What is RP's argument that Income is not Federally Taxable

[BLS]

I did a google search and found that the 16th Amendment gave them the right to collect income taxes.

so what is the argument? That the 16th amendment violates other amendments?

 

[LibertyEagle]

Here's the video Freedom to Fascism, if you're interested in seeing it:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173


---------------

And here is the section of the interview that they're talking about in the paper:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4710607797448605118&hl=en

 

[angelatc]

I'm not clear either. My guess, and it is only a guess, is that even though the16th Amendment allows them to pass laws to collect taxes, they never actually did pass the law.

 

[LibertyOrDie]

There are multiple post on this site that have covered this.

Watch "America: Freedom to Fascism" - Ron Paul is in it. This will explain most, or at least getting you studying the right information.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173

 

[KingTheoden]

I did a google search and found that the 16th Amendment gave them the right to collect income taxes.

so what is the argument? That the 16th amendment violates other amendments?

In part, yes. But primary the issue is that 'income' has never been defined to mean wages. Think of it this way: when I work for someone, I am trading my labor for capital (dollars). There is no profit here because the mutual benefit is by definition an equilibrium. The tax was initially sold to the country as being one that would tax income on capital i.e. the appreciation of money in some investment.

There is also serious question about whether the 16 Amendment was properly ratified (some states passed different versions- something that is unconstitutional but Wilson's Secretary of State did not care).

 

[denvervoipguru]

List of related Facts on this Issue...

http://perspectives.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=113076&forum_id=98

 

[Trevorjustco]

In part, yes. But primary the issue is that 'income' has never been defined to mean wages. Think of it this way: when I work for someone, I am trading my labor for capital (dollars). There is no profit here because the mutual benefit is by definition an equilibrium. The tax was initially sold to the country as being one that would tax income on capital i.e. the appreciation of money in some investment.

There is also serious question about whether the 16 Amendment was properly ratified (some states passed different versions- something that is unconstitutional but Wilson's Secretary of State did not care).

Wilson's secretary of state DID care, but considered the notion that a misplaced semi-colon, missing plurals, or improperly capitalized words were irrelevant to the content of the amendments which the states approved, and he went ahead and declared the amendment ratified.
People here will say that the amendment was not ratified by the states, but that is frankly nonsense. The requisite number of states ratified the amendment, and thus it was declared an amendment.

I know I'm going to get shat on for saying this, but it must be said:
Income tax is legal, and Aaron Russo is (was?) a right-wing Michael Moore. A:F to F is a factually inaccurate hatchet-job "shockumentary" like any of Moore's.


As for income not being properly defined:

For the present purpose we require only a clear definition of the term ‘income,’ as used in common speech, in order to determine its meaning in the amendment....

Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206-7 (1935), (holding that “Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets.” 252 U.S. at 207).


Ultimately, the war must be waged on and through legislation. Legal battles will be pointless.

 

[Blowback]

I will fight against it regardless of legality because of the immorality of it.

A tax on wages means slavery. Except it's only 25... 30... 40... 50% slavery.

You may get no services in return and you will be imprisoned (or worse) if you do not comply.

There are certainly a lot of strong arguments that it is illegal as well. There is no debate that the tax IS AGAINST what the founders wanted (as is true of 95% of our gov. today).

No matter what don't let anyway tell you that the IRS has refuted all of the claims. Of course they would say that. They are criminal mercenary thugs.

Do your research and decide for yourself.

 

[torchbearer]

I did a google search and found that the 16th Amendment gave them the right to collect income taxes.

so what is the argument? That the 16th amendment violates other amendments?

With a little bit of research and calling your state government, you'll find that the 16th amendment was never ratified by the states. A small little detail that didn't keep them from sticking it on the constitution as a legal amendment.

 

[Aeschylus]

The 16th was not ratified and even if it is argued that it was, the Supreme Court ruled on multiple occasions that it did NOT add any new tax to the American People. A tax on labor is Unconstitutional and is considered slavery.

 

[burnice]

I will fight against it regardless of legality because of the immorality of it.

A tax on wages means slavery. Except it's only 25... 30... 40... 50% slavery.

You may get no services in return and you will be imprisoned (or worse) if you do not comply.

There are certainly a lot of strong arguments that it is illegal as well. There is no debate that the tax IS AGAINST what the founders wanted (as is true of 95% of our gov. today).

No matter what don't let anyway tell you that the IRS has refuted all of the claims. Of course they would say that. They are criminal mercenary thugs.

Do your research and decide for yourself.

This is kinda my take on the situation as well. Who knows whether the income tax laws in this country are "legal" or "Constitutional," but one thing is for sure -- that a graduated income tax is a plank of the communist manifesto.

 

[BLS]

http://perspectives.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=113076&forum_id=98

wow...thanks!

 

[LibertyOrDie]

I know I'm going to get shat on for saying this, but it must be said:
Income tax is legal, and Aaron Russo is (was?) a right-wing Michael Moore. A:F to F is a factually inaccurate hatchet-job "shockumentary" like any of Moore's.

Just to save me some time, I copied this from a rant I had on another site, but I think it is pretty relevant to this issue.

"That is simple. In the Colonies, we issue our own paper money. It is called 'Colonial Scrip.' We issue it in proper proportion to make the goods and pass easily from the producers to the consumers. In this manner, creating ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power and we have no interest to pay to no one." -- Benjamin Franklin

"The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters, had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction. The inability of the colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George III and the International Bankers was the Prime reason for the Revolutionary War." -- Benjamin Franklin

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." -- Thomas Jefferson

The Federal Reserve and IRS are exactly the kind of institutions our Founding Fathers fought against for our freedoms. America lasted over a hundred years without the need, until our government was tricked into establishing the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Woodrow Wilson, the acting President at the time even regretted his mistake:

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -- Woodrow Wilson

Which, of course, the Federal Reserve Act lead to the 16th Amendment that is claimed to have allowed for the IRS to collect Income Tax. Which many argue was never properly ratified. See the court case from 2003 - United States District Court: Sullivan vs. USA.
http://www.givemeliberty.org/rtplawsuit/...

