In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
A Tax Question...
NeoBlackdog
Member Posts: 17,245 ✭✭✭✭
With our current tax system, the more money an individual makes, the higher the percentage of that income he gives up in taxes. Why does this not violate the 14th Amendment? It would seem to me that the individuals being taxed at the higher rate are not being given 'equal protection' under the law. They are being treated differently than those with smaller incomes simply because they make more money. What am I missing here?
Comments
With our current tax system, the more money an individual makes, the higher the percentage of that income he gives up in taxes. Why does this not violate the 14th Amendment? It would seem to me that the individuals being taxed at the higher rate are not being given 'equal protection' under the law. They are being treated differently than those with smaller incomes simply because they make more money. What am I missing here?
I'm surprised no one has a clue about our system of taxation.
The IRS was formed after the 16th Amendment that came into being in 1913, giving the (private corporation) Federal Reserve the power to control our fiat currency.
The IRS is totally unconstitutional under our Constitution. It would take too much time to go into taxation and our Constitution here, I suggest you read these few links.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=18060
http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/
http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/
Seriously? The only answer I can get after all day is in green font? (Thanks HPD!) I am truly puzzled by this question(among other things!). If we're all equal under the law, then why are the tax laws not written in such a way so as to reflect this?[?]
Our tax system was patterned after the progressive tax in Russia.It is the 2nd planks of the Communist manifesto.
"2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax."
Americans know this as misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,in 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State "income" taxes. We call it "paying your fair share". It is "NOT" Constitutional.
Here are the other planks, see how they apply to America today it should scare the hell out of you!
http://www.libertyzone.com/Communist-Manifesto-Planks.html
'Congress can tax your income in any way it wants and spend it in any way it wants'.
Brad Steele
The 16th Amendment:
'Congress can tax your income in any way it wants and spend it in any way it wants'.
Check out this Law suit.This lawyer has it close to right.
http://www.paynoincometax.com/pdf/memo_to_dismiss_Indict_income_used_in_ord_sense.pdf
The question is "What is the Constitutional definition of income"
It's the same thing with the second Amendment. Congress stepping outside the law to screw the sovereign citizen.
The only question, therefore, is what is the meaning of "income" in the "constitutional
sense" and how does it differ from "income" in the "ordinary sense"? 1 The "constitutional"
meaning of "income" is derived from the holding in the bedrock decision, Brushaber v. Union
Pacific RR, 240 U.S. 1, 17 in which the Supreme Court stated, "The whole purpose of the (16th)
Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a
consideration of the source whence the income was derived." Therefore the "whole purpose" of
the 16th Amendment was not to amend the Constitution but "to relieve all income taxes when
imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was
derived." Therefore, in order to be "relieved" from the constitutional requirement of
"apportionment," a tax on "income," cannot take into "consideration" the "sources" from which
"the income is derived."
With our current tax system, the more money an individual makes, the higher the percentage of that income he gives up in taxes. Why does this not violate the 14th Amendment? It would seem to me that the individuals being taxed at the higher rate are not being given 'equal protection' under the law. They are being treated differently than those with smaller incomes simply because they make more money. What am I missing here?
In simple terms for those that do not want to wade through the truth.
1 "No attempt has ever been made by Congress to define with specificity the term `income' as it is used in the
sixteenth amendment" Conner v. U.S, 303 F. Sup.1187, 1189. " The general term `income' is not defined in the
Internal Revenue Code," U.S. v. Ballard, 535 F.2d 400, 404. The reason that Congress has never defined "income"
is because it has no authority to do so. "Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it
cannot by legislation alter the Constitution" (Eisner v. Macomber, page 206), which Congress does every time it
changes what is taxable as "income" in each succeeding tax "reform" act.
2 While Section 61 claims to define "Gross income," it does not do so, since it "defines" it by using the word
"income" in its definition. Obviously, a word cannot be defined with itself. In any case, Code section 61 does not
make a distinction between corporations and individuals. So whatever applies to one, must also apply to the other.
Since corporations do not pay income taxes on their income, neither, therefore, are individuals required to do so.
And since corporations only pay income taxes on their profit, this too must apply to individuals. However,
individuals do no generate "profit," (which can only be derived from a profit and loss statement), therefore,
individuals earn nothing that is subject to an income tax. What can be simpler than that?
With our current tax system, the more money an individual makes, the higher the percentage of that income he gives up in taxes. Why does this not violate the 14th Amendment? It would seem to me that the individuals being taxed at the higher rate are not being given 'equal protection' under the law. They are being treated differently than those with smaller incomes simply because they make more money. What am I missing here?
There Is No Law...
