Americans, stop paying income tax. You don't have to.

[plumjam]

If you're American please watch this documentary. It's a real eye-opener. There is NO LAW.
You can even watch if you aren't american. I won't be checking up.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&q=freedom+to+fascism&total=1021&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

[Miss Anthrope]

Plumjam, in a nutshell, you're completely wrong.

The search function is your friend. Try IRS, Hovind, et al, et cetera.

[plumjam]

Plumjam, in a nutshell, you're completely wrong.

The search function is your friend. Try IRS, Hovind, et al, et cetera.

interesting, where is the law?
have you watched the documentary?

[Oliver]

interesting, where is the law?
have you watched the documentary?


I doubt that the IRS would agree with you - but I also would love to see the law in question...

[RandFan]

interesting, where is the law?
have you watched the documentary?People ARE going to jail for this.

Tax Scams/Consumer Alerts (http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=98269,00.html)

If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is!" Seek professional advice from the IRS or a Tax Professional before you subscribe to any scheme that offers exemption from your obligation as a United States Citizen to pay taxes. Buying into a tax evasion scheme can be very costly.

The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments (http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159853,00.html)

[plumjam]

People ARE going to jail for this.



The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments (http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159853,00.html)

well what would you EXPECT the IRS to say?
watch the video

[RandFan]

well what would you EXPECT the IRS to say?
watch the videoI will say this as clearly and suscinctly as I can.

People - are - going - to - jail - over - this.

Got it?

I was curious about this at one time. I went to a meeting 10 years ago. The woman who conducted the meeting is now in jail.

Folks, please, I hate taxes, get the truth. Judges ARE sending people to jail. It's not a scare tactic. It's not the IRS pulling the wool over your eyes.

[RandFan]

1. Contention: The filing of a tax return is voluntary.

Some assert that they are not required to file federal tax returns because the filing of a tax return is voluntary. Proponents point to the fact that the IRS itself tells taxpayers in the Form 1040 instruction book that the tax system is voluntary. Additionally, the Supreme Court’s opinion in Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145, 176 (1960), is often quoted for the proposition that "[o]ur system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint."

The Law: The word “voluntary,” as used in Flora and in IRS publications, refers to our system of allowing taxpayers to determine the correct amount of tax and complete the appropriate returns, rather than have the government determine tax for them. The requirement to file an income tax return is not voluntary and is clearly set forth in sections 6011(a), 6012(a), et seq., and 6072(a). See also Treas. Reg. § 1.6011-1(a).
Any taxpayer who has received more than a statutorily determined amount of gross income is obligated to file a return. Failure to file a tax return could subject the noncomplying individual to criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment, as well as civil penalties. In United States v. Tedder, 787 F.2d 540, 542 (10th Cir. 1986), the court clearly states, “although Treasury regulations establish voluntary compliance as the general method of income tax collection, Congress gave the Secretary of the Treasury the power to enforce the income tax laws through involuntary collection . . . . The IRS’ efforts to obtain compliance with the tax laws are entirely proper.”

In August 2005, the Justice Department announced that Royal Lamarr Hardy was sentenced to a 156-month prison term for, among other things, selling a tax evasion scheme called the “Reliance Defense” that incorrectly asserted the income tax laws were voluntary (i.e., the laws imposed no legal obligation to pay tax or file a return). Hardy was also ordered to pay a fine of $59,267.88, costs of prosecution in the amount of $59,267.88, and restitution to the IRS for $197,555. See 2005 TNT 169-12 (Aug. 31, 2005).
Relevant Case Law:

Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391, 399 (1938) – the U.S. Supreme Court stated that “[i]n assessing income taxes, the Government relies primarily upon the disclosure by the taxpayer of the relevant facts . . . in his annual return. To ensure full and honest disclosure, to discourage fraudulent attempts to evade the tax, Congress imposes [either criminal or civil] sanctions.”

United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255, 1256 (8th Cir. 1993) – the court held that “[a]ny assertion that the payment of income taxes is voluntary is without merit.”

United States v. Tedder, 787 F.2d 540, 542 (10th Cir. 1986) – the court upheld a conviction for willfully failing to file a return, stating that the premise “that the tax system is somehow ‘voluntary’ . . . is incorrect.”

United States v. Richards, 723 F.2d 646, 648 (8th Cir. 1983) – the court upheld conviction and fines imposed for willfully failing to file tax returns, stating that the claim that filing a tax return is voluntary “was rejected in

United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978, 981 (8th Cir. 1983), wherein the court described appellant’s argument as ‘an imaginative argument, but totally without arguable merit.’”

Woods v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 88, 90 (1988) – the court rejected the claim that reporting income taxes is strictly voluntary, referring to it as a “‘tax protester’ type” argument, and found Woods liable for the penalty for failure to file a return.

Johnson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-312, 78 T.C.M. (CCH) 468, 471 (1999) – the court found Johnson liable for the failure to file penalty and rejected his argument “that the tax system is voluntary so that he cannot be forced to comply” as “frivolous.”

[RandFan]

BTW,

This thread belongs in the Conspiracy Theory forum.

[brodski]

well what would you EXPECT the IRS to say?
watch the video

So, when the US constitution was specifically amended to allow income tax, when the government body charged to collect income tax (under a code which has weight of law) clearly sets out it's rules for collecting tax and the penalties for not paying tax, when the courts- including the supreme court- the body which gets to interpret the constitution, all say that federal income tax is constitutional, legally required and enforceable- what grounds is tehre to say otherwise.
In short the people who get to make, interpret and enforce the rules says its a rule, how can they be wrong?


I have seen this fantasy, their main case rests on the fact that the IRS has a "code" rather than a "law". Except that very few pieces of legislation are officially called "laws".

Plumjam, can you tell me which law says that in the UK you shouldn't drive through a red traffic light? If you cant find said law, does that mean that you shoudl not face criminal sanction for doing so? By what political or legal theory do you base this on.

[Rika]

If it makes you feel any better, plumjam, making under 5k a year (which, for the last two years, I have qualifed for) means you do not file for income taxes. So, if you make barely anything...

[Oliver]

1. Contention: The filing of a tax return is voluntary.

Some assert that they are not required to file federal tax returns because the filing of a tax return is voluntary. Proponents point to the fact that the IRS itself tells taxpayers in the Form 1040 instruction book that the tax system is voluntary. Additionally, the Supreme Court’s opinion in Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145, 176 (1960), is often quoted for the proposition that "[o]ur system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint."

The Law: The word “voluntary,” as used in Flora and in IRS publications, refers to our system of allowing taxpayers to determine the correct amount of tax and complete the appropriate returns, rather than have the government determine tax for them. The requirement to file an income tax return is not voluntary and is clearly set forth in sections 6011(a), 6012(a), et seq., and 6072(a). See also Treas. Reg. § 1.6011-1(a).
Any taxpayer who has received more than a statutorily determined amount of gross income is obligated to file a return. Failure to file a tax return could subject the noncomplying individual to criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment, as well as civil penalties. In United States v. Tedder, 787 F.2d 540, 542 (10th Cir. 1986), the court clearly states, “although Treasury regulations establish voluntary compliance as the general method of income tax collection, Congress gave the Secretary of the Treasury the power to enforce the income tax laws through involuntary collection . . . . The IRS’ efforts to obtain compliance with the tax laws are entirely proper.”

In August 2005, the Justice Department announced that Royal Lamarr Hardy was sentenced to a 156-month prison term for, among other things, selling a tax evasion scheme called the “Reliance Defense” that incorrectly asserted the income tax laws were voluntary (i.e., the laws imposed no legal obligation to pay tax or file a return). Hardy was also ordered to pay a fine of $59,267.88, costs of prosecution in the amount of $59,267.88, and restitution to the IRS for $197,555. See 2005 TNT 169-12 (Aug. 31, 2005).
Relevant Case Law:

Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391, 399 (1938) – the U.S. Supreme Court stated that “[i]n assessing income taxes, the Government relies primarily upon the disclosure by the taxpayer of the relevant facts . . . in his annual return. To ensure full and honest disclosure, to discourage fraudulent attempts to evade the tax, Congress imposes [either criminal or civil] sanctions.”

United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255, 1256 (8th Cir. 1993) – the court held that “[a]ny assertion that the payment of income taxes is voluntary is without merit.”

United States v. Tedder, 787 F.2d 540, 542 (10th Cir. 1986) – the court upheld a conviction for willfully failing to file a return, stating that the premise “that the tax system is somehow ‘voluntary’ . . . is incorrect.”

United States v. Richards, 723 F.2d 646, 648 (8th Cir. 1983) – the court upheld conviction and fines imposed for willfully failing to file tax returns, stating that the claim that filing a tax return is voluntary “was rejected in

United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978, 981 (8th Cir. 1983), wherein the court described appellant’s argument as ‘an imaginative argument, but totally without arguable merit.’”

