US citizens NOT required to pay income taxes per Constitution!

Proof:

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

I know what your thinking...

Just watch.



.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

US citizens NOT required to pay income taxes per Constitution!

Proof:

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

I know what your thinking...

Just watch.



.

How about SPEEDING tickets ?

---

Post name changed!

Put your research where my mouth is and win $100.00 US Dollars.

Prove the point that federal income tax on labor in the USA is legal per the Constitution of our United States of America and win! Corporations not included.

I say it isn't legal. Prove me wrong.


In case I am wrong, which I doubt, first person to prove me wrong gets the money.

First person only. (Just in case. lol)

This post is to act as a legal instrument.

$100 US

*US citizens only

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

*US citizens only

But that's not fair. I can google as well as any other ;)

---

flaming balloons

Ok,

The entire world is now included in this wager.




.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Ok,

The entire world is now included in this wager.




.

Cool

---

flaming balloons

OK, I've done my research. I cannot find any evidence that the 16th Amendment was ever legally ratified by the States. I can't prove you wrong.

---

flaming balloons

Heyas MrGray!


Thanks for the Challenge! :)


Four reasons why you are wrong:


1. The longstanding legal doctrine of "Omnia Praesemuntur Rite Esse Acta", which translates to, "All things that are done [by a government] are presumed to have been done correctly [unless proven otherwise]. So the onus is not on the government to prove it has acted constitutionally; the onus is on you to prove that under any and all circumstances, the power to tax for income taxes is unconstitutional. I should tell you that it is difficult to prove a negative, so the burden is a heavy one.

2. If the practice started in 1919, and citizens have nearly all of them conformed to it for close to 100 years, that gives the practice a constitutional validity of of its own, independent of any Act or Bill. Long tradition is in itself a form of constitutional validity under Common Law.

3. The American Constitution does not expressly forbid the imposition of a personal income tax (AFAIK), it merely does not expressly empower taxation (other than aggregate taxation, which is expressly empowered).

4. Legislation enacted by Acts stand as the law of the land unless successfully challanged. By which I mean to say, that in the absence of any Supreme Court decision that the power to tax for income taxes is unconstitutional, the Acts remain in effect as law. This movie clip, while persuasive in it's emotional effect, may very well not tell the whole story. While the clip quotes one or two Justices of the Supreme Court, it does not quote any full court decision by the Supreme Court, so maybe those opinions were either dissenting opinions of the Court, or even worse, maybe they are merely "ex curia" (outside of the Court) remarks. Those have no effect on the law at all, not even persuasive effect.

This last point sits strongly with me, and I hope it persuades you.

Think about it:

Do you really believe that with all the best lawyers that large corporations and wealthy businessmen and staunch conservative Republicans been able to hire, not one person or business sought to declare it unconstitutional if that were even remotely possible? Do you really believe that in close to 100 years, nobody has stumbled onto these arguments until now?

No. The reason it hasn't been challenged in close to 100 years, is because the best legal advice in the country has often informed the ambitious that such a challenge could not succeed in law.


I rest my case. :)

---

All things that are done [by a government] are presumed to have been done correctly [unless proven otherwise].

Oh, this is good... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Not sure how you can laugh about this.

I just can't do it. Too many people in jail and homeless because of it.

Thanks for participating, though.

:)




.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

All of my posts here are in the form of questions. I have never been political and am prone to make mistakes similar to those of younger persons. I have used catch phrases and promises of payment for proof against because I don't know for sure. I will debate with you but there are always two sides to every story. I may very well be wrong in much, if not all of what I post but can only learn by having people respond to my posts. I am not anti American. I am not a Communist sympathizer. I'm just looking for answers to my questions.

I don't want to fight with anyone for any reason, though I can be grumpy when attacked. I realize many people can't help me in this quest for knowledge and can't put down in writing what I'm looking for, but you must realize I am not an enemy. I love my country. Otherwise I wouldn't question things.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

All of my posts here are in the form of questions. I have never been political and am prone to make mistakes similar to those of younger persons. I have used catch phrases and promises of payment for proof against because I don't know for sure. I will debate with you but there are always two sides to every story. I may very well be wrong in much, if not all of what I post but can only learn by having people respond to my posts. I am not anti American. I am not a Communist sympathizer. I'm just looking for answers to my questions.

I don't want to fight with anyone for any reason, though I can be grumpy when attacked. I realize many people can't help me in this quest for knowledge and can't put down in writing what I'm looking for, but you must realize I am not an enemy. I love my country. Otherwise I wouldn't question things.

Speaking for myself, I understood the 'wager' to be rhetorical. I wouldn't accept real money from you for this under any circumstances.

It was a catchy way to introduce the debate.