Every tax law must clearly and plainly identify three things:
1) The subject of the tax;
2) The amount of the tax;
3) The persons or entities liable for the tax.
Even a cursory review of other tax laws, including all other federal tax laws (see list), makes it obvious that these three elements of any tax law must be present before any of us can determine that we owe a tax on what and for how much.
The income tax law, however, is the only instance where there is no clear liability provision applicable to those the IRS claims are liable for the tax. Although partners are called liable for taxes on partnerships, that "liability" is only in their "individual capacity", and there is no provision making them liable in their "individual capacity." The only clear liability provision is ? 1461, which specifically assigns liability for the tax to those required to withhold taxes on Nonresident Aliens and Foreign Corporations! Are you required to withhold taxes on a nonresident alien? A foreign corporation?
While 26 U.S.C. ? 3403, which is not part of the income tax law, does require employers to withhold income tax owed by their employees, there is no law that makes the employee liable for the tax in the first place.
Thus, THERE IS NO LAW making the typical working American liable for any income tax.
But you don't have to take our word for it. You can check this for yourself! Search the Internal Revenue Code for "liable", then search for "must pay", "obligated to pay", then search for "responsible for payment" or any other configuration of words that would designate who is liable for the income tax. You will find plenty of liability provisions for other taxes, but not for the income tax.
So, do you owe an income tax? Are you among those required by law to pay an income tax?
All tax laws must be interpreted literally, what lawyers call "strict construction". You have a right to insist that the government obey the law and in the case of tax laws, the letter of the law. ACCORDING TO THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE unless you are withholding taxes on a nonresident alien or a foreign corporation, YOU ARE NOT LIABLE FOR AN INCOME TAX!
YOU DO NOT OWE AN INCOME TAX AND THE IRS HAS NO LAWFUL AUTHORITY FOR DEMANDING THAT YOU PAY AN INCOME TAX!!!
To learn more about this important TRUTH, read "The Memorandum".
Not sure how many Rich people you guys know that actually pay 40%, but most don't. Warren Buffet, that old cheat, is worth billions and he paid a total of 17% and that was only on a "Small Salary" that he gets paid. NOT on the net worth. Anyone making over a million a year pays little in taxs because they have people who tell them how to get around it or hide in tax exempt accounts. Buffet braged how he paid less than his secretary.
The whole system of taxation is one big scam. A progressive tax is unconstitutional and until Americans wake up to the truth of the
corruption in the IRS and the FED, it will continue to get worse until they collapse our whole system of government. The Tax laws are wrote by corporations for corporations. What is the old saying "Money talks,Bull**it walks.
We now have taxation without representation.
If we ever get serious about fixing the system from the top to the bottom we could get a republic of for and by the people back.
Is it to late?
quote:Originally posted by 45long
Not sure how many Rich people you guys know that actually pay 40%, but most don't. Warren Buffet, that old cheat, is worth billions and he paid a total of 17% and that was only on a "Small Salary" that he gets paid. NOT on the net worth. Anyone making over a million a year pays little in taxs because they have people who tell them how to get around it or hide in tax exempt accounts. Buffet braged how he paid less than his secretary.
The whole system of taxation is one big scam. A progressive tax is unconstitutional and until Americans wake up to the truth of the
corruption in the IRS and the FED, it will continue to get worse until they collapse our whole system of government. The Tax laws are wrote by corporations for corporations. What is the old saying "Money talks,Bull**it walks.
We now have taxation without representation.
If we ever get serious about fixing the system from the top to the bottom we could get a republic of for and by the people back.
Is it to late?
Absolute, pure, unadulterated WND BS.
quote:Originally posted by sovereignman
quote:Originally posted by 45long
Not sure how many Rich people you guys know that actually pay 40%, but most don't. Warren Buffet, that old cheat, is worth billions and he paid a total of 17% and that was only on a "Small Salary" that he gets paid. NOT on the net worth. Anyone making over a million a year pays little in taxs because they have people who tell them how to get around it or hide in tax exempt accounts. Buffet braged how he paid less than his secretary.
The whole system of taxation is one big scam. A progressive tax is unconstitutional and until Americans wake up to the truth of the
corruption in the IRS and the FED, it will continue to get worse until they collapse our whole system of government. The Tax laws are wrote by corporations for corporations. What is the old saying "Money talks,Bull**it walks.
We now have taxation without representation.
If we ever get serious about fixing the system from the top to the bottom we could get a republic of for and by the people back.
Is it to late?
Absolute, pure, unadulterated WND BS.
It's a shame, I feel sorry for people like you. The Government has done it's job well.