Woods v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 88, 90 (1988) – the court rejected the claim that reporting income taxes is strictly voluntary, referring to it as a “‘tax protester’ type” argument, and found Woods liable for the penalty for failure to file a return.

Johnson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-312, 78 T.C.M. (CCH) 468, 471 (1999) – the court found Johnson liable for the failure to file penalty and rejected his argument “that the tax system is voluntary so that he cannot be forced to comply” as “frivolous.”


The court-rules are pretty senseless if they cannot cite the law that explicitly describes the requirement to pay income-taxes. So what is it - what's it's wording?

[Rika]

The Supreme Court's ruling IS law. But in case you're interested, Oliver

"Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified

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."

[Mycroft]

If you're American please watch this documentary. It's a real eye-opener. There is NO LAW.
You can even watch if you aren't american. I won't be checking up.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&q=freedom+to+fascism&total=1021&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Great! I'll stop paying my taxes!

What could possibly be the down side to that?

[Cain]

You could argue that it's an unjust law, but it's still a law. I'm currently reading _The Cheating Culture_ and the author claims that tax avoidance costs the "average" taxpayer 3000 more dollars in taxes. The author does not mention that vast disparity in income skews the average but it is noteworthy that cheating on your taxes harms all the suckers other honest, hardworking citizens.

[plumjam]

I will say this as clearly and suscinctly as I can.

People - are - going - to - jail - over - this.

Got it?

I was curious about this at one time. I went to a meeting 10 years ago. The woman who conducted the meeting is now in jail.

Folks, please, I hate taxes, get the truth. Judges ARE sending people to jail. It's not a scare tactic. It's not the IRS pulling the wool over your eyes.

so if the government unlawfully decided that you had to, say, go to work naked every day, and not be paid.. you would do so, simply out of fear of them illegally throwing you in jail?

[RandFan]

Ok, it took a few minutes but I found it, please see title 26 of the U.S. Code which can be found online at http://www2.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sup_01_26.html

Also, if anyone is seriously considering this idiotic move please spend the $40 for Internal Revenue Code 1986 (http://west.thomson.com/store/product.aspx?r=3471&product_id=10245850) Contrary to popular belief, it IS law.

If you don't trust the IRS there are 3rd party sites debunking most tax protestor arguments. These are:
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html... (http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html) and http://www.quatloos.com/ (http://www.quatloos.com/)

[Oliver]

The Supreme Court's ruling IS law. But in case you're interested, Oliver

"Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified

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."


So Amendment 16 enables that Income-Taxes are legal. What about a Law based on Amendment 16. Is there a federal law or is this a matter of state-laws?

[RandFan]

The court-rules are pretty senseless if they cannot cite the law that explicitly describes the requirement to pay income-taxes. So what is it - what's it's wording?

:confused:

Wow, just, wow. Oliver, you are breathtaking.

[RandFan]

So Amendment 16 enables that Income-Taxes are legal. What about a Law based on Amendment 16. Is there a federal law or is this a matter of state-laws?See above, also, see Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

[plumjam]

The Supreme Court's ruling IS law. But in case you're interested, Oliver

"Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified

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."

"without apportionment" does not include an income tax

[brodski]

so if the government unlawfully decided that you had to, say, go to work naked every day, and not be paid.. you would do so, simply out of fear of them illegally throwing you in jail?

If they use the proper legal channels, how can this be illegal? Unjust maybe, but not illegal. Please show where the Supreme Court failed when it ruled income tax legal? What theory of law are you using?

And if you could addrreess the UK traffic light question, it may help you to understand this issue.

[plumjam]

If you trouble yourself to watch the video you'll see that the HEAD of the IRS can't even state the law.. so anything anyone copies and pastes on here i'm going to treat with quite a pinch of salt

[RandFan]

so if the government unlawfully decided that you had to, say, go to work naked every day, and not be paid.. you would do so, simply out of fear of them illegally throwing you in jail??

"Unlawfully"? See Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution. See the US Income Tax code. See the Supreme Court case law.

[plumjam]

You could argue that it's an unjust law, but it's still a law. I'm currently reading _The Cheating Culture_ and the author claims that tax avoidance costs the "average" taxpayer 3000 more dollars in taxes. The author does not mention that vast disparity in income skews the average but it is noteworthy that cheating on your taxes harms all the suckers other honest, hardworking citizens.

if you watch the video you'll see that the entirety of income tax in the USA goes directly to pay interest to the Federal Reserve, which in reality is a cartel of private banks run by a small group of families - the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Warburgs.
So you're paying income tax ONLY to enrich the bankers. Not to help society in any way.

[RandFan]

If you trouble yourself to watch the video you'll see that the HEAD of the IRS can't even state the law.. so anything anyone copies and pastes on here i'm going to treat with quite a pinch of saltHey, I can only post the law. If some bureaucrat who can't find his rear end with both hands doesn't know the law I wouldn't bet my freedom on it.

Please, plumjam, if you are an American citizen then follow your conscience. You asked me for the law. I posted links to the law.

[Rika]

"without apportionment" does not include an income tax

No. No no no no no noo. It means that you cannot decide that say, Washington pays 20% and California 5%.

Moving on. What do you think pays for, at a guess, our infrastructure? Katrina refund? War in Iraq? Education subsudizes, federal loans...

As for the law..
The Internal Revenue Code is today embodied as Title 26 of the United States Code (26 U.S.C.) and is a lineal descendant of the income tax act passed in 1913, following ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment. While some states do not have an income tax (Nevada), all residents and all citizens of the United States are subject to the federal income tax.
(Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Income_tax )

And Finally:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The section RandFan suggested you look at.

[RandFan]

if you watch the video you'll see that the entirety of income tax in the USA goes directly to pay interest to the Federal Reserve, which in reality is a cartel of private banks run by a small group of families - the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Warburgs.
So you're paying income tax ONLY to enrich the bankers. Not to help society in any way. I can't get the video to play beyond 7:33 seconds but this is demonstrably untrue.

[plumjam]

No. No no no no no noo. It means that you cannot decide that say, Washington pays 20% and California 5%.

Moving on. What do you think pays for, at a guess, our infrastructure? Katrina refund? War in Iraq? Education subsudizes, federal loans...

As for the law..

(Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Income_tax )

And Finally:


The section RandFan suggested you look at.

Reagan had a study done and it found that not a penny of the income tax goes to anything other than servicing the debt to the private bank which prints the money for nothing and then gives it to the government and charges interest on it.
We all need to go back to college to study banking. :)

[plumjam]

No. No no no no no noo. It means that you cannot decide that say, Washington pays 20% and California 5%.

Moving on. What do you think pays for, at a guess, our infrastructure? Katrina refund? War in Iraq? Education subsudizes, federal loans...

As for the law..

(Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Income_tax )

And Finally:


The section RandFan suggested you look at.

infrastructure is paid for by corporate and state taxes, just as it was before 1913 and the advent of the income tax

[RandFan]

Reagan had a study done and it found that not a penny of the income tax goes to anything other than servicing the debt to the private bank which prints the money for nothing and then gives it to the government and charges interest on it.Yes, and you believe everything you see on a youtube video. :boggled:

No skepticism. No critical thinking. Some guy you don't know simply says something and you credulously believe it.

[RandFan]

infrastructure is paid for by corporate and state taxes, just as it was before 1913 and the advent of the income taxThis sounds like a claim. When you started the thread you wanted the relevant case law. I found it for you.

Here is your turn, prove your contention? You will still have a big problem but prove your claim. We will cross that bridge when we get there, fair enough?

[brodski]

Reagan had a study done and it found that not a penny of the income tax goes to anything other than servicing the debt to the private bank which prints the money for nothing and then gives it to the government and charges interest on it.
We all need to go back to college to study banking. :)

Are you (or Raegen) claiming that US federal income tax is hypothecated taxation? Can you cite the law which states this?

[plumjam]

This sounds like a claim. When you started the thread you wanted the relevant case law. I found it for you.

Here is your turn, prove your contention? You will still have a big problem but prove your claim. We will cross that bridge when we get there, fair enough?

if you can't see that video, try this one, which explains how the whole fraudulent system has developed through history, and internationally

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936&q=money+masters&total=514&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
or read The Beast from Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin

I don't see why you would out of hand reject a documentary, with the testimony of dozens of qualified experts, yet supply links to the IRS website, as though the IRS are going to be telling the truth on this, when they have so much at stake.

[plumjam]

Are you (or Raegen) claiming that US federal income tax is hypothecated taxation? Can you cite the law which states this?

now you're obviously trying to obfuscate the issue by using a word like "hypothecated"
This is a complete diversion, as the OP and the video are about the lack of an income tax law. Watch it for yourself.

