Why the IRS?
- Thread starter jfer45
- Start date
aravoth
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Messages
- 2,933
The Tax code isn't law, by any stretch of the imagination. If it's not backed up by a constitutional amendment it's worthless. The 16th amendment is what gives the tax code authority. So if the 16th amendment is not valid, then neither is the tax code. It's not even a matter of how it was ratified.
Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240
The 16th Amendment did not change the U.S. Constitution because of the fact that Article 1, section 2, clause 3, and Article 1, section 9, clause 4, were not repealed or altered; the U.S. Constitution cannot conflict with itself.
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 US, 112
Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation. Rather it simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary full power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged. Indirect taxes are limited to imposts, duties, and excises, not on the income of individuals.
Those rulings have never been overturned. So If the constitution did not allow for a direct tax on the wage earnings of americans without apportionment before the 16th amendment, and the supreme court ruled that the 16th amendment gave no new powers of taxation, how all of the sudden did they miraculously get the ability to impose an unapportioned direct tax? The short answer is that they didn't. But this is really overall part of a larger issue.
Without the Federal Reserve printing our currency anymore; If Our currency was backed up by gold, then it would never inflate, and there would be no interest to pay down, ever. Without Interest, there is no need for the income tax, and thus there is no need for the IRS.
Now, constitutionality of the income tax aside. If you can Slice one-third of the budget off, you could eliminate it anyway. Which you can do, if you stop the war in Iraq, and begin troop withdrawls from nations where they simply are not needed. We don't need to be in Germany. The "Mighty" European Union can handle that. Doing that alone would end billions upon billions of dollars in corporate contracts. Also, if we stopped giving dictators weapons and subsidies all the time that would help. Then eliminate the Dept. Of Homeland Security, becuase we don't need it. We've never needed it before, and we sure as hell don't need it now. We've already got the CIA, ATF, FBI, NSA, NRO, And Military Intel. DHS is a waste of money and resources.
And a side note, I don't belive Dr. Paul is for the fair tax. He's stated before
"By the way when I say cut taxes, I don't mean fiddle with the code. I mean abolish the Income Tax and the IRS, and replace them with nothing"
Doesn't get any more simple than that. Why would you replace an unconstitutional tax that you don't even need, with something else that isn't needed?
Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240
The 16th Amendment did not change the U.S. Constitution because of the fact that Article 1, section 2, clause 3, and Article 1, section 9, clause 4, were not repealed or altered; the U.S. Constitution cannot conflict with itself.
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 US, 112
Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation. Rather it simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary full power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged. Indirect taxes are limited to imposts, duties, and excises, not on the income of individuals.
Those rulings have never been overturned. So If the constitution did not allow for a direct tax on the wage earnings of americans without apportionment before the 16th amendment, and the supreme court ruled that the 16th amendment gave no new powers of taxation, how all of the sudden did they miraculously get the ability to impose an unapportioned direct tax? The short answer is that they didn't. But this is really overall part of a larger issue.
Without the Federal Reserve printing our currency anymore; If Our currency was backed up by gold, then it would never inflate, and there would be no interest to pay down, ever. Without Interest, there is no need for the income tax, and thus there is no need for the IRS.
Now, constitutionality of the income tax aside. If you can Slice one-third of the budget off, you could eliminate it anyway. Which you can do, if you stop the war in Iraq, and begin troop withdrawls from nations where they simply are not needed. We don't need to be in Germany. The "Mighty" European Union can handle that. Doing that alone would end billions upon billions of dollars in corporate contracts. Also, if we stopped giving dictators weapons and subsidies all the time that would help. Then eliminate the Dept. Of Homeland Security, becuase we don't need it. We've never needed it before, and we sure as hell don't need it now. We've already got the CIA, ATF, FBI, NSA, NRO, And Military Intel. DHS is a waste of money and resources.
And a side note, I don't belive Dr. Paul is for the fair tax. He's stated before
"By the way when I say cut taxes, I don't mean fiddle with the code. I mean abolish the Income Tax and the IRS, and replace them with nothing"
Doesn't get any more simple than that. Why would you replace an unconstitutional tax that you don't even need, with something else that isn't needed?
^^And Corporate income taxes, which are constitutional.
Of course there are others, but those are the big three.
I say eliminate the IRS and income tax, and spending to such levels, then replace those regressive SS MC taxes with a sales tax such as the fairtax. It would come out to be around 13% or so.
I really would advocate eliminating all federal taxes, but I want to be realistic here, there are people whose very existence depends on these transfer payments, many of whom have been abandoned by their children b/c the kids thought the gov. was going to take care of them.
Of course there are others, but those are the big three.
I say eliminate the IRS and income tax, and spending to such levels, then replace those regressive SS MC taxes with a sales tax such as the fairtax. It would come out to be around 13% or so.
I really would advocate eliminating all federal taxes, but I want to be realistic here, there are people whose very existence depends on these transfer payments, many of whom have been abandoned by their children b/c the kids thought the gov. was going to take care of them.
xcalybur
Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 285
The other 2/3's of the congressional budget comes from the Federal Reserve making up the money. Here is an example:
These are just examples, not real numbers for the amount spent.
