STATES is a private corporation. If you want to learn more go to the websites below. Welcome to knowledge Joe. learn educate yourself and others.
Understand I am not telling you or advising you not to pay taxes, but to educate yourself about the system that's in place and to free yourself from it.
these sites will give the knowledge and path to freedom.