There is only psycho babble coming out of the US government and the justice department that is attached to it to protect the unlawful acts of the IRS, ATF,CIA, FEC,DOJ, and a host of others telling you how to live like the slave you are.
Take some time to find who and what you are,,, If your intelligent enough and have an attention span long enough to learn.
Here is some reading if you give a damn.
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/citizen.pdf You just may learn something.
Are you smart enough to have an understanding of the case?
http://www.tax-freedom.com/ta05003.htm
If not I will explain it to you. You should educate yourself before shouting BS!
The 16th Amendment:
'Congress can tax your income in any way it wants and spend it in any way it wants'.
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land.
The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and
any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement.
It is impossible for a law, which violates the Constitution to be valid. This is succinctly stated as follows:
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)
"When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.
"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never
been passed." Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality
dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." 16 Am Jur 2nd, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
The 16th Amendment:
'Congress can tax your income in any way it wants and spend it in any way it wants'.
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land.
The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and
any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement.
It is impossible for a law, which violates the Constitution to be valid. This is succinctly stated as follows:
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)
"When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.
"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never
been passed." Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality
dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." 16 Am Jur 2nd, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
The 16th Amendment:
'Congress can tax your income in any way it wants and spend it in any way it wants'.
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land.
The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and
any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement.
It is impossible for a law, which violates the Constitution to be valid. This is succinctly stated as follows:
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)
"When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.
"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never
been passed." Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality
dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." 16 Am Jur 2nd, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256
I have no misconceptions.
A challenge for you Sovereignman:
Given the wording of Amendment 16, how is the current Income Tax System not Constitutional?
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by sovereignman
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
The 16th Amendment:
'Congress can tax your income in any way it wants and spend it in any way it wants'.
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land.
The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and
any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement.
It is impossible for a law, which violates the Constitution to be valid. This is succinctly stated as follows:
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)
"When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.
"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never
been passed." Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality
dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." 16 Am Jur 2nd, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256
I have no misconceptions.
A challenge for you Sovereignman:
Given the wording of Amendment 16, how is the current Income Tax System not Constitutional?
Read this from constitution.org.
In part is states"What the "income tax amendment" did not do, even if ratified, was delegate to Congress any additional powers to collect taxes that it did not already have to collect other kinds of excise taxes, such as were discussed above. Did that include the power to require taxpayers to file returns, signed under penalty of perjury, declaring the volume of commodity sales on which a tax was due? No, it did not. Excise taxes on commodities were assessed by inspectors at inspection points who weighed, counted, or otherwise measured the shipments. Taxpayers might be required to keep and present business records, which were subject to inspection, and taxes might be based on those records, but they were not required to self-report, or sign anything.
There also were no criminal penalties for failure to pay a tax, at least not on the federal level. The power to tax, like the power to regulate, authorized only civil penalties.
There also was no power delegated, outside of federal enclaves, to prosecute anyone for perjury, except pursuant to criminal cases involving the subjects on which Congress had penal powers, namely treason, counterfeiting, piracy or felonies on the high seas, offences against the laws of nations, offenses by military or militia personnel while in federal service, or violations of civil or voting rights under the previous amendments.
Further, there was no power delegated to require civilians to collect other people's taxes by withholding them from wages or other income.
Therefore, the key elements of enforcement of the present income tax system are all unconstitutional, even if the "income tax amendment" had been ratified."
I suggest you take the time to read the whole article.
http://www.constitution.org/col/0711incometax.htm
For those that want the truth of the matter you can read this link.
Dr Burton is correct on his study.
http://www.mackinac.org/1706
Also you can study the 16th amendment ratification here.
http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/
Read this from constitution.org.
In part is states"What the "income tax amendment" did not do, even if ratified, was delegate to Congress any additional powers to collect taxes that it did not already have to collect other kinds of excise taxes, such as were discussed above. Did that include the power to require taxpayers to file returns, signed under penalty of perjury, declaring the volume of commodity sales on which a tax was due? No, it did not. Excise taxes on commodities were assessed by inspectors at inspection points who weighed, counted, or otherwise measured the shipments. Taxpayers might be required to keep and present business records, which were subject to inspection, and taxes might be based on those records, but they were not required to self-report, or sign anything.
There also were no criminal penalties for failure to pay a tax, at least not on the federal level. The power to tax, like the power to regulate, authorized only civil penalties.
There also was no power delegated, outside of federal enclaves, to prosecute anyone for perjury, except pursuant to criminal cases involving the subjects on which Congress had penal powers, namely treason, counterfeiting, piracy or felonies on the high seas, offences against the laws of nations, offenses by military or militia personnel while in federal service, or violations of civil or voting rights under the previous amendments.