$100 Billion for 2007 Congressional Budget
$33 Billion from Income Taxes
67 Billion is printed/created by the Federal Reserve and circulated through the banking system, which Congress borrows money from to pay the rest of the budget.
This hurts us in many many ways. First being the 33 Billion which is unconstitutional in the first place. Second, the 67 Billion that is created out of thin air decreases how much the US dollar is worth.
There was no such thing as inflation before 1913 when the Federal Reserve was created. It is a giant pyramid scheme to take money from the middle class and transfer it to the wealthy.
These are just examples, not real numbers for the amount spent.
$100 Billion for 2007 Congressional Budget
$33 Billion from Income Taxes
67 Billion is printed/created by the Federal Reserve and circulated through the banking system, which Congress borrows money from to pay the rest of the budget.
This hurts us in many many ways. First being the 33 Billion which is unconstitutional in the first place. Second, the 67 Billion that is created out of thin air decreases how much the US dollar is worth.
There was no such thing as inflation before 1913 when the Federal Reserve was created. It is a giant pyramid scheme to take money from the middle class and transfer it to the wealthy.
angrydragon
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 3,263
I downloaded the spreadsheet from CBO:
2006:
With all that, we still ran a $434.5 billion dollar deficit.
So let's do this: Subtract Individual Income Tax and we get a figure of $1363.4 billion in income remaining. We'll be generous and guess that we're going to run a $400 billion dollar deficit still as it takes time to stop a moving train, especially when Congress has a say in the matter. That means spending would need to be reduced to $1763.4 billion.
When was spending at that level? According to the spreadsheet, in 2000 spending was $1789.2 billion. Thus, it seems to be correct. If we could reduce spending to 2000-levels, we could eliminate the Individual Income Tax and still be solvent. Who thinks we can do that?
2006:
Code:
Individual Income Tax 1,043.9
Corporate Income Tax 353.9
Social Insurance Taxes 837.8
Excise Taxes 74.0
Estate and Gift Taxes 27.9
Customs Duties 24.8
Miscellaneous 45.0
Total: 2,407.3With all that, we still ran a $434.5 billion dollar deficit.
So let's do this: Subtract Individual Income Tax and we get a figure of $1363.4 billion in income remaining. We'll be generous and guess that we're going to run a $400 billion dollar deficit still as it takes time to stop a moving train, especially when Congress has a say in the matter. That means spending would need to be reduced to $1763.4 billion.
When was spending at that level? According to the spreadsheet, in 2000 spending was $1789.2 billion. Thus, it seems to be correct. If we could reduce spending to 2000-levels, we could eliminate the Individual Income Tax and still be solvent. Who thinks we can do that?
Last edited:
aravoth
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Messages
- 2,933
Indeed. And we could do a hell of a lot better than that if you ask me. People seem to think that if you kill the income tax, your dog will hate you, and old ladies will fall off into snowbanks and die. This is simply not the case. No one would be left out in the cold. Dr. Paul has already said that the entitlement programs would be phased out, not killed. Medicare and social security arn't even part of the income tax. Sometimes I wonder what the hell they are teaching people at universities.
Oh: I forgot to mention. IRS budget is 10.9 billion, so that should be subtracted as well for an accurate picture. Also, keep in mind that this only accounts for eliminating individual income tax. Corporate income tax and Medicare/Social Security taxes would still be in place with those numbers.
Last edited:
Craig_R
Member
- Joined
- May 14, 2007
- Messages
- 511
"2.) There is no law that defines income tax as being wages. There are court rulings that also set this as precedence and define what income is as allowed under the 16th amendment."
Wrong, Income and wages have the exact same meaning under the law as does salary, Profit from excersizing federal privilege, the income itself is not taxed, just used to measure of the amount of privilege excersized.
"Also it's worth mentioning that the 16th amendment was never legally ratified. They didn't have enough states that certified the amendment that the federal government sent to them, but then Secretary of State Knox illegally stamped the amendment as certified."
doesnt matter the sole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to remove the apportionment requirement for whichever incomes were otherwise taxable. It added no new powers of taxation.
"The only realistic way we're going to eliminate the Income Tax and the IRS is from the FairTax plan which is gaining a LOT of grassroots steam as well as in Congress as well. It is not perfect by any stretch of the means but the first part of the grassroots plan is to eliminate the Income Tax Law, and the IRS, which it does. The 2nd part of the plan is to repeal the 16th amendment, which only allows income taxation but does not require it. "
we'd end up with both taxes , you dont have to pay the income tax now unless you excersize federal privilege so why would you want MORE taxation?
"The FairTax IS flawed in the sense that the FairTax.org organization chose to remain non-partisan so the plan is revenue neutral, and it also protects the poor (though does it in a way that still treats everybody equally). I support this just because it's the only real way we have a chance (I will say by 2012 it will pass) to eliminate the biggest portion of socialism in our government anytime soon without bloodshed. Ron Paul is a supporter just not a cosponsor of the bill."
