An update on recent technical problems and more from the admin: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/250292/on-technical-difficulties-mod-coverage-and-other-things/p1?new=1
Options
U.S. Income Tax... Illegal?
Confuz
Registered User new member
Registered User new member
I just don't know anymore.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=18060
Yes, I know the Gov't is allowed to collect taxes based on the ORIGINAL articles of the U.S. Constitution.
But that is worded: 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;"
"all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"
Article I, section 2, clause 3 and Article I, section 9, clause 4 of the Constitution state that all direct taxes are required to be apportioned among the states according to population. This essentially means that the dollar amount of direct taxes imposed on the taxpayers in any given state is required to bear a relationship to the total dollar amount of direct taxes imposed in the entire nation that is equal to the ratio of that state's population to the total population of the nation.
That itallicized text is an interpretation only, not Constitutional quote.
This was before the 16th Amendment, which removes the enumeration and census clause which was originally worded in the constitution as -
"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."
It simply means that any direct tax must be collected by the state and that the total tax that the Federal govt's collects from any state is equivelent to it's population percentage of the nation.
If Texas has 10% of the population, it pays 10% of the direct income taxes. If New York has 20% of the population, it pays 20% of the national income tax, etc etc.
This is a quote from the closing opinion of the presiding Supreme Court Judges of LOUGHBOROUGH v. BLAKE. (1820)
"The 4th paragraph of the 9th section of the same article will next be considered. It is in these words: 'No capitation, or other direct tax, shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census, or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.' [18 U.S. 317, 321] The census referred to is in that clause of the constitution which has just been considered, which makes numbers the standard by which both representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the States. The actual enumeration is to be made 'within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct.'
As the direct and declared object of this census is, to furnish a standard by which 'representatives, and direct taxes, may be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union,' it will be admitted, that the omission to extend it to the district or the territories, would not render it defective. The census referred to is admitted to be a census exhibiting the numbers of the respective States. It cannot, however, be admitted, that the argument which limits the application of the power of direct taxation to the population contained in this census, is a just one. The language of the clause does not imply this restriction. It is not that 'no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless on those comprehended within the census herein before directed to be taken,' but 'unless in proportion to' that census. Now this proportion may be applied to the district or territories. If an enumeration be taken of the population in the district and territories, on the same principles on which the enumeration of the respective States is made, then the information is acquired by which a direct tax may be imposed on the district and territories, 'in proportion to the [18 U.S. 317, 322] census or enumeration' which the constitution directs to be taken."
Originally this case was about wether or not the U.S. Gov't even had the jurisdiction to lay direct taxes on those inside the District of Columbia (Um...it does, incase you were curious).
In a nutshell, there was NO direct, personal federal income tax before the 16th Amendment, since the wording before then made it impossible.
Now this same clause reads:
"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."
Which allows full personal income taxes to be collected from all United States citizens.
The question is, should this amendment ever been officially ratified by the United States?
And I don't care if Wikipedia says they did. It's Wikipedia. I could go there now and edit in that the states sent a "Fuck you" memo and the ratification was a massive hoax. I went there for an interpretation, not hard facts.
William J. Benson has submitted a brief to his trial that he has been under regarding his refusal to pay Federal income Taxes.
It explains, in detail, why the 16th Amendment was never constitutionaly ratified.
http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/00_images/16th.final.pdf
3/4 Of the states must ratify an amendment for it to become an official Constitutional Amendment.
More importantly, every state must ratify the SAME Amendment.
Word for word. Perfect punctuation and capitalization. It must be, in essence, a photocopy. Because far too often, a single misspelled or misplaced word can completely reverse the meaning of a statement. Even a comma in the wrong place is unacceptable.
3/4s of the states must ratify the SAME amendment, period. (Now you get why we need grammer nazis? =p)
The 16th amendment was never properly ratified, which, in turn, make the Federal Income Tax uncontitutional.
Ok...I get what you're thinking.
