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

[1776jedi]

Interest on taxes

Oddly the IRS will charge interest on your taxes that they have deducted from your paycheck when you fail to file a return. On the other I want to know exactly where that withheld tax sits all year until it is refunded to me. Is it in a bank account held by the Treasury or does it go directly to the FED to earn interest for them? Either way our money is being held to earn somebody interest before it is refunded.

 

[kylejack]

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?

There seems to be pretty strong evidence of improper ratification, and I also don't believe the Supreme Court ruled appropriately. They shouldn't even have the sole right to interpret Constitutionality. That's a power they seized in Marbury v. Madison.

I just don't think the legality arguments are particularly practical for getting rid of the income tax. That doesn't mean I don't think they have merit.

 

[AZ Libertarian]

This was received by the organizer of the Yahoo! Group 'Ron Paul Graphics'.

I believe it relates to the topic at hand:

The word has come down from Headquarters that the Ron Paul campaign is
asking EVERYONE to stay clear of distributing any materials or displaying
any signs that could be construed as fringe, radical or in any way outside
the mainstream.

Ron Paul’s run for the presidency is not the appropriate venue for
promoting any of the controversial theories that are circulating these days.
Such actions will only assure that Ron Paul is soundly defeated. Whether we
like it or not, he absolutely must attract the mainstream to win. Let’s get
him elected first; we can “educate” the mainstream later.

The campaign leaders have asked that all signs contain fairly generic
messages. As an example of how even the most well-intentioned supporter can
cause controversy, someone had a sign that said “Ron Paul is against
immigration”. That is simply not true. No doubt, the follower meant he was
against the latest immigration “legislation”…which is true. But, people
reading the sign would misinterpret it. And, Ron Paul does not want us
stating things that are not representative of his platform. So please,
let’s keep this simple and totally non-controversial. Otherwise we will
actually be doing Hillary and Rudy a very big favor.
One more thing, I think many of us, me included are new to this political
process. We have never before found a candidate that we loved enough to
donate to, never mind work for. This is a particularly difficult problem
when newbies like us are working for a candidate who is not given fair
treatment by the press and who is being described as “fringe” to the blindly
obedient public. It makes us angry; even outraged at the unfairness of the
process. We must be smart; we must quell the urge to show indignation. We
must represent ourselves exactly as Dr. Paul represents himself; in a calm,
intelligent and courteous manner. Even if we do not win the hearts of the
voters we talk to; we will have their respect and if they respect us; they
will respect Ron Paul.. maybe even enough to listen to him speak. That’s
the best we can ask for.. the willingness of the people we meet to just
listen to Ron Paul speak. Ron Paul can sell himself; his message resonates
in the hearts and minds of the American people. The irony is, the grassroots
movement is the only way Ron Paul can get elected; and it also contains
elements which are most likely to derail his campaign. Ron Paul’s
opponents know this; they want nothing more than to have us all out there
with “911 was an inside job” signs. Nothing would turn the general public
off more. If you participate in other activism it is crucial you keep it
separate. Do not even bring it up at Ron Paul meetings. Let us remember
Howard Dean who was storming the country in his bid for the presidency only
to be totally derailed over one overzealous comment that the news used to
make him look like a radical. Let’s not let this happen to our beloved Ron
___________________________________________________________

I have very strong opinions on this subject BUT I also think it's as 'fringe' as '911 conspiracy/complicity', and as such only DETRACTS to the positive work we can be doing for the campaign.

 

[Swmorgan77]

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 WOULD be an improvement, because if they passed a law it could be challenged and thrown out under the 8 cases which held that the 16th amendment granted "no new powers of taxation" and then it would clear at that point that the Income Tax is still unconstitutional and unlawful.

As it stands now, with quasi-law, bogus convictions under penatly clauses and a public perception of a legal obligation that does not exist, we are in much worse shape.

Let them pass it!

 

[1776jedi]

This was received by the organizer of the Yahoo! Group 'Ron Paul Graphics'.

I believe it relates to the topic at hand:

The word has come down from Headquarters that the Ron Paul campaign is
asking EVERYONE to stay clear of distributing any materials or displaying
any signs that could be construed as fringe, radical or in any way outside
the mainstream.

Ron Paul’s run for the presidency is not the appropriate venue for
promoting any of the controversial theories that are circulating these days.
Such actions will only assure that Ron Paul is soundly defeated. Whether we
like it or not, he absolutely must attract the mainstream to win. Let’s get
him elected first; we can “educate” the mainstream later.