Further, there was no power delegated to require civilians to collect other people's taxes by withholding them from wages or other income.
Therefore, the key elements of enforcement of the present income tax system are all unconstitutional, even if the "income tax amendment" had been ratified."
I suggest you take the time to read the whole article.
http://www.constitution.org/col/0711incometax.htm
For those that want the truth of the matter you can read this link.
Dr Burton is correct on his study.
http://www.mackinac.org/1706
Also you can study the 16th amendment ratification here.
http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/
From your first link:
'So, despite confusing or nonexistent court decisions, the question of whether or not the "income tax amendment" was ratified does indeed make a difference, because on that question depends the legality of an income tax on certain kinds of revenue of individuals, especially salaries, wages, and fees for services, which comprises the bulk of the taxes raised by the present income tax system.'
This argument obviously hinges on the irregularities that occurred during the ratification of the 16th, and does not address the issue of the current system being Unconstitutional if the 16th is (as accepted) a part of the U.S. Constitution.
And:
'What the "income tax amendment" did not do, even if ratified, was delegate to Congress any additional powers to collect taxes that it did not already have to collect other kinds of excise taxes, such as were discussed above. Did that include the power to require taxpayers to file returns, signed under penalty of perjury, declaring the volume of commodity sales on which a tax was due? No, it did not. Excise taxes on commodities were assessed by inspectors at inspection points who weighed, counted, or otherwise measured the shipments. Taxpayers might be required to keep and present business records, which were subject to inspection, and taxes might be based on those records, but they were not required to self-report, or sign anything.'
A species argument at best, and only holds water if one assumes that because the specific power to enforce is included in a significant number of Amendments, if it is not included there is no power. This is, frankly, a silly argument, as the power to 'lay and collect' is specifically stated in Amendment 16. There is, absent parsing, a specific power granted, and as Congress can only exercise power through legislation, that power is also included. It is instructive to point out that where a specific power of enforcement is stated, it is typically granted so that Congress can impose upon the states its ideas of how the states should treat their citizens. Absent the granting of Federal Power, these Amendments would be meaningless, as interaction of citizens with the ballot box (the most numerous example by far) is a local and state event.
In the second link, and opinion piece (not a 'study') by a Dr. Folsom, the Constitutionality of the current tax code is only indirectly addressed. It basically states that what we have now is not what was envisioned. While this is true, it certainly does not address the Constitutionality of the current code, as the 16th in its ridiculously simple phrasing, kicked the door wide open.
I did not read all of the third link, but have read similar reports in the past, and basically agree that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified. My question to you, however, was not whether the 16th was properly ratified. The point remains true that if it is a given that the 16th Amendment is a part of the Constitution, the current tax code is not Unconstitutional.
While we may not like it, sort of an overturning of the 16th, everything Congress is currently doing with respect to the levying and collection of Income Taxes is Constitutional.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by sovereignman
Read this from constitution.org.
In part is states"What the "income tax amendment" did not do, even if ratified, was delegate to Congress any additional powers to collect taxes that it did not already have to collect other kinds of excise taxes, such as were discussed above. Did that include the power to require taxpayers to file returns, signed under penalty of perjury, declaring the volume of commodity sales on which a tax was due? No, it did not. Excise taxes on commodities were assessed by inspectors at inspection points who weighed, counted, or otherwise measured the shipments. Taxpayers might be required to keep and present business records, which were subject to inspection, and taxes might be based on those records, but they were not required to self-report, or sign anything.
There also were no criminal penalties for failure to pay a tax, at least not on the federal level. The power to tax, like the power to regulate, authorized only civil penalties.
There also was no power delegated, outside of federal enclaves, to prosecute anyone for perjury, except pursuant to criminal cases involving the subjects on which Congress had penal powers, namely treason, counterfeiting, piracy or felonies on the high seas, offences against the laws of nations, offenses by military or militia personnel while in federal service, or violations of civil or voting rights under the previous amendments.
Further, there was no power delegated to require civilians to collect other people's taxes by withholding them from wages or other income.
Therefore, the key elements of enforcement of the present income tax system are all unconstitutional, even if the "income tax amendment" had been ratified."
I suggest you take the time to read the whole article.
http://www.constitution.org/col/0711incometax.htm
For those that want the truth of the matter you can read this link.
Dr Burton is correct on his study.
http://www.mackinac.org/1706
Also you can study the 16th amendment ratification here.
http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/
From your first link:
'So, despite confusing or nonexistent court decisions, the question of whether or not the "income tax amendment" was ratified does indeed make a difference, because on that question depends the legality of an income tax on certain kinds of revenue of individuals, especially salaries, wages, and fees for services, which comprises the bulk of the taxes raised by the present income tax system.'