[RandFan]

if you can't see that video, try this one, which explains how the whole fraudulent system has developed through history, and internationally

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936&q=money+masters&total=514&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
or read The Beast from Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin

I don't see why you would out of hand reject a documentary, with the testimony of dozens of qualified experts, yet supply links to the IRS website, as though the IRS are going to be telling the truth on this, when they have so much at stake.

I'm a skeptic. I don't believe everything I see.
I've cited the relevant statutes.
I've cited case law.
I've linked 3rd party neutral sites.
The video IS conspiracy theory. There are thousands of them on the internet.
I've demonstrated that the video is at least false in its claim that there is no law.

[RandFan]

Title 26 of the U.S. Code which can be found online at http://www2.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sup_01_26.html

Also, if anyone is seriously considering this idiotic move please spend the $40 for Internal Revenue Code 1986 (http://west.thomson.com/store/product.aspx?r=3471&product_id=10245850) Contrary to popular belief, it IS law.

If you don't trust the IRS there are 3rd party sites debunking most tax protestor arguments. These are:
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html... (http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html) and http://www.quatloos.com/ (http://www.quatloos.com/)

[RandFan]

I'm watching the video now. 24:31 It's wrong. These are old claims that have been thoroughly debunked.

There are answers to all of these. See:

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html... (http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html) and http://www.quatloos.com/ (http://www.quatloos.com/)

[plumjam]

I'm a skeptic. I don't believe everything I see.
I've cited the relevant statutes.
I've cited case law.
I've linked 3rd party neutral sites.
The video IS conspiracy theory. There are thousands of them on the internet.
I've demonstrated that the video is at least false in its claim that there is no law.

the Head of the IRS couldn't state a law, 3 ex IRS agents who left their jobs because they found out there was no law testify on the video, a woman who sat on a tax case jury tells how the jury asked the judge to present them with the law, and he couldn't. Presidential Candidate Ron Paul states there is no law, law professors state there is no law... etc etc.. how much more do you need?

it's not surprising given the recent attention that the IRS might circulate on the web something that LOOKS LIKE a law, but that would have no standing in a court of law.

[plumjam]

I'm watching the video now. 24:31 It's wrong. These are old claims that have been thoroughly debunked.

There are answers to all of these. See:

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html... (http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html) and http://www.quatloos.com/ (http://www.quatloos.com/)

so far the weight of testimony is on my side.
just out of interest, do you believe in anything that isn't the establishment take on things?

[RandFan]

the Head of the IRS couldn't state a law, 3 ex IRS agents who left their jobs because they found out there was no law testify on the video, a woman who sat on a tax case jury tells how the jury asked the judge to present them with the law, and he couldn't. And you just believe it all?

Please read the links I gave you. It's BS. I CITED THE LAW.

Irwin Schiff once appeared on television and offered to pay $100,000 to anyone who could identify the section of the Internal Revenue Code that impose any liability for tax. A man named Richard Newman identified sections 1, 6012, 6151, 6153, 7201, 7202 and 7203 in a telephone call to the television station the following morning and then sued Schiff when he refused to pay the $100,000. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that Newman was right about the tax laws and that Schiff’s claim was “ridiculous,” but ruled for Schiff because Newman did not telephone the television station with the correct answer within the time specified in Schiff’s offer (i.e., during the time that Schiff was actually on the air). Newman v. Schiff (http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq/newman.html), 778 F.2d 460 (8th Cir. 1985).

That is case law that you can actually look up. I can cite case after case. You are wrong. The video is hollywood. It's smoke and mirrors. It's everything that JREF exists for.

Presidential Candidate Ron Paul states there is no law, law professors state there is no law... etc etc.. how much more do you need? The courts HAVE ruled again and again that there is law. How much do YOU need?

it's not surprising given the recent attention that the IRS might circulate on the web something that LOOKS LIKE a law, but that would have no standing in a court of law. One more time: I cited case law from The United States Suprme Court.

I'm watching your video, will you read my 3rd party links?

[Rika]

The FY2008 Budget:

(this is just the Department of Transporation, but)

139$ Mil to be given to cities to reduce congestaion

some 2 billion dollars to the Federal Highway Adminstration. Hmm.

(Source: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy08/pdf/budget/transportation.pdf)


Or: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2007/08/minnesota_and_the_politics_of.cfm

Which notes a federal initative to bring more money to the infrastucture..

[plumjam]

I'm watching the video now. 24:31 It's wrong. These are old claims that have been thoroughly debunked.

There are answers to all of these. See:

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html... (http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html) and http://www.quatloos.com/ (http://www.quatloos.com/)

that lawyers argument seems to rely quite a big on the 16th Amendment. The film says that the 16th Amendment was never properly approved.

[RandFan]

so far the weight of testimony is on my side.Are you nuts? Do you even know what skepticism is? I'm citing you case law and you are relying on an old form of propaganda perfected in the 1930's.

just out of interest, do you believe in anything that isn't the establishment take on things? I'm a skeptic. I use critical thinking. You show me the evidence I will believe it. I've followed a lot of CT and it's bunk. There are many things about my government that I'm skeptical of.

[RandFan]

that lawyers argument seems to rely quite a big on the 16th Amendment. The film says that the 16th Amendment was never properly approved. "The film says"? That's it then, I cite you case law and I cite you statute and you simply reply, "the film says".

You haven't read much if this is your answer BTW.

[Rika]

The 16th Amendment was properly ratified (http://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html#Am16)

[plumjam]

The FY2008 Budget:

(this is just the Department of Transporation, but)

139$ Mil to be given to cities to reduce congestaion

some 2 billion dollars to the Federal Highway Adminstration. Hmm.

(Source: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy08/pdf/budget/transportation.pdf)


Or: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2007/08/minnesota_and_the_politics_of.cfm

Which notes a federal initative to bring more money to the infrastucture..

thanks for the links, but i don't quite see the point you're trying to make. the point in the documentary is that the money collected in income tax is all swallowed up by interest payments on the debt to the federal reserve. there's a list of maybe 30 other forms of tax US citizens pay, which goes towards education, infrastructure, defence etc..

[plumjam]

"The film says"? That's it then, I cite you case law and is cite you statute and you simply reply, "the film says".

You haven't read much if this is your answer BTW.

yes, the film.. with tax lawyers, law professors, IRS agents and the Head of the IRS.. i suppose if just one of these sat down and wrote something on a website you'd be more inclined to agree with it, simply because it agreed with what you think.

[plumjam]

anyway, i'm off to bed, ..hope this hasn't been too taxing for anyone :)

[RandFan]

yes, the film.. with tax lawyers, law professors, IRS agents and the Head of the IRS.. i suppose if just one of these sat down and wrote something on a website you'd be more inclined to agree with it, simply because it agreed with what you think.No, I only care about the law. BTW, I can't find the Head of the IRS saying what you claim. Also, the film is cut and edited. This IS a common ploy of propaganda. No one should trust this. It's interesting but it is contrary to a mountain of evidence. For crying in the dark I cited you the statutes and case law. Now you are pretending they don't exist because.... wait for it... a movie says so. Really plum, are you that credulous?

BTW, from the Shiff lawsuit I linked above.

Although Newman has not "won" his lawsuit in the traditional sense of recovering a reward that he sought, he has accomplished an important goal in the public interest of unmasking the "blatant nonsense" dispensed by Schiff.The film is propaganda plum, it happens all of the time.

[RandFan]

anyway, i'm off to bed, ..hope this hasn't been too taxing for anyone :)Tomorrow I want you to provide the time on the video where the head of the IRS declares there is no law.

Fair enough?

[RandFan]

For those of you playing at home, the maker of the film admits that people ARE going to jail for tax evasion.

If you want to protest that is fine but please don't think there is no risk. There is.

[gtc]

thanks for the links, but i don't quite see the point you're trying to make. the point in the documentary is that the money collected in income tax is all swallowed up by interest payments on the debt to the federal reserve. there's a list of maybe 30 other forms of tax US citizens pay, which goes towards education, infrastructure, defence etc..

The claim here is that interest payments on debt is the same as the amount collected in income tax.

That claim can be tested if you look at the budget papers for the US.

But the statement you make is problematic. Firstly the interest payments do not go to the Federal Reserve, they go to whoever ultimately holds the debt. Secondly, income taxes are not hypothecated to interest payments.

To deal with the first point. The debt market works like this. The government (or a corporation or other entity) decides that it wants to borrow money. As far as I am aware the government does this through the Federal Reserve but the Reserve is only the middleman (corporations etc go through investment banks).