"Pay your dues, bum. You don't get to evade taxes on some frickin' comma."
Fair enough, but I already pay taxes. Sales tax for one, property, etc.
To be honest, I wouldn't care so damn much if our taxes were put to better use. Our education ranking in the world is abyssmal, seriously. Our space program is currently a joke compared to its past progress.
Our Fed taxes are primarily used on 2 things:
Pays our national debt to ourselves (To the Federal Reserve Bank, which I don't actually consider "ourselves") and the War. Both which basically make the rich richer.
It confuses me so.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=18060
Yes, I know the Gov't is allowed to collect taxes based on the ORIGINAL articles of the U.S. Constitution.
But that is worded: 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;"
"all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"
Article I, section 2, clause 3 and Article I, section 9, clause 4 of the Constitution state that all direct taxes are required to be apportioned among the states according to population. This essentially means that the dollar amount of direct taxes imposed on the taxpayers in any given state is required to bear a relationship to the total dollar amount of direct taxes imposed in the entire nation that is equal to the ratio of that state's population to the total population of the nation.
That itallicized text is an interpretation only, not Constitutional quote.
This was before the 16th Amendment, which removes the enumeration and census clause which was originally worded in the constitution as -
"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."
It simply means that any direct tax must be collected by the state and that the total tax that the Federal govt's collects from any state is equivelent to it's population percentage of the nation.
If Texas has 10% of the population, it pays 10% of the direct income taxes. If New York has 20% of the population, it pays 20% of the national income tax, etc etc.
This is a quote from the closing opinion of the presiding Supreme Court Judges of LOUGHBOROUGH v. BLAKE. (1820)
"The 4th paragraph of the 9th section of the same article will next be considered. It is in these words: 'No capitation, or other direct tax, shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census, or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.' [18 U.S. 317, 321] The census referred to is in that clause of the constitution which has just been considered, which makes numbers the standard by which both representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the States. The actual enumeration is to be made 'within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct.'
As the direct and declared object of this census is, to furnish a standard by which 'representatives, and direct taxes, may be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union,' it will be admitted, that the omission to extend it to the district or the territories, would not render it defective. The census referred to is admitted to be a census exhibiting the numbers of the respective States. It cannot, however, be admitted, that the argument which limits the application of the power of direct taxation to the population contained in this census, is a just one. The language of the clause does not imply this restriction. It is not that 'no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless on those comprehended within the census herein before directed to be taken,' but 'unless in proportion to' that census. Now this proportion may be applied to the district or territories. If an enumeration be taken of the population in the district and territories, on the same principles on which the enumeration of the respective States is made, then the information is acquired by which a direct tax may be imposed on the district and territories, 'in proportion to the [18 U.S. 317, 322] census or enumeration' which the constitution directs to be taken."
Originally this case was about wether or not the U.S. Gov't even had the jurisdiction to lay direct taxes on those inside the District of Columbia (Um...it does, incase you were curious).
In a nutshell, there was NO direct, personal federal income tax before the 16th Amendment, since the wording before then made it impossible.
Now this same clause reads:
"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."
Which allows full personal income taxes to be collected from all United States citizens.
The question is, should this amendment ever been officially ratified by the United States?
And I don't care if Wikipedia says they did. It's Wikipedia. I could go there now and edit in that the states sent a "Fuck you" memo and the ratification was a massive hoax. I went there for an interpretation, not hard facts.
William J. Benson has submitted a brief to his trial that he has been under regarding his refusal to pay Federal income Taxes.
It explains, in detail, why the 16th Amendment was never constitutionaly ratified.
http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/00_images/16th.final.pdf
3/4 Of the states must ratify an amendment for it to become an official Constitutional Amendment.
More importantly, every state must ratify the SAME Amendment.
Word for word. Perfect punctuation and capitalization. It must be, in essence, a photocopy. Because far too often, a single misspelled or misplaced word can completely reverse the meaning of a statement. Even a comma in the wrong place is unacceptable.
