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

[Erazmus]

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.

That was weird. I tried the link you posted; it initially tried to load, and then said the video "might not be available, try to reload." Now it just says it’s unavailable.

*edit* Really strange, it's working now.

 

[Trevorjustco]

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.

No, the truth of the matter is that the legal definition of "income" from clear back in the colonial days included funds paid to employees that was DERIVED FROM profit.
If "profit" was legally equivalent to "income," then how come they are/were not used interchangeably?

 

[Swmorgan77]

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?

That's wrong. The Supreme court ruled 8 separate times after the 16th was "passed" that it did not grant any new taxation powers. Furthermore, there would still have to be a Federal law requiring it which there is not. The amendment simply pretends to allow the Federal government the power to tax, but without the existence of an actual law creating the tax liability itself it still is not there.

Also, the 16h amendment is provable to not have been legally ratified, but this is a red herring since it doesn't grant the power anyway according to the Supreme Court.

Check out this film for the details: http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...908&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

 

[Trevorjustco]

That's wrong. The Supreme court ruled 8 separate times after the 16th was "passed" that it did not grant any new taxation powers. Furthermore, there would still have to be a Federal law requiring it which there is not.

Also, the 16h amendment is provable to not have been legally ratified, but this is a red herring since it doesn't grant the power anyway according to the Supreme Court.

Check out this film for the details: http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...908&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

If you would read the complete rulings (Brushaber and Stanton) you would realize that the Supreme Court's rulings that while the 16th amendment did not grant new powers to tax incomes, it merely permanently clarified that the income tax was an indirect tax. It was established before the passage of the 16th amendment that the federal government could tax income.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am16

Your assertion that the 16th amendment does not say what it clearly says is utter lunacy.

 

[kylejack]

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'

Please explain what the heck you're talking about. 12 amendments were submitted for ratification and ten passed by 11/14 (78.6%), becoming the first ten amendments to the Constitution.

" * New Jersey, November 20, 1789; rejected article II
* Maryland, December 19, 1789; approved all
* North Carolina, December 22, 1789; approved all
* South Carolina, January 19, 1790; approved all
* New Hampshire, January 25, 1790; rejected article II
* Delaware, January 28, 1790; rejected article I
* New York, February 27, 1790; rejected article II
* Pennsylvania, March 10, 1790; rejected article II
* Rhode Island, June 7, 1790; rejected article II
* Vermont, November 3, 1791; approved all
* Virginia, December 15, 1791; approved all"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#Ratification_dates

The Sixteenth Amendment, on the other hand, was not ratified by 75% of the states. It was announced as ratified even though the bar had not been met.

Anyway, the legal argument is pretty pointless. Income tax should be fought on practical and ethical grounds instead.

 

[foofighter20x]

Please explain what the heck you're talking about. 12 amendments were submitted for ratification and ten passed by 11/14 (78.6%), becoming the first ten amendments to the Constitution.

" * New Jersey, November 20, 1789; rejected article II
* Maryland, December 19, 1789; approved all
* North Carolina, December 22, 1789; approved all
* South Carolina, January 19, 1790; approved all
* New Hampshire, January 25, 1790; rejected article II
* Delaware, January 28, 1790; rejected article I
* New York, February 27, 1790; rejected article II
* Pennsylvania, March 10, 1790; rejected article II
* Rhode Island, June 7, 1790; rejected article II
* Vermont, November 3, 1791; approved all
* Virginia, December 15, 1791; approved all"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#Ratification_dates

The Sixteenth Amendment, on the other hand, was not ratified by 75% of the states. It was announced as ratified even though the bar had not been met.

Anyway, the legal argument is pretty pointless. Income tax should be fought on practical and ethical grounds instead.

What you've provided from Wikipedia doesn't prove your case.

Ratification isn't a simple up or down vote in most cases. Typically, the state legislature submits a bill on the floor of either of its two houses (if they have two) in which the proposed amendment is copied.

The copies of the amendment don't always have the same capitalization, punctuation, or wording, and even if they do, that doesn't guarantee they don't get altered by the state lawmakers via statehouse amendments to the proposed amendment.

More here. (Since you like Wikipedia)

 

[kylejack]

What you've provided from Wikipedia doesn't prove your case.