The campaign leaders have asked that all signs contain fairly generic
messages. As an example of how even the most well-intentioned supporter can
cause controversy, someone had a sign that said “Ron Paul is against
immigration”. That is simply not true. No doubt, the follower meant he was
against the latest immigration “legislation”…which is true. But, people
reading the sign would misinterpret it. And, Ron Paul does not want us
stating things that are not representative of his platform. So please,
let’s keep this simple and totally non-controversial. Otherwise we will
actually be doing Hillary and Rudy a very big favor.
One more thing, I think many of us, me included are new to this political
process. We have never before found a candidate that we loved enough to
donate to, never mind work for. This is a particularly difficult problem
when newbies like us are working for a candidate who is not given fair
treatment by the press and who is being described as “fringe” to the blindly
obedient public. It makes us angry; even outraged at the unfairness of the
process. We must be smart; we must quell the urge to show indignation. We
must represent ourselves exactly as Dr. Paul represents himself; in a calm,
intelligent and courteous manner. Even if we do not win the hearts of the
voters we talk to; we will have their respect and if they respect us; they
will respect Ron Paul.. maybe even enough to listen to him speak. That’s
the best we can ask for.. the willingness of the people we meet to just
listen to Ron Paul speak. Ron Paul can sell himself; his message resonates
in the hearts and minds of the American people. The irony is, the grassroots
movement is the only way Ron Paul can get elected; and it also contains
elements which are most likely to derail his campaign. Ron Paul’s
opponents know this; they want nothing more than to have us all out there
with “911 was an inside job” signs. Nothing would turn the general public
off more. If you participate in other activism it is crucial you keep it
separate. Do not even bring it up at Ron Paul meetings. Let us remember
Howard Dean who was storming the country in his bid for the presidency only
to be totally derailed over one overzealous comment that the news used to
make him look like a radical. Let’s not let this happen to our beloved Ron
___________________________________________________________

I have very strong opinions on this subject BUT I also think it's as 'fringe' as '911 conspiracy/complicity', and as such only DETRACTS to the positive work we can be doing for the campaign.

I though part of Ron Paul's platform was to remove the IRS and income tax on wages?

 

[Gee]

I wouldn't listen to those videos... Wikipedia's page on the IRS and tax protester arguments has impartial arguments on both sides.

 

[dseisner]

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.
QUOTE]

Whether or not that's true, is irrelevent. Go back the constitution and you will see there are two types of LEGAL taxes - direct and indirect. Indirect are excise taxes like gas tax, etc. Income tax is a direct tax and according to the constitution, only one type of direct tax is allowed to be levied, a flat tax equally apportioned to all the people. The supreme court ruled on this 3 times in the early 20th century and all 3 times concluded that the passing of the 16th amendment was unconstitutional. That's all that can really be said...and there is plenty of documentation to prove it.

 

[Gee]

Uh, constitutional amendments can add powers to the government. It doesn't really matter what the articles say, an amendment can change whatever it wants...

 

[kylejack]

This was received by the organizer of the Yahoo! Group 'Ron Paul Graphics'.

I believe it relates to the topic at hand:

The word has come down from Headquarters that the Ron Paul campaign is
asking EVERYONE to stay clear of distributing any materials or displaying
any signs that could be construed as fringe, radical or in any way outside
the mainstream.

Ron Paul’s run for the presidency is not the appropriate venue for
promoting any of the controversial theories that are circulating these days.
Such actions will only assure that Ron Paul is soundly defeated. Whether we
like it or not, he absolutely must attract the mainstream to win. Let’s get
him elected first; we can “educate” the mainstream later.