3/4s of the states must ratify the SAME amendment, period. (Now you get why we need grammer nazis? =p)
The 16th amendment was never properly ratified, which, in turn, make the Federal Income Tax uncontitutional.
Ok...I get what you're thinking.
"Pay your dues, bum. You don't get to evade taxes on some frickin' comma."
Fair enough, but I already pay taxes. Sales tax for one, property, etc.
To be honest, I wouldn't care so damn much if our taxes were put to better use. Our education ranking in the world is abyssmal, seriously. Our space program is currently a joke compared to its past progress.
Our Fed taxes are primarily used on 2 things:
Pays our national debt to ourselves (To the Federal Reserve Bank, which I don't actually consider "ourselves") and the War. Both which basically make the rich richer.
It confuses me so.
Confuz on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
And we decided that the income tax was about as illegal as Texas is.
Did you decide wrong?
I am pretty sure that these sort of claims are usually dismissed as frivolous nonsense by judges whenever these cases have been brought forth.
Before the whole "Oh no, there is no actual law stipulating the payment of an income tax to the Federal Government", this site actually goes through the law bit by bit that actually requires you to pay taxes:
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/JustNoLaw.htm
As for the whole sixteenth amendment argument, again, the courts have uniformly rejected these claims, I can get you a list of cases if that would help.
Also for the most part, the majority of tax revenue goes into the wonderful endeavor that is Social Security, which many people appreciate, at least while it lasts.
I wonder where you're getting it from?
Apparently not since William J. Benson was convicted of tax evasion.
But the gist of it is that
As for our tax system in general, I'm pretty interested in the Fair Tax
Isn't a fair tax just a flat tax implemented as a sales tax for everyone? The sort of tax that will just eat up more of the relative wealth of low income citizens? Basically screwing over the middle and lower classes? Also, some nonsense about rebates for the poor? Which again, goes back to taxing people differently dependent on their income? Defeating the point of a flat tax?
Personally I'm in favor of the Fair Tax, with a twist. Anything that costs a certain amount, let's say $1 million, gets a higher tax percentage. So poor people don't get taxes as much on food, and rich people still pay more taxes for their mega-yacht or something. (The only exception for the money limit would be for housing.)
What would the federal government do without income tax?
May this thread (and the topic) die a peaceful death.
Exactly what it did before there was an income tax.
After reading a good portion of the main book in favor of it, though, it's pretty clear it's right-wing douchebaggery. I think it's concept could be adapted, however, to make it more fair, just not in a way it's founders would ever want.
This is correct.
We already have this system. In place. Right now.
I think this proves to show that the people who favor flat tax either would directly benefit from it in the form of paying less taxes, or don't know what they're talking about.
Which was? My american history is rusty.
And if you try these arguments, the courts will rape you anally. Ask Wesley Snipes.
And you get further negative points for posting a WND link.
Next question?
Also. to whoever is questioning the legality:
And I can't help but think that wouldn't really work for a nation of a third of a billion.
Whored itself out to 1,000 fat chicks.
For 2.1 Billion dollars a piece.
Because the Federal Government does things in the bed that you would not believe.
I just install it, then click on the button for the form in my hand, and fill the form on the screen in so it looks like the one in my hand. The program does the rest. Then you submit it electronically, and my check arrives in the mail.
Like audits.
Honey, I will audit you so hard you won't be able to sit down tomorrow.
Because her chair will be gone.
While I know that in most states you can't buy liquor after a certain time (midnight usually), are the others actually illegal as well? (I'm certain the gum chewing isn't)
You do know that thy guy who directed that is $2M in the hole from tax liability, right?
And to head off any further discussion, the law that says you have to pay income tax is 26 USC 1.
While national liquor laws were repealed, local governments were allowed to regulate.
Also, it's the 21st amendment which is why the drinking age isn't federally mandated.
I'm Pro-Tax, and all you Pro-Free-Trade fuckers are babykillres12@!