The Government tells the Fed that they would like to borrow $1billion. The Fed asks lenders (which could be banks or corporations or other governments or even ordinary investors) if they would be willing to lend the government money and how much interest would they demand. If both the Fed and the lenders can come to an agreement then the Fed borrows the money. The lenders give the Fed their money and in return the Fed gives the lenders a bond (which is just a piece of paper that says that the holder will get a particular amount of money at a particular point in time). The Fed gives the money to the government and the government gives the interest payments back to the Fed to give to the borowers.

The second point about hypothecation. Income tax goes into general government revenue along with all sorts of other taxes. Interest repayments are taken out of this pool of government revenue along with payments for all sorts of other things (like infrastructure, army etc). There is nothing which says that income tax goes to paying off interest just as there is nothing which says that the other taxes go to pay off other expenses. The only exception is if a tax is hypothecated, which means that the tax must go to pay a particular purpose.

If you stop paying income tax then interest payments won't go down. It will probably just mean that something else doesn't get paid for.

[RandFan]

If you stop paying income tax then interest payments won't go down. It will probably just mean that something else doesn't get paid for.That was the other big problem I was going to tell him.

Even if it is discovered that it is illegal to collect income tax the commitment is still made. The money has to be paid. It doesn't go away by aboloshing the income tax. Congress would have to levy a fee to pay the interest. It's as simple as that.

[brodski]

now you're obviously trying to obfuscate the issue by using a word like "hypothecated"
This is a complete diversion, as the OP and the video are about the lack of an income tax law. Watch it for yourself.

I am not trying to obfuscate anything. The claim was made that federal income tax is only used to service privately held public debt- this would require that federal income tax is held in a separate account from other federal revenue streams, and is earmarked for that one specific purpose. Why use 26 words when the English language has provided such a useful one already? One which is used widely in eth discussion of tax policy. As I said, I have seen this film (it’s been discussed her before more than once), and I was addressing a specific claim in the film which you have repeated here.

[Lurker]

Plum's claim of income tax only going to pay interest on the debt is easily dismissed. I have two sources for this.

The first is http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hist.pdf For 2005, you can see that the revenue from income taxes is $927 billion. Interest on the debt is $183 billion. Seems like the govt has a lot left over to pay for other programs after paying the debt interest.

Another source is my 1040 Tax Forms and Instructions booklet (from 2006) which shows the pie charts near the end. Personal income taxes account for 38% of revenues. In the notes below the total revenue for 2005 is given as $2.2 trillion which translates into 0.38 x $2.2T = $836 billion. There is also a pie chart for outlays where net interest on debt is 7%. In the notes below total outlays are $2.5 trillion so outlays for interest on the debt is $2.5T x 0.07 = $175 billion.

So no matter which source you look at, personal income taxes are about FIVE times higher than interest on the debt.

Clearly Plum's claim that all the income tax goes to service the debt has been falsified here.

Lurker

[WildCat]

interesting, where is the law?
have you watched the documentary?

The court-rules are pretty senseless if they cannot cite the law that explicitly describes the requirement to pay income-taxes. So what is it - what's it's wording?
http://law.justia.com/us/codes/title26/26usc61.html

[Loss Leader]

that lawyers argument seems to rely quite a big on the 16th Amendment. The film says that the 16th Amendment was never properly approved.


Sigh. Of all the wacky conspiracists out there, tax protestors have to be my least favorite.

Plumjam, I ask you to consider this: What is law?

What is it that makes something law and something else just a good idea or just voluntary?

I submit to you that law is anything enforced by threat of physical violence. The government and the government alone is the legitimator of force. The government can use force to compel its citizens but other citizens may not use force to compel each other. Being robbed at gunpoint is a crime but being taxed is not. This is true by definition.

Now, we in the US happen to be lucky enough to live in a democracy. This means that, while the government controls us by threat of force, we control the government. We get to decide what the government does with its power. It used to be that the government used physical violence to supress labor strikes. We the people decided we didn't want that, elected leaders who promised not to do it and the government changed its policy. Now it uses the threat of physical violence to prevent private companies from supressing labor strikes.

On the issue of income tax the undisputable fact is this: if you don't pay income taxes, the government will physically accost you and throw you bodily into jail. Agents of the government will actually grab your arms, chain them together, strip you naked, stick a finger up your butt, hose you down, put you in a scratchy jumpsuit and throw you in a cell for years.

That will happen. You might think it shouldn't happen but that won't stop it.

As a democracy, we have the opportunity to tell the government not to do this. In just about every election in every municipality in the entire US - from President to state senators to local magistrates - you can almost always find a tax protestor on the ballot. This is someone whose only desire is to repeal income and other taxes.

Guess what? The always lose. We have the chance to vote for this policy change and we choose not to.

So not only is paying income tax the law because it's enforced with violence, but it's a law we as Americans consider just because we do nothing to change it.

No technical whinging about ratification of the 16th Amendment and unclear tax codes will change that.

[volatile]

LossLeader - you're right, of course. The law is internally self-defining, and I certainly wouldn't argue with you on that. There is a slight addendum which might needed to be added to the above, though - and it's that laws can be ruled unconstitutional (in the US) or in breach of superordinate European legislation (in the EU).

I think that's why tax protesters try and whine about the 16th's ratification - it makes them feel like they have an out (and, AIUI, they might have had if the 16th hadn't been ratified). Of course, that's all beside the point because were it shown that there was some legal inconsistency, a Bill would be introduced immediately to fix it - but I thought it worth mentioning.

[twinstead]

Why does it appear that tax protesters, and most other conspiracy theorists actually, are arguing an ideology and world view rather than facts?

What is the deal with this obvious marriage of conspiracy theories and ideologues? More than once PlumJam mentioned our believing what the 'establishment' says. That's one step from accusing us of being shills, and then I suspect invariably on to the paid debunker claims.

Why does it always have to come down to that?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

So plumjam. you believe some video you found on the Internet is correct and the Supreme Court of the USA is wrong? :boggled:

I'm backing away very slowly and promise not to make any sudden moves. :scared:

[sackett]

Are you nuts? ...

Plum, I think you should treat that as a serious question.

Or put it this way: If you had to prove that you're not crazy, how would you do it?

That also is a serious question, because you can be committed by, say, a relative -- or by the police! -- if a judge is convinced that you're a danger to yourself and others. Yes indeedy. And then you'd be in the awkward position of having to prove a negative, i.e., that you are NOT insane. Your posts to this very thread could be used to support the contention that you're barking mad.

(That's assuming that you didn't want to enroll in the laughing academy. For all I know, you'd enter it gladly. Heck, two warms and a soft, all paid for by, yes, other people's taxes -- why wouldn't a person of your capacities welcome a deal like that?)

The mods will probably jump on me for this post. But Plum, really, I mean you well, and I hope you'll think about this. Offline, preferably.

[roger]

This thread is done. Relevant law has been cited, and as usual, ignored. You can't argue the stupid out of people. Why do I worry that this will go on for 10 more pages, trying to do exactly that?

[Alt+F4]

I can never understand folks like this. If you don't want to pay your federal income tax well then don't. Have fun in prison.

IT DOESN’T MATTER whether you are right or wrong because even if you are right (you're not) these theories aren’t going to help you anyhow, since no court will recognize these theories and they will not stop the IRS from levying taxes, fines, and sanctions, or from seizing your property.

[brodski]

Plum, I think you should treat that as a serious question.

Or put it this way: If you had to prove that you're not crazy, how would you do it?

That also is a serious question, because you can be committed by, say, a relative -- or by the police! -- if a judge is convinced that you're a danger to yourself and others. Yes indeedy. And then you'd be in the awkward position of having to prove a negative, i.e., that you are NOT insane. Your posts to this very thread could be used to support the contention that you're barking mad.

(That's assuming that you didn't want to enroll in the laughing academy. For all I know, you'd enter it gladly. Heck, two warms and a soft, all paid for by, yes, other people's taxes -- why wouldn't a person of your capacities welcome a deal like that?)

The mods will probably jump on me for this post. But Plum, really, I mean you well, and I hope you'll think about this. Offline, preferably.

Actually, given that he’s in the UK, he could eb “sectioned” (under section 4 of the 1983 mental health act only) if two doctors and a social worker or a close relative of the patient believe it is necessary.
One of these doctors is usually a psychiatrist. The other is often a doctor who knows the individual being considered fro sectioning well.
That said, in an emergency one doctor's recommendation may be sufficient.
An approved social worker also has to be involved in the assessment, and has to agree that being sectioned is the best course of action for that patient.
Sectioning lasts for 72 hours in eth first instance, then 28 days, and then six months. At each stage if is up to the doctors to demonstrate that continued sectioning is in eth best interests of eth patient, it is not up to the patent to “prove that they are sane”.
Whilst you may think that plumjam is delusional (I disagree- I think he is wrongheaded and misinformed) sectioning would only be considered if he where a danger to himself or others. Nothing in any of his posts gives me the slightest hint that he is a danger to anyone. Except of course the feeling of auto-cranial-structural injuries his posts may inspire in those sceptics who engage him in debate.