The campaign leaders have asked that all signs contain fairly generic
messages. As an example of how even the most well-intentioned supporter can
cause controversy, someone had a sign that said “Ron Paul is against
immigration”. That is simply not true. No doubt, the follower meant he was
against the latest immigration “legislation”…which is true. But, people
reading the sign would misinterpret it. And, Ron Paul does not want us
stating things that are not representative of his platform. So please,
let’s keep this simple and totally non-controversial. Otherwise we will
actually be doing Hillary and Rudy a very big favor.
One more thing, I think many of us, me included are new to this political
process. We have never before found a candidate that we loved enough to
donate to, never mind work for. This is a particularly difficult problem
when newbies like us are working for a candidate who is not given fair
treatment by the press and who is being described as “fringe” to the blindly
obedient public. It makes us angry; even outraged at the unfairness of the
process. We must be smart; we must quell the urge to show indignation. We
must represent ourselves exactly as Dr. Paul represents himself; in a calm,
intelligent and courteous manner. Even if we do not win the hearts of the
voters we talk to; we will have their respect and if they respect us; they
will respect Ron Paul.. maybe even enough to listen to him speak. That’s
the best we can ask for.. the willingness of the people we meet to just
listen to Ron Paul speak. Ron Paul can sell himself; his message resonates
in the hearts and minds of the American people. The irony is, the grassroots
movement is the only way Ron Paul can get elected; and it also contains
elements which are most likely to derail his campaign. Ron Paul’s
opponents know this; they want nothing more than to have us all out there
with “911 was an inside job” signs. Nothing would turn the general public
off more. If you participate in other activism it is crucial you keep it
separate. Do not even bring it up at Ron Paul meetings. Let us remember
Howard Dean who was storming the country in his bid for the presidency only
to be totally derailed over one overzealous comment that the news used to
make him look like a radical. Let’s not let this happen to our beloved Ron
___________________________________________________________

I have very strong opinions on this subject BUT I also think it's as 'fringe' as '911 conspiracy/complicity', and as such only DETRACTS to the positive work we can be doing for the campaign.

There's no credible source for this alleged message from the campaign, and abolishing the IRS is not extremism, but rather one of Ron Paul's main planks, so no, I don't think this is relevant here.

 

[Swmorgan77]

Uh, constitutional amendments can add powers to the government. It doesn't really matter what the articles say, an amendment can change whatever it wants...

It CAN, but the Supreme Court said it didn't, and there is no act of Congress creating a tax obligation based on that supposed new power.

 

[ecliptic]

$300,000 reward for proof of income tax !!!

I rank this as one of the best threads ever in any forum. Absolutely fascinating argument. It seems a major point of contention whether or not the 16th amendment was ratified properly. From a moral standpoint it can be said that the way it was brought before a mostly empty congress was sneaky at best and deceptive, much like how the Federal Reserve came into being.

$300,000 REWARD FOR PROOF OF INCOME TAX LAW

... should be a piece of cake, right?


Freedom Law School is offering $100,000 to the first person who can demonstrate any of the three propositions listed below. The winner can collect up to $300,000 if he or she can prove all of the propositions below.

1. Show what statute written by the Congress of the United States requires Americans to file an income tax “CONFESSION” (return) and pay an income tax.

2. How can Americans file an income tax “CONFESSION” (return) without giving up their 5th amendment right not to give any information to the government that may be used to prosecute them.

3. Prove that the 16th amendment to the United States Constitution, which, according to the IRS and modern American courts permitted the income tax to exist was, lawfully added to the United States Constitution.

Freedom Law School declares:

There is no statute that makes any American Citizen who works and lives in the United States of America liable or responsible to pay an income tax. Individuals only become liable to pay the income tax when they “voluntarily” file a tax return and the IRS follows their assessment procedures as outlined in the Internal Revenue Code.
If there were a statute, which clearly and unequivocally required the filing of such tax returns, such a statute would be unconstitutional under the present income tax system to the extent that it would require individuals to give the government information which could be used against them to prosecute them criminally. Although the IRS and the modern American Courts claim that the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution permitted the income tax to be imposed on the compensation for labor of the average working man, the 16th Amendment was not properly added to the United States Constitution. See www.thelawthatneverwas.com for documentaion of this issue.
The IRS, under the United States Constitution, cannot legally require information on 1040 returns from individuals. This is the reason the IRS continually refers to the income tax as "voluntary.”
For more information, you may want to investigate the resources listed below:
www.freedomabovefortune.com This is the site of Joe Banister, the former gun-carrying IRS Criminal Investigation Agent, who resigned from his prestigious job with the IRS because his superiors would not answer his findings of fraud within the IRS (See this page). Mr. Banister's report on the IRS confirms our opinions about the Federal Income Tax in great detail.

www.givemeliberty.org Bob Schulz, founder of We The People Foundation, has attempted several times, with Joe Banister and many other intelligent Americans, to debate the legality of the income tax system with high ranking government officials. Each time, no government official ever showed up to debate! Any intelligent American would think the government would be more than happy to show up and answer a few questions to set the record straight once and for all, wouldn't you…? Or does the government have something to hide…? Do your own research and decide if the government is hiding something. See this page. Also see the DVD America Freedom to Fascism at www.freedomtofascism.com.

