Slashdot Mirror

> How in the hell is income tax unconstitutional when Amendment XVI of the constitution specifically authorizes Congress to levy it?

Good heavens, don't feed the trolls. You'll get a dozen answers and the net result is that you'll be late for dinner. :)

I strongly recommend Dan Evans Tax Protester FAQ. He covers all of the arguments (and why they've failed in court) in more detail than you probably want.

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

It has been established since the 1800's that Congress has plenary power to tax whatever it wants, regardless of its ability to 'regulate'.

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#interstatecommerce

USSC, 1866: “It is true that the power of Congress to tax is a very extensive power. It is given in the Constitution with only one exception and only two qualifications. Congress cannot tax exports, and it must impose direct taxes by the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. Thus, limited, and thus only, it reaches every subject, and may be exercised at discretion.”

Quoting the website: The court agreed that Congress could not prohibit or regulate the activities that were being taxed.

For instance, there is a federal excise tax on gasoline and alcohol, and since 2010, a tax on indoor tanning services. (no kidding). Even if the gasoline came from oil which was drilled, pumped, refined and dispensed in Texas, it is still legal for Congress to tax Texans for it.

Regarding the health care "mandate". It is not a mandate, of course, it is a tax.

What Congress can NOT do is to make the failure to buy health insurance a crime and make offenders subject to prosecution. That's what it means to "compel" in the usual legal sense. If it had done so, then there would be legitimate Constitutional problems, but Congress didn't do so. Is there any compulsion to buy electric vehicles because of the tax credit? Obviously not.

The argument is pretty clear to me: 100% legal as a tax. And I can't believe that 4 supposed strict constitutionalists voted against it, but then again Scalia is pretty consistent: if it is good for people against powerful interests, he is always against it.

Sorry, I was in a bad mood. I was tired of seeing others on the internet claim they were citizens of the state only and actually seemed surprised after being charged and convicted of tax evasion using this claim. You are both a citizen of Texas and of the United States as well. The idiotic position of citizens of the state only is better refuted here:
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#sovereigncitizens

I also apologize for the the harshness of my original post.

The 16th amendment makes no changes regarding the taxing of states vs. individuals.

Perhaps you should read a bit: http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

America: Freedom to Fascism has some good points in the later half of the film, but the choice to tie it all to tax kooks made it all for naught

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

Any other questions?

Wow. Misinformed doesn't even COME close. More like 'malinformed'.

Let's see...

1. First off, VAT and sales tax are two very different beasties (though they seem similar based on how they're assessed against the consumer on the end.) In fact, if you purchase something from a retailer overseas online, you will, indeed, be paying VAT if the locality assesses it. And if you're living in CA and order something from Apple, you can bet your bippy that Apple will make sure to tack on CA sales tax.
3. No, but the government can gather publicly accessible data, and using it, build a case that the data proves that you have, indeed, been a very naughty boy, and present their case to the court, buoyed by the data - hell, that's the definition of prosecuting a case! Now, there is some issue about whether or not the government should be allowed to buy information harvested by ChoicePoint et al. (or even if such data aggregation in the private sector should be allowed), but that's another subject (and one worthy of discussion.)
4. Please, try one of those arguments in court. Just try. You'll soon learn exactly HOW fast one can me hit with a contempt of court charge. Because, amazingly, you're NOT the first guy who thought these ideas up (and you'll definitely not be the last.) And the courts have ruled against them so many times that in the court's eyes, you're willfully not taking things seriously, and penalize you accordingly (hence why you'll now have a contempt charge to accompany your tax evasion.) I'd advise you to take the time and read through this - not only will it explain WHY those arguments fail, it has several of the many, MANY cases involved listed.
Oh, and the IRS is very much a part of the US Government wholly - it's a branch of the Department of the Treasury. All of the other agencies you listed are wholly part of the US Government, as branches of other departments of the executive branch. Finally, there is NO SUCH THING as "Title 26 of the Internal Revenue Code". The IRC is Title 26 of the United States Code, and is then subdivided into ~6600 Sections. (It pays to not just copy and paste.)

(Heh, the captcha is "excrete". Make of that what you will.)

Or, of course, you could realize that Russo is playing word games. And not really good ones at that.

This FAQ explains why Russo's logic breaks down.

It is common law actually. There are many cases quotes (see this site: http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#voluntary ). The truth to that statement is that paying taxes in the US is NOT voluntary. The government has the right to use force to collect your taxes (including assess the taxes without your input and demand payment).

Congress and the courts however felt that the use of force would be unwise in most cases and as such, allowed the citizen the choice of being able to voluntarily comply with the tax laws. Voluntary compliance means that you present your data to the IRS, you determine what tax you pay, and you pay it without force. If you refuse to comply, then the IRS can resort to force.

Please tell me you are not serious. The courts have ruled time and time again that wages are income and on other such nonsense.

In fact, this website http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html will show you the fallacy in the arguments of those like Ed Brown.

What he is trying to do is to start another Ruby Ridge so that Congress gets involved, people like the Brown's tell sob storied (Even though they are even robbing their own employees by taking their withheld taxes and not paying the government) and congress puts another leash on the IRS. I do believe that the IRS needs to hold restraint in some cases but not in this case. Those idiots owe more in taxes than I have made in almost 15 years of working. It is time that they pay up.

I'm not a lawyer, just been through law school. But anyway...

I normally do not believe stuff like this, but it is reinforced by the simple fact that every constitutional Amendment specifically authorizes congress to enforce that amendment, but the 16th amendment does not specifically authorize congress to enforce it.