Ron only mentioned the fair tax one time, and he said he'd vote for it if he knew that we wouldnt end up with both taxes, and he'd only vote for it because it would be slightly better then the theft the government is perpetrating now. hardly support.
If he knew what was really going on he'd just tell the people that you dont need to pay taxes on private earnings and leave it at that I'm sure.
theres no sense in being a tax tinkerer, know the law.
www.Losthorizons.com will explain it all to ya, so far thousands of people getting back every red cent including soc sec and medicare. be sure to look around the site its huge and very informative.
Wrong, Income and wages have the exact same meaning under the law as does salary, Profit from excersizing federal privilege, the income itself is not taxed, just used to measure of the amount of privilege excersized.
"Also it's worth mentioning that the 16th amendment was never legally ratified. They didn't have enough states that certified the amendment that the federal government sent to them, but then Secretary of State Knox illegally stamped the amendment as certified."
doesnt matter the sole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to remove the apportionment requirement for whichever incomes were otherwise taxable. It added no new powers of taxation.
"The only realistic way we're going to eliminate the Income Tax and the IRS is from the FairTax plan which is gaining a LOT of grassroots steam as well as in Congress as well. It is not perfect by any stretch of the means but the first part of the grassroots plan is to eliminate the Income Tax Law, and the IRS, which it does. The 2nd part of the plan is to repeal the 16th amendment, which only allows income taxation but does not require it. "
we'd end up with both taxes , you dont have to pay the income tax now unless you excersize federal privilege so why would you want MORE taxation?
"The FairTax IS flawed in the sense that the FairTax.org organization chose to remain non-partisan so the plan is revenue neutral, and it also protects the poor (though does it in a way that still treats everybody equally). I support this just because it's the only real way we have a chance (I will say by 2012 it will pass) to eliminate the biggest portion of socialism in our government anytime soon without bloodshed. Ron Paul is a supporter just not a cosponsor of the bill."
Ron only mentioned the fair tax one time, and he said he'd vote for it if he knew that we wouldnt end up with both taxes, and he'd only vote for it because it would be slightly better then the theft the government is perpetrating now. hardly support.
If he knew what was really going on he'd just tell the people that you dont need to pay taxes on private earnings and leave it at that I'm sure.
theres no sense in being a tax tinkerer, know the law.
www.Losthorizons.com will explain it all to ya, so far thousands of people getting back every red cent including soc sec and medicare. be sure to look around the site its huge and very informative.
Hey, could you stop spamming this thread by responding to every post with a URL? I think we got it the last couple times.
Craig_R
Member
- Joined
- May 14, 2007
- Messages
- 511
just making sure, I really hate to see it when folks dont know the law and go ahead and assume they have an "income"
BTW its great getting back three years worth of taxes and knowing you'll get back all of them in the future
just making sure, I really hate to see it when folks dont know the law and go ahead and assume they have an "income"
BTW its great getting back three years worth of taxes and knowing you'll get back all of them in the future
Be careful with that stuff. I'm aware of the legal arguments, but I'd hate to see you end up like Irwin Schiff or the Browns.
Craig_R
Member
- Joined
- May 14, 2007
- Messages
- 511
totally different argument, actually the RIGHT argument.
Does anyone know if the IRS is a legal entity? It seems strait forward. Either congress and the president approved a law estabilishing the IRS and its code as a legal angecy or they didn't. Let us assume the 16th Amendment to the Constitution wa ratified.
mikelovesgod
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 278
The 18th Amendment is much like the 16th Amendment. Both were not according to the original intent, and in it's rawest form of use it was used to raise money for wartime, not to create a system of regularized taxation. It's mostly taxation without representation. I don't get anything from the Fed, which is where the money goes, I don't profit from it.
The 16th Amendment was a wartime tax, it was never meant to be systematized. If they want to tax me tax what I purchase. That's fair. Don't tax me without representation of that money, that's un-Constitutional. To tell me or you to pay into my retirement is insane. I want my own rights of what to do with my money. I don't give it to a faceless person hoping they will get interest and then invest it themselves and make money while I cannot control my own money. Well you see it's not about my security, but their control of my money.
I will never see that money and the reality is it's all about them being able to spend it, not about what's best for me as a citizen. It's all backwards.
CJLauderdale4
Member
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2007
- Messages
- 1,363
You are correct. BUT, on the moving train analogy - we MUST remember, Congress AUTHORIZES spending, the President spends it. HE ALONE is the executor ("I'm the decider!").
For example, before the election of 2006, the Congress passed a buill to build a border fence. Money was alotted for this. GW could build it today. But he hasn't. So, where did the money go? Did he spend it on something else? NO...it didn't get spent at all!!
Thus, Ron can do the same thing with all of the frivolous spending authorizations Congress gives him, and the spedning will be cut in no time.
Congress authorizes, the Executive Branch carries out and spends...
johngr
Banned
- Joined
- May 23, 2007
- Messages
- 1,924
One bad thing about an income tax (among several others) is that the gov't agents pretend that your financial affairs and how much money you have/earn the are any of their f***ing business and require you to give up your 5th amendment rights and show them your personal papers.
Similar threads