This argument obviously hinges on the irregularities that occurred during the ratification of the 16th, and does not address the issue of the current system being Unconstitutional if the 16th is (as accepted) a part of the U.S. Constitution.
And:
'What the "income tax amendment" did not do, even if ratified, was delegate to Congress any additional powers to collect taxes that it did not already have to collect other kinds of excise taxes, such as were discussed above. Did that include the power to require taxpayers to file returns, signed under penalty of perjury, declaring the volume of commodity sales on which a tax was due? No, it did not. Excise taxes on commodities were assessed by inspectors at inspection points who weighed, counted, or otherwise measured the shipments. Taxpayers might be required to keep and present business records, which were subject to inspection, and taxes might be based on those records, but they were not required to self-report, or sign anything.'
A species argument at best, and only holds water if one assumes that because the specific power to enforce is included in a significant number of Amendments, if it is not included there is no power. This is, frankly, a silly argument, as the power to 'lay and collect' is specifically stated in Amendment 16. There is, absent parsing, a specific power granted, and as Congress can only exercise power through legislation, that power is also included. It is instructive to point out that where a specific power of enforcement is stated, it is typically granted so that Congress can impose upon the states its ideas of how the states should treat their citizens. Absent the granting of Federal Power, these Amendments would be meaningless, as interaction of citizens with the ballot box (the most numerous example by far) is a local and state event.
In the second link, and opinion piece (not a 'study') by a Dr. Folsom, the Constitutionality of the current tax code is only indirectly addressed. It basically states that what we have now is not what was envisioned. While this is true, it certainly does not address the Constitutionality of the current code, as the 16th in its ridiculously simple phrasing, kicked the door wide open.
I did not read all of the third link, but have read similar reports in the past, and basically agree that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified. My question to you, however, was not whether the 16th was properly ratified. The point remains true that if it is a given that the 16th Amendment is a part of the Constitution, the current tax code is not Unconstitutional.
While we may not like it, sort of an overturning of the 16th, everything Congress is currently doing with respect to the levying and collection of Income Taxes is Constitutional.
1. The 16th Amendment was never properly ratified. I believe the Benson research is irrefutable as do many thousands of others after doing a study of the ratification process. Either we are a nation of Constitutional law or we are not.
2. Supreme court cases defined the 16th amendment and its application. It did not allow a tax on the income. The Congress never changed the law to make an end run around the court and it's decisions.
3. As I have said in the past the IRS code "NOWHERE" defines income.
If I said you owe a tax on apples you would understand what an apple is as it is defined. By law a thing must be defined, income has never been defined because of Supreme court rulings and Article 1,8 and 9,4.
All I am saying is if Americans ever come out of the dark spot they hide their head in we might have recourse. But you are right to paraphrase your write up in part in that those who carry the biggest stick make the rules. King George did it and so did the good old boys club at Jekyll island in 1913.
This nation is enslaved to the world bankers, and their minions.
A couple cases that won against the IRS.
http://www.truthattack.org/cryer_MEMORANDUM.pdf
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/10/366287.shtml
References for those that want to expand their knowledge.
REFERENCES
(1) "The Federal Reserve Bank", by H.S. Kenan, published by The Noontide Press
(2) National Committee to Repeal the Federal Reserve Act, P.O. Box 156, Westmont, IL 60559
(3) "The New World Order, Saving America", P.O. Box 1205, Middleburg, FL 32050-1205
(4) "Bulletin", February 1989 & November 1991 issues, P.O. Box 986, Ft. Collins, CO 80522 (Newsletter; $3 each)
(5) "The Most Secret Science", Betsy Ross Press, P.O. Box 986, Ft. Collins, CO 80522 (Book) States attempt to abolish the FED. $12.00
(6) "Insider Report", P.O. Box 84903, Phoenix, AZ 85071
(7) "Phoenix Journal Express", P.O. Box 986, Tehachap, CA 93581
(8) $16 trillion in government and private debt, much of which the FED printed and collected interest on (Reference 3)
(9) Northpoint Tactical Team, P.O. Box 129, Topton, NC 28781
(10) Christian Defense League, Box 449, Arabi, LA 70023
(11) "Bulletin", June 1992 issue, P.O. Box 986, Ft. Collins, CO 80522 (Newsletter; $3 each)
(12) "Savings and Loan Unethical Bailout" by Rev. Casimir F. Gierut
(13) "Dark Secrets of the New Age" by Texe Marrs
(14) "En Route to Global Occupation" by Gary H. Kah
(15) "One World" by John Amkerberg & John Weldon
(16) "The Spotlight", Liberty Lobby, 300 Independence Ave. S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003 (Newspaper)
(17) "Repeal the Federal Reserve Banks" by Rev. Casimir Frank Gierut
(18) The Constitution of the United States
(19) "Walls in Our Minds" by M.J. Red Beckman, Common Sense Press, P.O. Box 1544, Billings, MT 59103. A must read book - $2.50
(20) "The Law That Never Was" Volume I, Bill Benson & M.J. Red Beckman, P.O. Box 1544, Billings, MT 59103 or write to Bill Benson, P.O. Box 550, South Holland, IL 60473. Proof that the 16th Amendment (income tax) was never properly ratified.