Well by it's very wording such a clause is unnecessary; its already authorizing Congress to levy taxes. Saying "Congress shall have the right to enforce this article" would just create something circular. Congress authorizing itself to authorize itself to collect taxes? Unlike the amendments you cited this one actually starts with the phrase "Congress shall have power...", so a second clause starting with that line would seem superfluous.

As for the Puerto Rico thing, the Tax Protester FAQ addresses that with all the other issues.

If you want to call income taxes illegitimate from a moral, philosophical, or practical ground, there is plenty of ammunition for that. I don't personally believe they are, but there are legitimate arguments you can make on all those grounds. To say that they are illegal though is something else; the courts have addressed all these issues, and pretty decisively decided them. To maintain that you can legitimately refuse to pay income tax really is kooky.

So, about 110 years until we had even a basic income tax.

Sure. Most challenges to income tax derive from the argument that it is a direct tax rather than an indirect tax. But the definition of direct taxation was given in 1796 - direct taxes are a tax on owned wealth (in 1796, land and slaves). All modern property taxes are direct taxes. Indirect taxes are a tax on commerce, and when you trade your labor for money/goods/servies, you are engaging in comerce.

If you own an apartment building, the property tax you pay on the market value of the land/building is a direct tax, while the tax you pay on the income ~derived~ from your property (the profit made) is an indirect tax, and subject to excise taxes.

Even though we havent always had an income tax, it has been repeatedly found that congress has always had the authority to levy one.

From http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#direct:

The U.S. Supreme Court adopted this narrow view of "Capitation, or other direct, Tax," when it decided the case of Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796). Four separate opinions were written by the justices who heard the case (separate opinions were the common practice of that day), and all four justices agreed that "direct tax" was limited to a tax on the value of land (and slaves, who were considered to be part of the land).

Also:

The question of whether an individual income tax was a "direct tax" within the meaning of the Constitution did not arise until the Union enacted an income tax during the Civil War. The Supreme Court followed the opinions from the Hylton decision and ruled unanimously that an income tax was an "excise," and not a "direct tax," and did not need to be apportioned among the states. Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1880).

If youre more into Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brushaber_v._Union_Pa cific_Railroad

Although they are correct in stating the Court's finding that the Sixteenth Amendment gave "no new power to tax," this is not because the amendment was ineffective. Instead, the Court merely found that Congress always had the power to tax incomes, and that the amendment only affects the way that such taxes must be apportioned.

>Laughable. Join the real world one of these days. And open your mind and read a little.

If that guy spent even 1/10th of the time he has clearly spent maintaining that website on promoting it, it might mean something.

However, by choosing to be an insane hermit/kook rather that getting out and telling people (nicely), he's effectively isolated his opinions (and the opinions of a small few) to himself.

The reason why libertarianism is growing in popularity is due to the willingness of those who believe in it to simplify and explain what it means to them, and what it should mean to you. And, like all people, they make mistakes. But, despite that, far more people go to the various libertarian parties' sites per week than have ever visited that site (170k hits in 6 years? 66 hits a day does not an important site make).

Catch my drift?

The site claims to be rebutting libertarian arguments, but the first FAQ I've read spends a significant amount of time expounding on how people are wrong when they say the constitution of the US outlaws income tax. Well, that's all fine and dandy, but the fact is that libertarian views don't require income tax to be OUTLAWED, they simply state that people shouldn't have to pay such outrageously inflated income taxes for services they don't need. In fact, the feelings of most libertarians is that fewer laws are needed to get things done, not more. Outlawing a tax rather than simply choosing to limit it would simply add more complexity to an already overly complicated legal system. I put it to you that, in fact, that article could, in some ways, be considered a SUPPORT article for libertarianism.

I am a firm believer that you best lose your argument by overstating it, and boy-howdy, does that author ever overstate things. And, upon skimming, so do all the other FAQs. I'd read them as thouroughly as I've read the other one, but I'm far too busy for that.

Now, that having been said, it's always interesting to read what the other side of the fence thinks (especially, IMHO, extremist sites such as that one), and I am grateful for the link. I might spend some time writing one or two paragraph rebuttals to some of those articles if I find myself with nothing better to do.

On the off chance that you aren't an idiot or a troll and might actually be willing to learn something, try this FAQ. It goes to great lengths, more than these anti-tax bozos deserve, to explain just how our tinfoil-hat-wearing nutjob brethren have been misled. For even more good info, try this link, this link and this link.

And if you want it straight from the horses mouth, the be-all and end-all summary page explaining why these tax resistor folks are barking up the wrong tree, try this link.

Ummm.... no

Debunked in the FAQ.

In US tax code dealing with income all 50 states is missing.

Debunked in the FAQ.

Some say that this is what makes the 16th amendment legal in that you are not forced to pay tax.

Debunked in the FAQ.

Debunked in the FAQ.

In US tax code dealing with income all 50 states is missing.

Debunked in the FAQ.

Some say that this is what makes the 16th amendment legal in that you are not forced to pay tax.

Debunked in the FAQ.

Debunked in the FAQ.

In US tax code dealing with income all 50 states is missing.

Debunked in the FAQ.

Some say that this is what makes the 16th amendment legal in that you are not forced to pay tax.

Debunked in the FAQ.

2. "READ!" yourself. The FAQ I linked to previously debunks the claims some have made that the 16th amendment conflicts with the 4th, 5th, 10th, or 14th amendments. (Not that any of those would even matter--the 16th, having been ratified after all of those, would take precedence if there was a conflict--just as the 21st amendment repeals the 18th, and is not "illegal" because it is in conflict with the 18th!!) If you'd like to suggest some way in which the 26th amendment overturns the 16th, for example, I'm happy to listen.

Do the research yourself. You might start here.

How about you tell us what those relevant sections and codes are, if they exist? This says otherwise.

Scott.

Shockingly, this is an urban myth.