[Crossbow]

that lawyers argument seems to rely quite a big on the 16th Amendment. The film says that the 16th Amendment was never properly approved.

Then the film is quite wrong!


ARTICLE XVI.

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.


The ratificiation for this admendment was completed in 1913.

[Thanz]

If you follow Randfan's link and drill down a little you find this:

http://www2.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sec_26_00000001----000-.html

§ 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.


(b) Heads of households
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every head of a household (as defined in section 2 (b)) a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
If taxable income is: The tax is:


Not over $29,600 15% of taxable income.
Over $29,600 but not over $76,400 $4,440, plus 28% of the excess over $29,600.
Over $76,400 but not over $127,500 $17,544, plus 31% of the excess over $76,400.
Over $127,500 but not over $250,000 $33,385, plus 36% of the excess over $127,500.
Over $250,000 $77,485, plus 39.6% of the excess over $250,000.


(c) Unmarried individuals (other than surviving spouses and heads of households)
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual (other than a surviving spouse as defined in section 2 (a) or the head of a household as defined in section 2 (b)) who is not a married individual (as defined in section 7703) a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
If taxable income is: The tax is:


Not over $22,100 15% of taxable income.
Over $22,100 but not over $53,500 $3,315, plus 28% of the excess over $22,100.
Over $53,500 but not over $115,000 $12,107, plus 31% of the excess over $53,500.
Over $115,000 but not over $250,000 $31,172, plus 36% of the excess over $115,000.
Over $250,000 $79,772, plus 39.6% of the excess over $250,000.


(d) Married individuals filing separate returns
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who does not make a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
If taxable income is: The tax is:


Not over $18,450 15% of taxable income.
Over $18,450 but not over $44,575 $2,767.50, plus 28% of the excess over $18,450.
Over $44,575 but not over $70,000 $10,082.50, plus 31% of the excess over $44,575.
Over $70,000 but not over $125,000 $17,964.25, plus 36% of the excess over $70,000.
Over $125,000 $37,764.25, plus 39.6% of the excess over $125,000.


(e) Estates and trusts
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of—
(1) every estate, and
(2) every trust,
taxable under this subsection a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
If taxable income is: The tax is:


Not over $1,500 15% of taxable income.
Over $1,500 but not over $3,500 $225, plus 28% of the excess over $1,500.
Over $3,500 but not over $5,500 $785, plus 31% of the excess over $3,500.
Over $5,500 but not over $7,500 $1,405, plus 36% of the excess over $5,500.
Over $7,500 $2,125, plus 39.6% of the excess over $7,500.
Is that clear enough for you?

[Reptiliano]

I take it that plumjam's trying to say that not paying taxes is a good thing...yet people claim that not enough tax dollars are going to the "right" places (which vary from person to person but generally reflect the times, primarily defense and education). If there are fewer tax dollars in the system...wouldn't they actually divert more money from those "right" places?

[pgwenthold]

that lawyers argument seems to rely quite a big on the 16th Amendment. The film says that the 16th Amendment was never properly approved.

This claim is DIRECTLY addressed in one of randfan's independent links:

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

[sackett]

Alas, Brodski, I think I already knew much of what you outline in your post. But I wanted to speak with a simple tongue to a simple mind.

Then too, a doctor must be convinced that a sectioned patient is sane enough to be let go. A creduloid babbler -- a tax denier, forsooth! -- might not sound altogether together. If I was Plum's da, I'd want him to think about that seriously.

[Hammer_of_Thor]

Youtube has some other videos that hold the truth. I saw a video that must be true because it is on Youtube. It is called "Loose Change". I couldnt believe that the U.S. government was behind 9/11. :rolleyes:

Plumjam- I suggest that you stop paying your income tax. Go into work and tell them not to take any taxes out of your paycheck. Tell them you saw a video on youtube that says it is voluntary...Wait for IRS to call.

[Beerina]

The only thing I could not find was the IRS seemed to dance around the issue of whether you were required to sign under penalty of perjury. They mention in one small section that so-and-so were prosecuted for failing to sign, and several other fraudulent things. The result of the failure to sign was not discussed. They can prosecute for anything, but whether that held up is another issue.

That still would not mean you were free from having to file, or to accurately fill out the form, or to pay.

[Mycroft]

Reagan had a study done and it found that not a penny of the income tax goes to anything other than servicing the debt to the private bank which prints the money for nothing and then gives it to the government and charges interest on it.
We all need to go back to college to study banking. :)

This is the kind of stuff you believe if you get all your information from conspiracy kooks.

The Federal Reserve actually makes money that goes to the US Treasury. It does operate at a profit, but the profit of the member banks is legally capped at 6% of the money they put into the Fed, with any remaining profit going to the US Treasury.

US debt is in the form of treasury bonds, which are held by any investor that wants to buy them. You can go down to your local bank and buy as many as you can afford. Anyone can.

[Mycroft]

Why does it appear that tax protesters, and most other conspiracy theorists actually, are arguing an ideology and world view rather than facts?

What is the deal with this obvious marriage of conspiracy theories and ideologues? More than once PlumJam mentioned our believing what the 'establishment' says. That's one step from accusing us of being shills, and then I suspect invariably on to the paid debunker claims.

Why does it always have to come down to that?

Nail on the head.

[drkitten]

The court-rules are pretty senseless if they cannot cite the law that explicitly describes the requirement to pay income-taxes. So what is it - what's it's wording?

It's the Internal Revenue Code, section 1 (more formally, USC TITLE 26, Subtitle A, CHAPTER 1, Subchapter A, PART I, Sec. 1.) This code reads in part:


Sec. 1. Tax imposed
TITLE 26, Subtitle A, CHAPTER 1, Subchapter A, PART I, Sec. 1.
STATUTE

(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:

(table omitted)

(b) Heads of households
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every head of a household (as defined in section 2(b)) a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
If taxable income is: The tax is:

(table omitted)

(c) Unmarried individuals (other than surviving spouses and heads
of households)
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual (other than a surviving spouse as defined in section 2(a) or the head of a household as defined in section 2(b)) who is not a married individual (as defined in section 7703) a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
If taxable income is: The tax is:

(table omitted)

(d) Married individuals filing separate returns
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who does not make a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
If taxable income is: The tax is:

(table omitted)

[Dr Adequate]

Plumjam's a Tax Protestor too?

I wonder if there's anything untrue that he doesn't believe?

[dudalb]

Isn't Plumjam in the UK?
If so,what the hell business of his is it how the US runs it internal Tax System,unless he has a lot of US investments,which somehow I really,really,doubt.
But Plumjam seems to fall for every wack theory that comes along.
If you don't like the Income Tax,Fine,then campaign to have the 16th Amendment repealed.
But don't try to sell these kook theories about how the Income Tax is illegal.
A lot of people who have tried this "I don't need to pay taxes" crap are currently residing in Club Fed,or have their incomes sequestered to pay their back taxes,and/or both.

[Beady]

This is more serious than it looks at first glance. People have not only been jailed for refusing to pay taxes, they've been killed over it, albeit perhaps inadvertantly (thinking here of Ruby Ridge, although I'm not sure if it fits the context exactly). Meanwhile, there's this (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/06/22/tax_resisters_finding_allies_in_cyberspace/), which could get ugly (it still hasn't been resolved, and the "siege" continues):
Tax resisters finding allies in cyberspace

N.H. couple vow to continue fight

Randy Weaver, who infamously resisted arrest at Ruby Ridge in Idaho in 1992, has joined Brown at his compound to offer his supportafter word spread online.

Just exactly what is Plumjam advocating, while he sits safe and smug on the other side of the Atlantic?

[Deus Ex Machina]

so far the weight of testimony is on my side.
just out of interest, do you believe in anything that isn't the establishment take on things?

so far nothing appears to be on your side.

The right to levy income tax has been clearly stated on this thread at least 5 times. You appear to not be able to understand basic English.

That would explain why you seem to think you are advancing an argument when all you are doing is parroting ludicrous waffle you have seen on a you tube video.

As for the 'establishment take on things" . As you are asking about Income Tax which is part and parcel of how the "establishment" (assuming you mean "government") is funded and run - then that would be the "take" to "take".

You see it's pretty simple - the amendment says it is OK for the government to levy income tax. The IRS is enabled by the law makers of the US to collect it and to make regulations which have the force of law to enable them to collect it.

What some idiot on a tape hypothesizes about doesn't have much to do with anything.

[Checkmite]

This is more serious than it looks at first glance. People have not only been jailed for refusing to pay taxes, they've been killed over it, albeit perhaps inadvertantly (thinking here of Ruby Ridge, although I'm not sure if it fits the context exactly). Meanwhile, there's this (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/06/22/tax_resisters_finding_allies_in_cyberspace/), which could get ugly (it still hasn't been resolved, and the "siege" continues):

Great. Randy Weaver, the original "I'm-Not-Racist-I-Just-Love-Attending-Aryan-Nations-Meetings" nutjob.