Ratification isn't a simple up or down vote in most cases. Typically, the state legislature submits a bill on the floor of either of its two houses (if they have two) in which the proposed amendment is copied.

The copies of the amendment don't always have the same capitalization, punctuation, or wording, and even if they do, that doesn't guarantee they don't get altered by the state lawmakers via statehouse amendments to the proposed amendment.

More here. (Since you like Wikipedia)

I wasn't trying to "prove a case", I was discussing this with you. The wikipedia entry on the Sixteenth Amendment does not address Benson's most critical claims, llike the fact that it was reported as ratified in Kentucky and other states when the legislature had not actually ratified it.

To wit:

Knox had received responses from 42 states when he declared the 16th amendment ratified on February 25, 1913, just a few days before leaving office to make way for the administration of Woodrow Wilson. Knox acknowledged that four of those states (Utah, Conn, R.I. and N.H.) had rejected it, and he counted 38 states as having approved it. We will now examine some of the key evidence Bill Benson found regarding the approval of the amendment in many of those states.

In Kentucky, the legislature acted on the amendment without even having received it from the governor (the governor of each state was to transmit the proposed amendment to the state legislature). The version of the amendment that the Kentucky legislature made up and acted upon omitted the words "on income" from the text, so they weren't even voting on an income tax! When they straightened that out (with the help of the governor), the Kentucky senate rejected the amendment. Yet Philander Knox counted Kentucky as approving it!

In Oklahoma, the legislature changed the wording of the amendment so that its meaning was virtually the opposite of what was intended by Congress, and this was the version they sent back to Knox. Yet Knox counted Oklahoma as approving it, despite a memo from his chief legal counsel, Reuben Clark, that states were not allowed to change it in any way.

Attorneys who have studied the subject have agreed that Kentucky and Oklahoma should not have been counted as approvals by Philander Knox, and, moreover, if any state could be shown to have violated its own state constitution or laws in its approval process, then that state's approval would have to be thrown out. That gets us past the "presumptive conclusion" argument, which says that the actions of an executive official cannot be judged by a court, and admits that Knox could be wrong.

http://www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/notratified.htm

 

[dude58677]

Congress does not have the power to punish tax evaders only the States are to punish tax evaders. It only has the power to punish treason, counterfitting, and piracy on the high seas.

 

[ecliptic]

precisely

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.

precisely!

Tax was intended to be levied on the gains of corporations, never on the wages of working stiffs. By returning to constitutionally intended taxation and eliminating all corporate tax-dodging of any kind we can achieve a fair and approximately 40% - 60% smaller federal government. I think there is easily 40% of uselessness and corruption we could cut right out of the federal budget, though the screaming and wails of agony from whatever affected special interests would be heard across the land from sea to shining sea!!!

 

[kylejack]

Congress does not have the power to punish tax evaders only the States are to punish tax evaders. It only has the power to punish treason, counterfitting, and piracy on the high seas.

Yeah, but that's a more generalized argument, and tougher to prosecute as it would invalidate quite a few federal crimes.

 

[foofighter20x]

Congress does not have the power to punish tax evaders only the States are to punish tax evaders. It only has the power to punish treason, counterfitting, and piracy on the high seas.

You left out offenses against treaties...

I hate to counter ya, but this is where the Necessary and Proper Clause comes into play.

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for
carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other
powers vested by this Constitution in the government of
the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.​

What good is making federal laws if they can't enforce them?

 

[kylejack]

You left out offenses against treaties...

I hate to counter ya, but this is where the Necessary and Proper Clause comes into play.

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for
carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other
powers vested by this Constitution in the government of
the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.​

What good is making federal laws if they can't enforce them?

Necessary and proper to carry into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States. That gives them the power to enact laws for vested powers, not for infinite powers. A federal law against murder, for example, is not based on any vested power in the current format. Maybe if they were to limit it to murder on the seas they could tie it to piracy.

 

[Erazmus]

I found this article interesting.

http://www.ottoskinner.com/articles/breakthrough.html

 

[foofighter20x]

Necessary and proper to carry into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States. That gives them the power to enact laws for vested powers, not for infinite powers. A federal law against murder, for example, is not based on any vested power in the current format. Maybe if they were to limit it to murder on the seas they could tie it to piracy.