 

[Brandybuck]

The Sixteenth Amendment WAS ratified, by more states than was required. Congress DID implement a tax code, it's Title 26 USC. I'm not going to my get my tax education from people in jail or who have been disbarred. I'm getting my tax education from a tax law professor.

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/IncomeTax.htm

The income tax sucks, and sucks big time. But it is not a myth. You're not going to get rid of it by wishing it into the cornfield. You get rid of it by getting congress to repeal the tax codes.

 

[Wyurm]

The Sixteenth Amendment WAS ratified, by more states than was required. Congress DID implement a tax code, it's Title 26 USC. I'm not going to my get my tax education from people in jail or who have been disbarred. I'm getting my tax education from a tax law professor.

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/IncomeTax.htm

The income tax sucks, and sucks big time. But it is not a myth. You're not going to get rid of it by wishing it into the cornfield. You get rid of it by getting congress to repeal the tax codes.

Then collect 200k by going to the site posted above your post.

 

[Highmesa]

The Sixteenth Amendment WAS ratified, by more states than was required. Congress DID implement a tax code, it's Title 26 USC. I'm not going to my get my tax education from people in jail or who have been disbarred. I'm getting my tax education from a tax law professor.

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/IncomeTax.htm

The income tax sucks, and sucks big time. But it is not a myth. You're not going to get rid of it by wishing it into the cornfield. You get rid of it by getting congress to repeal the tax codes.

Go collect your $300k.

 

[Wyurm]

Go collect your $300k.

he didnt prove #2

 

[angrydragon]

Change the green text.

 

[Highmesa]

he didnt prove #2

Yeah, but with #1 and #3 in the bag it should be no problem to make the logical step to #2.

 

[CJLauderdale4]

The 16th amendment overrides an Article of the Constitution written by the Founders that said all taxes should be levied in "direct proportion" to the population as defined by the census. The Fed needs $100,000 and there's 100,000 people, we all pay $1. That was the only way Congress was "allowed" by the Constitution to do it.

Once the 16th Amendment was "pronounced" ratified by Philander Knox, even though many states worded the amendment differently, it allowed Congress to choose whatever method and from whatever source they wanted to tax.

Initial jurisprudence showed that the courts thought that the 16th Amendment didn't change anything (Brushaber case). Now, courts routinely side with the IRS.

The issues to me are that the IRS Code, and its enforcement, are not completely Constitutional (5th amendment breech, etc.), its not what the Founders intended (heavens! they fought against this crap), if you break the IRC you're guilty until you prove yourself innocent, why am I guilty if I don't keep records, why are employers FORCED to be withholding agents of the Fed and State, etc, etc.

And bottom line - we went 125+ years in this country without an income tax. Cut useless spending and we just don't need it.

 

[Brandybuck]

Then collect 200k by going to the site posted above your post.

That's a tired gimmick. Put forward a challenge, then include impossible restrictions on compliance. Even if I meet these restrictions, my claim will still be denied because it doesn't meet the submitters strict interpretation of them. For example, what the eff does "CONFESSION" mean? There is no law that you have to file a "CONFESSION", so this is his out. There is a law to file a tax return, but since there is no law to file a "CONFESSION", no one can claim the prize. Get it?

Not only is this cheating, it's in-your-face piss-on-your-shoes cheating! Notice they don't have any legal statement for the challenge? It's just a few sentences on a webpage. Where's the actual challenge itself? I want to know what the actual rules are!

But let's look at the first one. I'm generous, so I'll waste my time on you looking this up:

"1. Show what statute written by the Congress of the United States requires Americans to file an income tax “CONFESSION” (return) and pay an income tax."

(I'm going to ignore the "CONFESSION" part of it, because it's bogus.)

26 U.S.C. § 6151(a)

(a) General rule
Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, when a return of tax is required under this title or regulations, the person required to make such return shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed, and shall pay such tax at the time and place fixed for filing the return (determined without regard to any extension of time for filing the return).​

That is the statute. It was written by the Congres of the United States. And it requires a tax return. Where's my $300,000?

 

[ecliptic]

the color of money

Change the green text.

OK if it really bothers you - it's "the color of money"

I think it's interesting that no one has collected the $300,000 yet...

I'm keen to learn more, and no one has made a conclusive case one way or the other. I am interested in Otto Skinner as well as Freedom Law School. It seems clear that the patriot / tax freedom movement has been victimized by a series of "false prophets" teaching faulty methods resulting in a lot of well-intentioned people going to jail. Every substantial political movement can expect to be infiltrated and these traitors will attempt to lead it astray one way or another.