[dudalb]

Great. Randy Weaver, the original "I'm-Not-Racist-I-Just-Love-Attending-Aryan-Nations-Meetings" nutjob.

Agreed. There seems little doubt that the Feds botched Ruby Ridge badly,but that not change the fact Weaver is a Bigoted Nutjob.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

If you're American please watch this documentary. It's a real eye-opener. There is NO LAW.
You can even watch if you aren't american. I won't be checking up.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&q=freedom+to+fascism&total=1021&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Mods, please move this thread to Humor.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

BTW,

This thread belongs in the Conspiracy Theory forum.

I voted for Humor. (see previous post)

[plumjam]

ok, persist in your happy slavery then :p

[stanleywinthrop]

ok, persist in your happy slavery then :p

Tell me, how do you define "happy slavery"?

It seems to be a bit of a oxymoron to me.

[fuelair]

If you're American please watch this documentary. It's a real eye-opener. There is NO LAW.
You can even watch if you aren't american. I won't be checking up.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&q=freedom+to+fascism&total=1021&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
PLEASE stop paying your taxes! Let us know how it works out!!:D

[WildCat]

ok, persist in your happy slavery then :p
I take it that with the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, the relevant laws passed by Congress, and supporting case law you admit that Americans are obligated to pay an income tax?

[plumjam]

Tell me, how do you define "happy slavery"?

It seems to be a bit of a oxymoron to me.

slavery that is happy

simple ;)

[WildCat]

slavery that is happy

simple ;)
I take it there are no taxes in the UK, therefore you have taken up the crusade for no taxes in the USA?

[stanleywinthrop]

slavery that is happy

simple ;)

So, (I'm using your logic here, not saying I agree), this happiness doesn't mitigate the possibility that they are slaves?

[Thanz]

Tell me, how do you define "happy slavery"?

It seems to be a bit of a oxymoron to me.
here you go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5akw3rUSMV8

[stanleywinthrop]

[QUOTE=Thanz;2895349]here you go:




Right, a music video.

But I'm more interested in Plumjum's interpretation of this term because I think it leads down a rather interesting discourse.

[Loss Leader]

ok, persist in your happy slavery then :p


You imply a distinction where none exists.*

You think that there is either true libertarian freedom or slavery. But the social compact that we all have made doesn't enslave us. We are free at any time to drop out - to stay on our own land, growing all our own food, making all of our necessities and not paying a dime of income or sales tax. In some areas of the US, we'd hardly even have to pay property or sewer tax.

But most people have come to realize that they cannot live entirely on their own. By combining our efforts, we increase our productivity to levels that far surpass anything that could ever be done alone. By combining our efforts, we can build roads and bridges, we can provide for the common defense, and we can divide our labor so that each person does what he or she is best at.

The only price for the benefits of social cooperation is that we must cooperate. Self-help and violence against others is forbidden. Compliance is mandatory. And the government alone is the only legitimate user of physical force.

It's not slavery, happy or otherwise. It's a good deal. It's one that - if it were explicitly offered - most everyone would take. The alternative is that a guy a little stronger than you breaks into your house, kills you, takes your stuff, rapes your daughter, gets really drunk on your wine, tries to rape your daughter again, fails because he's too drunk, feels inadequate, kills your daughter because he feels bad about himself, falls asleep, wakes up and does it all over again to the guy living one bunker over.

I like the choice where that doesn't happen.





*Yeah, I quoted the Borg queen. You got a problem with it?

[stanleywinthrop]

You imply a distinction where none exists.*

You think that there is either true libertarian freedom or slavery. But the social compact that we all have made doesn't enslave us. We are free at any time to drop out - to stay on our own land, growing all our own food, making all of our necessities and not paying a dime of income or sales tax. In some areas of the US, we'd hardly even have to pay property or sewer tax.

But most people have come to realize that they cannot live entirely on their own. By combining our efforts, we increase our productivity to levels that far surpass anything that could ever be done alone. By combining our efforts, we can build roads and bridges, we can provide for the common defense, and we can divide our labor so that each person does what he or she is best at.

The only price for the benefits of social cooperation is that we must cooperate. Self-help and violence against others is forbidden. Compliance is mandatory. And the government alone is the only legitimate user of physical force.

It's not slavery, happy or otherwise. It's a good deal. It's one that - if it were explicitly offered - most everyone would take. The alternative is that a guy a little stronger than you breaks into your house, kills you, takes your stuff, rapes your daughter, gets really drunk on your wine, tries to rape your daughter again, fails because he's too drunk, feels inadequate, kills your daughter because he feels bad about himself, falls asleep, wakes up and does it all over again to the guy living one bunker over.

I like the choice where that doesn't happen.





*Yeah, I quoted the Borg queen. You got a problem with it?

Thanks Loss leader for spoiling my fun.



J/K
I'm new here so I'll stand down.

[dudalb]

All you have to do is read plumjam's signature statement to understant you are dealing with a total WooWoo.
The total denouncing of the Scientific Method contained in that statement is the essence of WooWooism: I will believe what I want to,screw reason and facts.

[drkitten]

All you have to do is read plumjam's signature statement to understant you are dealing with a total WooWoo.
The total denouncing of the Scientific Method contained in that statement is the essence of WooWooism: I will believe what I want to,screw reason and facts.

Be fair. There is a difference between "scientism" and "science."

I have met "scientism-ists"; the sort of person who insists that artistic merit or musical talent does not exist because it cannot be measured objectively. As a practicing scientist, I see no reason to give such idiots credence.

[RandFan]

It's not slavery, happy or otherwise. It's a good deal. It's one that - if it were explicitly offered - most everyone would take. The alternative is that a guy a little stronger than you breaks into your house, kills you, takes your stuff, rapes your daughter, gets really drunk on your wine, tries to rape your daughter again, fails because he's too drunk, feels inadequate, kills your daughter because he feels bad about himself, falls asleep, wakes up and does it all over again to the guy living one bunker over.

I like the choice where that doesn't happen.:)

You know, I do to.

Look, I'm libertarian. I think we pay too damn much in taxes. I think government wastes our money. Still, I like living in America. I like the opportunity it affords me. I like the services provided. So, I will pay my taxes and in the mean time I will exercise my right to B&M, speak out and vote to try and get politicians into office who will use my tax money more efficiently. Ok, it's not likely to happen but it's the best shot I've got. The only other choices are moving or risking jail.

[Jeff Corey]

Be fair. There is a difference between "scientism" and "science."

I have met "scientism-ists"; the sort of person who insists that artistic merit or musical talent does not exist because it cannot be measured objectively. As a practicing scientist, I see no reason to give such idiots credence.
A different tact on scientism.
I attended a discussion between BF Skinner and a philosopher who kept on slinging the term "scientism" out. Having never heard or read the term before, I asked, "Can someone define scientism for me?"
Skinner said, "I'm quite sure I can't."
The philosophe said, "It is the application of the scientific method to areas where it is not fitting. As with Skinner's so-called science of behavior." Or words to that effect.
As I understand it, "scientism" is frequently used as a pejorative to tell scientists that their area of interest is beyond the purview of science. Like as a radical behaviorist, I can't study the Wason Card Problem? Illusions? Magic?
So from my point of view, they are either idiots (your word), imbeciles, cretins, intellectually developmentally disabled.

[Senex]

I think this battle clearly is being won by Randfan.

Perhaps they offer Internet access in the hoosegow.

Perhaps taxes go to good purposes and should be paid.

[timhau]

if you watch the video you'll see that the entirety of income tax in the USA goes directly to pay interest to the Federal Reserve, which in reality is a cartel of private banks run by a small group of families - the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Warburgs.
So you're paying income tax ONLY to enrich the bankers. Not to help society in any way.

Yes! I knew we'd get to this. Americans, your income taxes go to The Jews.

[Beady]

Yes! I knew we'd get to this. Americans, your income taxes go to The Jews.

I believe that's "International Conspiracy of Jews and Bankers."

[Big Les]

here you go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5akw3rUSMV8

Man I love the Broken EP. In fact, as I saw NIN again on Monday night, I'm going to change my sig in honour of it.

[timhau]

I believe that's "International Conspiracy of Jews and Bankers."

Bankers, schmankers... they're just front men for the Jews.

Boy, you Jews have a good racket going. I envy you. I recognize a winning team when I see it, so... could I join you? I'm a blue-eyed blonde with an uncircumcized penis, so I could be valuable as a stealth Jew for infiltration purposes. Can I get in on this? Please?

[Loss Leader]

Bankers, schmankers... they're just front men for the Jews.