(21) "New World Order: The Ancient Plan of Secret Societies" by William T. Still
(22) "The Secrets of the Federal Reserve" by Mullins
(23) "The Social Security & Pension Conspiracy" by Metz
(24) "The History of the Federal Reserve. How to Replace It or How to Reform It" by Metz - for references 23 & 24 write to Howard Metz, P.O. Box 341, Malverne, LI 11565
(25) "The New World Order" by Pat Robertson. On page 131 he states that we must abolish the FED.
(26) "Operation Vampire Killer 2000", highly recommended book. $6.00 ($8.00 for 2) from ACLA, P.O. Box 8712, Phoenix, AZ 85066 This is a must read book with quotes from well known people. This book proves conspiracy. Your local police needs to read this book so they will protect you - not become United Nations Agents against you. This book will stop the New World Order plan to take over the U.S.A.
"America Betrayed", Center For Action, 652 N. Glenview, Nesa, AZ 85213
For references 1, 12, and 17, contact The National Committee to Repeal the Federal Reserve Act (Reference 2)
MEDIA BLACKS OUT THE FACTS
And finally Lew Rockwells post of RON PAUL.and abolishing the FED/
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul53.html
Im Done.
1. The 16th Amendment was never properly ratified. I believe the Benson research is irrefutable as do many thousands of others after doing a study of the ratification process. Either we are a nation of Constitutional law or we are not.
2. Supreme court cases defined the 16th amendment and its application. It did not allow a tax on the income. The Congress never changed the law to make an end run around the court and it's decisions.
3. As I have said in the past the IRS code "NOWHERE" defines income.
If I said you owe a tax on apples you would understand what an apple is as it is defined. By law a thing must be defined, income has never been defined because of Supreme court rulings and Article 1,8 and 9,4.
All I am saying is if Americans ever come out of the dark spot they hide their head in we might have recourse. But you are right to paraphrase your write up in part in that those who carry the biggest stick make the rules. King George did it and so did the good old boys club at Jekyll island in 1913.
This nation is enslaved to the world bankers, and their minions.
A couple cases that won against the IRS.
http://www.truthattack.org/cryer_MEMORANDUM.pdf
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/10/366287.shtml
References for those that want to expand their knowledge.
REFERENCES
(1) "The Federal Reserve Bank", by H.S. Kenan, published by The Noontide Press
(2) National Committee to Repeal the Federal Reserve Act, P.O. Box 156, Westmont, IL 60559
(3) "The New World Order, Saving America", P.O. Box 1205, Middleburg, FL 32050-1205
(4) "Bulletin", February 1989 & November 1991 issues, P.O. Box 986, Ft. Collins, CO 80522 (Newsletter; $3 each)
(5) "The Most Secret Science", Betsy Ross Press, P.O. Box 986, Ft. Collins, CO 80522 (Book) States attempt to abolish the FED. $12.00
(6) "Insider Report", P.O. Box 84903, Phoenix, AZ 85071
(7) "Phoenix Journal Express", P.O. Box 986, Tehachap, CA 93581
(8) $16 trillion in government and private debt, much of which the FED printed and collected interest on (Reference 3)
(9) Northpoint Tactical Team, P.O. Box 129, Topton, NC 28781
(10) Christian Defense League, Box 449, Arabi, LA 70023
(11) "Bulletin", June 1992 issue, P.O. Box 986, Ft. Collins, CO 80522 (Newsletter; $3 each)
(12) "Savings and Loan Unethical Bailout" by Rev. Casimir F. Gierut
(13) "Dark Secrets of the New Age" by Texe Marrs
(14) "En Route to Global Occupation" by Gary H. Kah
(15) "One World" by John Amkerberg & John Weldon
(16) "The Spotlight", Liberty Lobby, 300 Independence Ave. S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003 (Newspaper)
(17) "Repeal the Federal Reserve Banks" by Rev. Casimir Frank Gierut
(18) The Constitution of the United States
(19) "Walls in Our Minds" by M.J. Red Beckman, Common Sense Press, P.O. Box 1544, Billings, MT 59103. A must read book - $2.50
(20) "The Law That Never Was" Volume I, Bill Benson & M.J. Red Beckman, P.O. Box 1544, Billings, MT 59103 or write to Bill Benson, P.O. Box 550, South Holland, IL 60473. Proof that the 16th Amendment (income tax) was never properly ratified.