"I think if you were to go back and try to find and review the ratification of the 16th Amendment, which was the internal revenue, Income Tax, I think if you went back and examined that carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment." -- Federal Judge James C. Fox (page 23)

But the ratification doesn't even matter, since we don't have any courts with enough guts to rule on it ( also discussed by Judge James C. Fox in the previous case), because the 16th Amendment did not authorize any new tax. Check Supreme Court case Brushaber v. Union Pacific, this is what a 1980 Congressional Research Report stated about it:

"The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White, first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution... Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes were still subject to the rule of uniformity." -- 1980 Congressional Research Report

This is also backed up by Supreme Court case: Stanton v. Baltic, "...the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation..."

I think it is pretty obvious where the law is. Which is exactly what Ed and Elaine Brown stated, "Show us the law and we will pay!". They even stated that they would be willing to pay any penalties and interest, if just shown the law.

They requested this in a letter to the IRS every month since 1995 or 1996 ( not positive on the year they started this ). After receiving no response from the IRS after 2 years, they decided not to pay their Income Tax until they were shown a law. When they were charged and taken to court, the judge would not allow them to have any witnesses, cross-exam the prosecution's witnesses, or even make a statement to the jury. How are you suppose to make a defense?!!

As for the people that question how the country will run if we have no Income Tax, how will things get paid for? It is simple, I will put this in very basic terms. Congress wants money for something, they have the Constitutional authority to create it, but instead they go to the Federal Reserve ( a private corporation ) and ask for X amount of money. The Federal Reserve creates this out of thin air, and agrees to give it to Congress with interest.

Now look at this, if I create the money, and you come to me and ask for $100.00 and I say sure, but you owe me $110.00 back. Then I create the $100.00 and never create the extra $10.00, how are you suppose to pay me back? You can't, you have to come back and borrow more, just to pay me back. See why our Founding Fathers saw this as slavery. Now, mind you, it is even more complex than that, but in simple terms, that is exactly what it equates to.

So when you pay your Income Tax to the IRS, all you are paying is that $10.00 interest on the loan. It is pure profit to a private corporation. Schools, roads, etc. are paid by other taxes and licenses ( i.e. Sales Tax, City Tax, State Tax, DMV, etc. ). You see, people that don't support the Income Tax, aren't against all taxes, just the Income Tax.

Well, I have ranted enough. There is more but, I'll save it for another time. Also, look into HJR-192.​

 

[foofighter20x]

The 16th was not ratified and even if it is argued that it was, the Supreme Court ruled on multiple occasions that it did NOT add any new tax to the American People. A tax on labor is Unconstitutional and is considered slavery.

What you are citing is a passage in a USSC ruling that is continually taken out of context.

What the USSC said, were you to read the whole thing, is that the 16th created no new power to tax, but instead delimited the scope of income taxation.

That is: Congress already had the power to tax incomes, but only so long as it apportioned the amounts to the States in proportion to their populations. The 16th simply removed the requirement for apportionment.

 

[Trevorjustco]

Just to save me some time, I copied this from a rant I had on another site, but I think it is pretty relevant to this issue.

Quotes
Valid points
Invalid points
Misrepresentations of court judgements​

I am just saying, those people who are suggesting that the IRS is some bully who is trying to enforce laws that don't exist and "don't want anyone to know this dirty secret" are not based in reality, and will only come off as such should they attempt to say these things to people less tolerant of such views.

Income tax is legal in the here and now(Title 26 of the U.S. Code). Whether it was the founding fathers' intentions to allow income taxes or not is another thing, and really is irrelevant to the world of jurisprudence.

 

[emilysdad]

I did a google search and found that the 16th Amendment gave them the right to collect income taxes.

so what is the argument? That the 16th amendment violates other amendments?

The 16th Amendment was not ratified by the required 3/4 of the states:

http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/home.asp

 

[foofighter20x]

The 16th Amendment was not ratified by the required 3/4 of the states:

http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/home.asp

Using the same argument they use for the 16th amendment, then it could also be argued the Bill of Rights was never ratified either...

Just sayin'

 

[AZJV]

The truth of the matter is that the legal definition of "income" from clear back in the colonial days meant "profit" from business and corporations. NEVER did it include payment in exchange for labor. That definition has NEVER been legally changed.
Watch this video and get the true facts on income taxing. It is wonderful and very educational.

Theft By Deception - Deciphering The Federal Income Tax 1hr 28 min
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8325647335088938687

Trust me , you won't be sorry you watched it.

 

[PatriotOne]

The truth of the matter is that the legal definition of "income" from clear back in the colonial days meant "profit" from business and corporations. NEVER did it include payment in exchange for labor. That definition has NEVER been legally changed.
Watch this video and get the true facts on income taxing. It is wonderful and very educational.

Theft By Deception - Deciphering The Federal Income Tax 1hr 28 min
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8325647335088938687

Trust me , you won't be sorry you watched it.

I was just looking for that video to post here. It may be as little dry but it is an excellent video that explains in detail why FIT are illegal and how they went about tricking the public to believe otherwise.

I highly recommend everybody watch this video as we will probably have to defend Ron's position in blogosphere. This will help some people to understand the issues.

 

[DrStrabismus]

I think Ron's argument, I've heard him make this argument for several other topics anyway, would revolve around the original intent. He would probably suggest looking at the history of it and seeing what the people who wrote it were intending it to do and stick to that.