Boy, you Jews have a good racket going. I envy you. I recognize a winning team when I see it, so... could I join you? I'm a blue-eyed blonde with an uncircumcized penis, so I could be valuable as a stealth Jew for infiltration purposes. Can I get in on this? Please?


You realize, of course, that you'll have to trade Christmas for Hannukah and all your great Christmas presents for their Hannukah equivalents. You're welcome to join us but first say goodbye to your Playstation 3 and hello to four pairs of dress socks.

[Tricky]

I envision a promo spot:

"Today on JREF Shows, what is the thinking process of the average believer? The answers will scare you. See how extreme credulity in one area of thought processing can often mean incredible denial of reality in other areas as well.
(This program is not recommended for those with weak brains.)"

[Safe-Keeper]

Waitaminute... OK, so let's say that the Jews control all our banks, our Western governments, the only superpower in the world, and the aliens at Roswell. They're in control of the entire world, and every big political event,from Bush choking on a pretzel to 9/11 to the new mini-Cold War between Russian planes and everyone they manage to tick off, happens because of the Jews. They essentially rule the world and are steering it towards a Hellish NWO without freedom where everyone has to eat kosher foods. Without most of us realizing it.

Well, then how the Hell comes they can't handle little packs of poverty-stricken Hezbollah and intifdada punks with technicals and inaccurate RPGs:D?

Pardon me the argument from incredulity, but it's like a lion mowing down ten elephants and a dragon a day for then to be harassed by a little chihuahua puppy that proves too strong for it to effectively fight.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Waitaminute... OK, so let's say that the Jews control all our banks, our Western governments, the only superpower in the world, and the aliens at Roswell. They're in control of the entire world, and every big political event,from Bush choking on a pretzel to 9/11 to the new mini-Cold War between Russian planes and everyone they manage to tick off, happens because of the Jews. They essentially rule the world and are steering it towards a Hellish NWO without freedom where everyone has to eat kosher foods. Without most of us realizing it.

Well, then how the Hell comes they can't handle little packs of poverty-stricken Hezbollah and intifdada punks with technicals and inaccurate RPGs:D?

Pardon me the argument from incredulity, but it's like a lion mowing down ten elephants and a dragon a day for then to be harassed by a little chihuahua puppy that proves too strong for it to effectively fight.
It's simple, really. The Jews could easily crush any resistance (or just mind control them into submission, of course), but to do so would remove one of their most powerful veils of secrecy--the very argument from incredulity you just used.

Wily, wily Jews.

[ktesibios]

Woos seem to have a problem with the concept that a network of laws and regulations can have the same effect as a single statute. In the case of income tax, that could be fixed if Congress were to pass the "Yes Virginia, There Is an Income Tax" bill, the text of which would read "Everyone has to file and pay income taxes as set forth in U.S.C. blah and blah. This applies irrespective of what claims are found on Web sites and Youtube."

Woos also seem to have a problem with the idea that Congress can delegate the authority to make rules to agencies which it creates to regulate areas of commerce that need regulation. There ain't no simple fix for that, as you can see if you forget the IRS and consider another agency with delegated powers such as the FCC.

Under a "show me the law" regime, every single regulation relating to radio emissions- channel allocations, permitted power, spectral purity, type of modulation, operator qualifications and on and on, would have to be voted on by Congress, who are, in general, mostly a bunch of lawyers who would have zero competence to understand what they were voting on.

Compared to delegating the rule-making authority to an agency made up of people who actually are competent to understand the issues, that would be an utter @#$%, but if we extend the "show me the law" principle to the other normal functions of government, that's exactly what we would have.

[Loss Leader]

Waitaminute... OK, so let's say that the Jews control all our banks, our Western governments, the only superpower in the world, and the aliens at Roswell. They're in control of the entire world, and every big political event,from Bush choking on a pretzel to 9/11 to the new mini-Cold War between Russian planes and everyone they manage to tick off, happens because of the Jews. They essentially rule the world and are steering it towards a Hellish NWO without freedom where everyone has to eat kosher foods. Without most of us realizing it.

Well, then how the Hell comes they can't handle little packs of poverty-stricken Hezbollah and intifdada punks with technicals and inaccurate RPGs:D?



The mistake you're making is equating Jews with Israel. We real Jews can't stand Israel. It's hot, it's a shlep to get to, you can't get decent Chinese. We haven't spent ten minutes thinking about Israel since the last Bonds Brunch three weeks ago. No, we're quite content to rule America and by America we mean that portion of America that exists between 59th Street and 97th Street on the West Side because first of all who wants to go downtown with all the tourists and second of all don't even get me started about the East Side.

[timhau]

No, we're quite content to rule America and by America we mean that portion of America that exists between 59th Street and 97th Street on the West Side because first of all who wants to go downtown with all the tourists and second of all don't even get me started about the East Side.

Aw, that's my favorite part of New York City. Now I really wanna join.

[Michael Redman]

Woos seem to have a problem with the concept that a network of laws and regulations can have the same effect as a single statute. In the case of income tax, that could be fixed if Congress were to pass the "Yes Virginia, There Is an Income Tax" bill, the text of which would read "Everyone has to file and pay income taxes as set forth in U.S.C. blah and blah. This applies irrespective of what claims are found on Web sites and Youtube."Maybe you missed US Code, Title 26, Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter A, Part I, Sec. 1, quoted several times above.

It says (to paraphrase a bit)There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of [married filing jointly, head of households, unmarried individuals, or married filing separately] a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

The language could hardly be more clear.

This claim:There is NO LAW.

Is just plain wrong. (No matter how many people you can find to say otherwise.)

[Beady]

This claim:
Originally Posted by plumjam http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2892981#post2892981)
There is NO LAW.

Is just plain wrong. (No matter how many people you can find to say otherwise.)


A while back I quoted USC 14.1 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode14/usc_sec_14_00000001----000-.html) to prove the Coast Guard is a military service and one of the armed forces ("The Coast Guard as established January 28, 1915, shall be a military service and a branch of the armed forces of the United States at all times. The Coast Guard shall be a service in the Department of Homeland Security, except when operating as a service in the Navy"), and had several normally intelligent people here who figured Congress was wrong because "everyone knows" an armed military force could only exist in the Defense Department.

It's an idee fixe reinforced by conventional wisdom, and when that happens, the facts must be wrong, even for people who claim to base their opinions on evidence.

[drkitten]

A while back I quoted USC 14.1 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode14/usc_sec_14_00000001----000-.html) to prove the Coast Guard is a military service and one of the armed forces ("The Coast Guard as established January 28, 1915, shall be a military service and a branch of the armed forces of the United States at all times. The Coast Guard shall be a service in the Department of Homeland Security, except when operating as a service in the Navy"), and had several normally intelligent people here who figured Congress was wrong because "everyone knows" an armed military force could only exist in the Defense Department.


Goodness. Isn't the NOAA Corps (all 300 of them) also a military service, and based out of the Department of Commerce or something like that?

[supercorgi]

Goodness. Isn't the NOAA Corps (all 300 of them) also a military service, and based out of the Department of Commerce or something like that?

Well the US Merchant Marines are an auxiliary to the US Navy - so even those money hungry (and probably Joos!) business tycoons are involved in national defense.

[Corsair 115]

I believe that's "International Conspiracy of Jews and Bankers."Just how "international" is this conspiracy? Does that mean the banks in my country, like the Bank of Montreal or the Royal Bank or Scotiabank, are they in on it too!?!?

[Loss Leader]

Just how "international" is this conspiracy? Does that mean the banks in my country, like the Bank of Montreal or the Royal Bank or Scotiabank, are they in on it too!?!?


Well, my wife's Jewish. And she's from Montreal.

Soooooooooo............ draw your own conclusions.

[CptColumbo]

Whenever someone says or writes "just watch the video," I suspect that they have done no independant research on the given topic. The presenter seemed to know what they were talking about and was saying what the reader/listener wanted to read/hear that they accpeted it. Since having to express what was shown in the video would require them to look things up, they don't want to risk having their fantasy ruined and merely point people to the video as their entire arguement.

Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[Iamme]

If you're American please watch this documentary. It's a real eye-opener. There is NO LAW.
You can even watch if you aren't american. I won't be checking up.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&q=freedom+to+fascism&total=1021&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

I just saw this thread. Reminds me of the "if it sounds too good to be true,....." thing.

My cousin, 30 years ago 'learned' he did not have to pay income taxes. He was told by this organization that it is voluntary. That the 15th Amendment does not really mean what it says. Yadda yadda. Guess who showed up at his doorstep and put a lien on his house?

Say everything the video says is true. What good does it do if they throw you in jail why you are screaming that you are right?