(21) "New World Order: The Ancient Plan of Secret Societies" by William T. Still
(22) "The Secrets of the Federal Reserve" by Mullins
(23) "The Social Security & Pension Conspiracy" by Metz
(24) "The History of the Federal Reserve. How to Replace It or How to Reform It" by Metz - for references 23 & 24 write to Howard Metz, P.O. Box 341, Malverne, LI 11565
(25) "The New World Order" by Pat Robertson. On page 131 he states that we must abolish the FED.
(26) "Operation Vampire Killer 2000", highly recommended book. $6.00 ($8.00 for 2) from ACLA, P.O. Box 8712, Phoenix, AZ 85066 This is a must read book with quotes from well known people. This book proves conspiracy. Your local police needs to read this book so they will protect you - not become United Nations Agents against you. This book will stop the New World Order plan to take over the U.S.A.
"America Betrayed", Center For Action, 652 N. Glenview, Nesa, AZ 85213
For references 1, 12, and 17, contact The National Committee to Repeal the Federal Reserve Act (Reference 2)
MEDIA BLACKS OUT THE FACTS
And finally Lew Rockwells post of RON PAUL.and abolishing the FED/
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul53.html
Im Done.
While I agree with the studies that suggest the 16th was never properly ratified, I would suggest the following:
The lack of a specific definition of 'Income' as a Constitutional defense is lacking, specifically because of the broadness of the 16th. '...incomes, from whatever source derived' negates, IMO, a legitimate challenge as to a definition because the wording is specifically design to eliminate the need for a definition. The wording is designed so poorly, IMO, so as to make abuse and misuse by the Federal Government virtually guaranteed.
1913 was indeed, a sad year for freedom.
Your first link appears faulty, and the second, though a victory over the IRS on the 161 counts, is, IMO a side-show. The Feds arguing that circulating U.S. Gold and Silver coins accepted as pay should be taxed at intrinsic vs. face value? An interesting proposition if I choose to pay my employees in Federal Reserve Notes.[:)]
To add to your reading list:
'The Creature from Jekyll Island' - G. Edward Griffin
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by dlrjj
quote:Originally posted by sovereignman
quote:Originally posted by 45long
Not sure how many Rich people you guys know that actually pay 40%, but most don't. Warren Buffet, that old cheat, is worth billions and he paid a total of 17% and that was only on a "Small Salary" that he gets paid. NOT on the net worth. Anyone making over a million a year pays little in taxs because they have people who tell them how to get around it or hide in tax exempt accounts. Buffet braged how he paid less than his secretary.
The whole system of taxation is one big scam. A progressive tax is unconstitutional and until Americans wake up to the truth of the
corruption in the IRS and the FED, it will continue to get worse until they collapse our whole system of government. The Tax laws are wrote by corporations for corporations. What is the old saying "Money talks,Bull**it walks.
We now have taxation without representation.
If we ever get serious about fixing the system from the top to the bottom we could get a republic of for and by the people back.
Is it to late?
Absolute, pure, unadulterated WND BS.
It's a shame, I feel sorry for people like you. The Government has done it's job well.
There is only psycho babble coming out of the US government and the justice department that is attached to it to protect the unlawful acts of the IRS, ATF,CIA, FEC,DOJ, and a host of others telling you how to live like the slave you are.
Take some time to find who and what you are,,, If your intelligent enough and have an attention span long enough to learn.
Here is some reading if you give a damn.
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/citizen.pdf You just may learn something.
Are you smart enough to have an understanding of the case?
http://www.tax-freedom.com/ta05003.htm
If not I will explain it to you. You should educate yourself before shouting BS!
Pure, delusional BS.
Wear A hat when you're out in the sun.
quote:Originally posted by sovereignman
quote:Originally posted by dlrjj
quote:Originally posted by sovereignman
quote:Originally posted by 45long
Not sure how many Rich people you guys know that actually pay 40%, but most don't. Warren Buffet, that old cheat, is worth billions and he paid a total of 17% and that was only on a "Small Salary" that he gets paid. NOT on the net worth. Anyone making over a million a year pays little in taxs because they have people who tell them how to get around it or hide in tax exempt accounts. Buffet braged how he paid less than his secretary.