Umm... Helloooooo... One of those foregoing powers in Article I, Section 8 was the power to levy taxes...

Thanks for playing.

 

[kylejack]

Umm... Helloooooo... One of those foregoing powers in Article I, Section 8 was the power to levy taxes...

Thanks for playing.

Yes, when properly apportioned, and the Sixteenth Amendment purported to remove the apportionment requirement, and we find ourselves back at the ratification argument. You're welcome.

 

[DrStrabismus]

It seems to me that contending that there is no law now is just asking for them to write a law that makes it absolutely explicit and that would not be an improvement. It might be better to base the case against the tax on philosophical grounds rather than legal grounds. If everyone comes to the agreement that it is a bad idea philosophically, then the practice will stop, but if everyone comes to the conclusion that it is not legal, then congress will just close the loopholes and we'll still get taxed all the same.

 

[foofighter20x]

Yes, when properly apportioned, and the Sixteenth Amendment purported to remove the apportionment requirement, and we find ourselves back at the ratification argument. You're welcome.

Haha... You are trying to have your cake and eat it too...

A lot of the tax protestor articles claim that the income tax was an excise tax (thus an indirect tax). The USSC then ruled in Pollack that some income taxes are indirect and some aren't (those being direct taxes subject to apportionment). So... The 16th Amendment was proposed and--questionably--ratified to remove the limitation of apportionment from the income taxes considered to be direct taxes.

The USSC later tried the question over whether the ratification was in fact legit, and found it to be so. Question it all you want, but I doubt the courts are going to overturn that decision...

Besides, you said yourself the ratification argument is pointless and that we should combat it from a moral and ethical standpoint. So then, why are you arguing the very point you said was irrelevant?

Let's just get Dr Paul elected, k?

 

[acstichter]

It's a law, live with it or CHANGE IT

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 1
§ 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.


http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/taxprot.htm


http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159932,00.html


Aaron Russo's film was non objective. I learned alot from it, but I found the counter points against it much more legitimate.

"I've read the law"
"There is a law"

NOW CHANGE IT!

 

[foofighter20x]

26 USC 6011 - Looks like a requirement to file to me...

 

[constituent14]

Here is a suggestion looking at this from the "philosophical" perspective...

It is my opinnion that when one individual comes to terms with an organization/employer that they will provide that organization with X# of hours out of their lives in exchange for X# of dollars, and both parties agree a sale has taken place. The employer needed the labor in order to create a product or service so that the company might generate some revenue, just as we purchase gas (or any number of things) because we need to drive to work so that we may ensure incoming revenue.

What happens when you purchase non-food items? You are charged a percentage of the goods' retail value as a sales tax, since something was sold and something was purchased. You pay this tax at the point-of-sale and it is the retailer's duty to forward those taxes on to the govt.

I do not see why selling your time/labor (because that is what you are doing when you work for someone, selling it) should be treated any differently than selling any other good or service. Your employer figures the expense of paying you into the price of their goods. That expense is then passed to the consumer who in turn pays a higher sales tax (X percent of Y increase in cost).

So, why should the system of taxation work any differently for labor? How about workers charge their employer the appropriate rate of sales tax based on their locality. When the employer purchases your labor (via paycheck) this tax should be included in the total printed on your check. (The best part, if you want to be pro-business, allow for the employers to deduct this sales tax from any number of other taxes they already pay). Then it will be the responsibility of the employee to forward that tax money on to the appropriate "authorities," just as it currently stands for retailers and independent contractors.

Furthermore, if you want to get philosophical with your attacks on the income tax system this is the answer. Because think about it, when you borrow money from an institution you are charged interest as the fee for the liquidity sacrificed by the lending institution (if you Keynesian, which our gov't is). In our system they are thereby entitled to some degree of return. As long as you are a bank or connected to a bank... b/c...

You know that much of your income tax will ultimately be refunded (ignoring the invisible inflation tax), but nevertheless it irks you every two weeks to see that a significant portion of your day (atleast your first two hours) you spent working for the govt. But you say, "oh it's ok b/c i'll be happy when that return check arrives in the mail." However the check will be missing any interest payment for your sacrifice in liquidity. Shouldn't you be able to charge the gov't atleast the current interest rate as set by the (uggh!) Fed?