The IRS, and even tax paying citizens, get mad at conscientious objectors citing that THEY have to pay taxes and therfore demand the gov't go after others who do not pay. And that is only fair; no? And that is why no anti-tax plan can work. You can't have everyone deciding they are not going to pay. Silly notion anyway. How do you think the gov't can run things without that tax? And no matter what form of tax..it's still going to be a tax. IRS income tax, flat tax, fair (consumption/Neal Boortz = senator) tax, whatever tax...there is always going to be this tax, so gov't can get bigger and pay huge salaries and bennies to their very own and claim they make less than the private sector...yet they don't go and work for that more lucrative private sector. LOL

[RandFan]

I just saw this thread. Reminds me of the "if it sounds too good to be true,....." thing.

My cousin, 30 years ago 'learned' he did not have to pay income taxes. He was told by this organization that it is voluntary. That the 15th Amendment does not really mean what it says. Yadda yadda. Guess who showed up at his doorstep and put a lien on his house?

Say everything the video says is true. What good does it do if they throw you in jail why you are screaming that you are right?

The IRS, and even tax paying citizens, get mad at conscientious objectors citing that THEY have to pay taxes and therfore demand the gov't go after others who do not pay. And that is only fair; no? And that is why no anti-tax plan can work. You can't have everyone deciding they are not going to pay. Silly notion anyway. How do you think the gov't can run things without that tax? And no matter what form of tax..it's still going to be a tax. IRS income tax, flat tax, fair (consumption/Neal Boortz = senator) tax, whatever tax...there is always going to be this tax, so gov't can get bigger and pay huge salaries and bennies to their very own and claim they make less than the private sector...yet they don't go and work for that more lucrative private sector. LOLDo you have a point?

[Mobyseven]

[...]

My cousin, 30 years ago 'learned' he did not have to pay income taxes. He was told by this organization that it is voluntary. That the 15th Amendment does not really mean what it says. Yadda yadda. Guess who showed up at his doorstep and put a lien on his house?

[...]

Americans rejoice! You may once again discriminate against minorities and prevent them from voting!

[timhau]

How about the 21st Amendment, does that mean what it says? And if not, does the 18th?

I'm just trying to decide whether to take a vacation in the US next summer. If you guys still have prohibition, I'll go elsewhere.

[Diamond]

Do you have a point?

It's Iamme. He doesn't do points.

[JonnyFive]

(snip)

No, we're quite content to rule America and by America we mean that portion of America that exists between 59th Street and 97th Street on the West Side because first of all who wants to go downtown with all the tourists and second of all don't even get me started about the East Side.

Hey! As a greedy Wall Street Illuminati banker (actually, not a banker, but who's counting these days?), I deeply resent your prejudice against downtown!

I must admit though, the tourists can be really, really annoying. Especially in the summer. You just want to go grab lunch at the Seaport, and there's a million goddamn tourists hogging all the good tables.

[sackett]

Johnny, all you're saying is that New York is a great place to live but you'd sure hate to visit there.

[JonnyFive]

Johnny, all you're saying is that New York is a great place to live but you'd sure hate to visit there.

What I'm saying might be more accurately restated as "Get the hell out."

[Loss Leader]

Hey! As a greedy Wall Street Illuminati banker (actually, not a banker, but who's counting these days?), I deeply resent your prejudice against downtown!




Well, yeah, of course you have to work downtown, but you certainly shouldn't live there.

Second of all, you're in insurance. You're two years from moving to Hartford in any case. And don't get me started on Hartford [rule10]ing Connecticut.

[JonnyFive]

Well, yeah, of course you have to work downtown, but you certainly shouldn't live there.

Yeah, all right, I agree with you on that.

Second of all, you're in insurance. You're two years from moving to Hartford in any case. And don't get me started on Hartford [rule10]ing Connecticut.

Hey! There's still a bunch of major carriers that have home offices in NYC!

So it'll probably be, like, three years.

[MIKILLINI]

Here's an explanation of what could get you more confused, Plum. But the fact remains, the LAW is there.

In order to understand the Sixteenth Amendment, it is first necessary to review the taxing clauses in the body of the Constitution. Congress' general power to impose taxes is found at Article I, Section 8, Clause 1.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

The above section is limited by Article I, Section 2, Clause 3:
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States.."

And Article I, Section 9, Clause 4:
"No Capitation, or other direct Tax, shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration.."
By this, the Constitution only recognizes two classes of taxes: direct and indirect. The distinction between indirect and direct taxes is this: an indirect tax is a tax on doing something to property, or on the privilege of holding some property, or doing some act, not a tax on the property itself. A direct tax is a tax on the property itself.

As contemplated by the Founders, indirect taxes were required to be levied according to the rule of uniformity while direct taxes were required to be levied according to the rule of apportionment. When Congress imposes an indirect tax, the rate must be uniform throughout the United States. For example, the federal gasoline tax, which is an indirect tax on the seller, is the same in Florida as it is in Maine. When Congress imposes a direct tax, it is required to apportion the tax among the several States according to the rule of apportionment. For example. Let's say in 1805 Congress imposed a direct tax on the States in the amount of 20 million dollars and a big state like Virginia had 30 percent of the total population of the United States based on the last census. Since all direct taxes must be apportioned based on population, Virginia would have been responsible for 30 percent of the tax. The tax is imposed on the States, not the people. The States are then free to collect the tax through their general revenue system and required to pay the tax to the federal government.

Direct taxes are inherently unfair because one State, with ten percent of the population, might be one of the richest States while another State, with the same percentage of the population, might be one of the poorest. Yet, under the direct tax formula imposed by the Constitution, both States would be required to pay the same amount. The Founders feared the use of direct taxes so they created a system to discourage their use.

In 1895, a legal controversy arose concerning a federal income tax statute. In that year, the United States Supreme Court struck down, as unconstitutional, a portion of the federal Income Tax Act of 1894. In Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust Company, the Court held:

"Our conclusions may be summed up as follows:

First. We adhere to the opinion already announced, that, taxes on real estate being indisputably direct taxes, taxes on the rents or income of real estate are equally direct taxes.

Second. We are of opinion that taxes on personal property, or on the income of personal property, are likewise direct taxes.

Third. The tax imposed by.the act of 1894, so far as it falls on the income of real estate and of personal property, being a direct tax within the meaning of the Constitution, and therefore, unconstitutional and void because not apportioned according to representation..."

Following this ruling, even though the Court did not hold that all income taxes were direct taxes, there was uncertainty as to whether the income tax was a direct or indirect tax. As a result, Congress sought to remove any confusion by passing an amendment to the Constitution. The Sixteenth Amendment, which the federal government claims was properly ratified in 1913, states:

"The Congress shall have the 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."

This raises a question. Did the Sixteenth Amendment modify the taxing provisions of the Constitution and grant Congress a new power to impose a direct non-apportioned income tax, or did the Amendment maintain the apportionment requirement applicable to all direct taxes?

Immediately after the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified, Congress enacted another income tax act similar to the 1894 Act. The new law was immediately challenged as unconstitutional and reached the Supreme Court in 1916. In Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, the nature of the income tax and the effect of the Sixteenth Amendment were addressed by the Court.

In delivering the holding of the Brushaber case, Justice White stated:
"We are of opinion.that the confusion.arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation."

"The far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption, if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another, bringing the Amendment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned."

"The result would be to authorize a particular direct tax not subject either to apportionment or to the rule of geographical uniformity, thus giving a new power to impose a different tax in one State, than was levied in another State. This result instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitation on the taxing power, would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion."

"The contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax is also wholly without foundation..."

Justice White went on to state:

"The Amendment contains nothing repudiating or challenging the ruling in the Pollock Case..."

"The Sixteenth Amendment was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operation."

In the same year the Brushaber case was decided, Justice White, in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Company, delivered another opinion on the scope of the Sixteenth Amendment. This decision re-affirmed the holding in the Brushaber case and put the issue to rest once and for all:

"The Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the power of income taxation from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged."

If you read between the lines, the Court was basically saying Congress showed themselves as a bunch of buffoons. Thinking of themselves as granting a new power of direct taxation that was not subject to the rule of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes, but what they actually did, by using the phrase "without apportionment among the States," was to restrict income taxes to the class of indirect taxes because only that class of tax is not subject to the rule of apportionment.

In the final analysis, the Amendment could be considered a red herring because if you woke up tomorrow morning and the headline in your favorite newspaper read: "States repeal Sixteenth Amendment," Congress would still have the constitutional authority to impose an income tax because the Amendment is not the source of the federal government's power to impose income taxes. The Amendment did not grant Congress any new taxing power or remove the apportionment requirement applicable to all direct taxes. By its wording, it simply restricted income taxes to the class on indirect taxes because only that class of tax is not subject to the rule of apportionment.

[RandFan]

It's Iamme. He doesn't do points.Good point.