The whole system of taxation is one big scam. A progressive tax is unconstitutional and until Americans wake up to the truth of the
corruption in the IRS and the FED, it will continue to get worse until they collapse our whole system of government. The Tax laws are wrote by corporations for corporations. What is the old saying "Money talks,Bull**it walks.
We now have taxation without representation.
If we ever get serious about fixing the system from the top to the bottom we could get a republic of for and by the people back.
Is it to late?
Absolute, pure, unadulterated WND BS.
It's a shame, I feel sorry for people like you. The Government has done it's job well.
There is only psycho babble coming out of the US government and the justice department that is attached to it to protect the unlawful acts of the IRS, ATF,CIA, FEC,DOJ, and a host of others telling you how to live like the slave you are.
Take some time to find who and what you are,,, If your intelligent enough and have an attention span long enough to learn.
Here is some reading if you give a damn.
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/citizen.pdf You just may learn something.
Are you smart enough to have an understanding of the case?
http://www.tax-freedom.com/ta05003.htm
If not I will explain it to you. You should educate yourself before shouting BS!
Pure, delusional BS.
Wear A hat when you're out in the sun.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul53.html
Thanks for all the input but we're a little off course. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the 16th amedment was properly ratified and that it is legal for the government to tax our income. The original question still stands: How can they tax one man differently than another based solely on the amount of money they make? Are all men to be treated the same under the law or not?
"YES"but[ that will never be the case, we have a socialist POTUS in office,we have an amendment (16th)that is illegal and unlawful, we have a communistic progressive income tax system.So your question although a good one is somewhat moot in this system of enslavement.
From the Rothschild Brothers :
The few who understand the (tax)system, will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favors that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantages...will bear its burden without complaint, and perhaps without complaint, and perhaps without suspecting that the system is inimical ["Injurous or harmful in effect; adverse"] to their best interests.
Some that post on this site are an arm of the government, it is in their best interest to keep the statues quo.
Lawfully "YES" all people should be treated equally, but men have been enslaved mentally and physically for generations, there is little hope unless there is an awakening and people decide to take the red pill........................
Thanks for all the input but we're a little off course. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the 16th amedment was properly ratified and that it is legal for the government to tax our income. The original question still stands: How can they tax one man differently than another based solely on the amount of money they make? Are all men to be treated the same under the law or not?
I think you will find the answer in the deliberately vague wording of the 16th. To 'lay and collect taxes on incomes' separates incomes from entities. Corporate incomes; dividend incomes; incomes from the selling of labor; incomes from capital gains, etc. kicks the door wide open for the Federal taking of whatever they wish to take. The 16th needs to be repealed.
It and the 17th (also a product of 1913) fundamentally changed the relationship between the individual and the Federal Government. The 16th empowers Congress to subjugate all individuals, and the 17th places the National Parties in a superior position to the individual states.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by NeoBlackdog
Thanks for all the input but we're a little off course. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the 16th amedment was properly ratified and that it is legal for the government to tax our income. The original question still stands: How can they tax one man differently than another based solely on the amount of money they make? Are all men to be treated the same under the law or not?
I think you will find the answer in the deliberately vague wording of the 16th. To 'lay and collect taxes on incomes' separates incomes from entities. Corporate incomes; dividend incomes; incomes from the selling of labor; incomes from capital gains, etc. kicks the door wide open for the Federal taking of whatever they wish to take. The 16th needs to be repealed.
It and the 17th (also a product of 1913) fundamentally changed the relationship between the individual and the Federal Government. The 16th empowers Congress to subjugate all individuals, and the 17th places the National Parties in a superior position to the individual states.
People only stay free when they have nothing left to loose.
The time will come when people will be forced to decide for true freedom or enslavement in many forms.
quote:Originally posted by NeoBlackdog
With our current tax system, the more money an individual makes, the higher the percentage of that income he gives up in taxes. Why does this not violate the 14th Amendment? It would seem to me that the individuals being taxed at the higher rate are not being given 'equal protection' under the law. They are being treated differently than those with smaller incomes simply because they make more money. What am I missing here?
I'm surprised no one has a clue about our system of taxation.
The IRS was formed after the 16th Amendment that came into being in 1913, giving the (private corporation) Federal Reserve the power to control our fiat currency.
The IRS is totally unconstitutional under our Constitution. It would take too much time to go into taxation and our Constitution here, I suggest you read these few links.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=18060
http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/
http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/
I would ask if you are really that stupid, but I believe you've answered the question.