So, speak freely. ;) Has my circumstantial case found favor with you?


Bests,


Beets

---

Thanks, Beets!



I'm such a rookie that I'd rather be a spectator than a participant in any of the threads I have posted. I just don't know enough about anything to say anything. Embarrassing but truth. I will be watching and trying to learn as we go. Everyone starts at the beginning and boy-o-boy am I a rookie at all this.

I'll take my lumps and learn from them.


Your friend,

MrGray




.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Heyas MrGray!


Now you've gotten me to google into the matter. I didn't think I was going to do that! LOL

I found this interesting commentary on the evolution of the income tax in America at the usconstitution.org website.


16th Amendment:


In 1895, in the Supreme Court case of Pollock v Farmer's Loan and Trust (157 U.S. 429), the Court disallowed a federal tax on income from real property. The tax was designed to be an indirect tax, which would mean that states need not contribute portions of a whole relative to its census figures. The Court, however, ruled that the tax was a direct tax and subject to apportionment. This was the last in a series of conflicting court decisions dating back to the Civil War. Between 1895 and 1909, when the amendment was passed by Congress, the Court began to back down on its position, as it became clear not only to accountants but to everyone that the solvency of the nation was in jeopardy. In a series of cases, the definition of "direct tax" was modified, bent, twisted, and coaxed to allow more taxation efforts that approached an income tax.

Finally, with the ratification of the 16th Amendment, any doubt was removed. The text of the Amendment makes it clear that though the categories of direct and indirect taxation still exist, any determination that income tax is a direct tax will be irrelevant, because taxes on incomes, from salary or from real estate, are explicitly to be treated as indirect. The Congress passed the Amendment on July 12, 1909, and it was ratified on February 3, 1913 (1,302 days).

********************


It seems to me from this, that whatever the objections to the ratifaction may be, the Supreme Court would uphold the income tax for the same reason: namely, "the solvency of the nation". At its heart, the Court(s) and common law are necessarily practical. If laws made only theoretical sense, they would not be obeyed.


Your friend,


Beets

---

Some won in the video,

An IRS agent and some other old guy. That part of the movie didn't help my confusion.

:(

:)

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

"Income Tax" = "Tax on Labour"

AMENDMENT XVI

Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever sources derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Even if this amendment was never ratified (I don't know) it never mentioned "labour".. It simply mentioned "income".. "Any"?

It does my head in trying to figure this out.

I won't win your $100.

I pay taxes for schools, roads and good stuff :o)~~~

The first proposition in this video is that:

"Income Tax" = "Tax on Labour"

These two are not equal so why trust anything that is said afterwards?

AMENDMENT XVI

Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever sources derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Even if this amendment was never ratified (I don't know) it never mentioned "labour".. It simply mentioned "income"..

Why does the video harp on and on and on about "labour"?

I won't win your $100.

But then I don't care.. I pay taxes for schools, roads and good stuff :o)~~~

I think you've hit the nail on the head. This is another anti-capitalism leftist clip, imho. They make the case that the Federal Reserve Board was only created to enrich the bankers. It may well have been just the opposite, that the bankers, rich Americans all, were establishment figures who did not want to see the the country go bankrupt. I haven't researched it, but I too detected a left-leaning bias to the clip. ;)

---

The first proposition in this video is that:

"Income Tax" = "Tax on Labour"

These two are not equal so why trust anything that is said afterwards?

AMENDMENT XVI

Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever sources derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Even if this amendment was never ratified (I don't know) it never mentioned "labour".. It simply mentioned "income"..

Why does the video harp on and on and on about "labour"?

I won't win your $100.

But then I don't care.. I pay taxes for schools, roads and good stuff :o)~~~

I think you've hit the nail on the head. This is another anti-capitalism leftist clip, imho. They make the case that the Federal Reserve Board was only created to enrich the bankers. It may well have been just the opposite, that the bankers, rich Americans all, were establishment figures who did not want to see the the country go bankrupt. I haven't researched it, but I too detected a left-leaning bias to the clip. ;)

Oop.. I was busy changing & deleting bits of my responses then you responded :o)

Interesting your response though.

I won't say I am anti-capatalist but I prefer to put people before money and believe that in any good bussiness we can all win.

I didn't really see the video as a 'leftist' arguement. I just saw it as a set of ideas that led the producer down a route. (The same is true of anyone that takes an idea and runs with it without making stops and checks to their own direction.)

Personally I think the video tried to do too much.

That creates an impossible situation for anyone that would like to try and win a $100.

Hey that would pay my rent for a week :o)

I do still wonder why the video keeps trying to refer to 'the average american', 'labour', 'work', 'the people' etc... Emotive values! Emotive arguements worry me...

I agree,

Lots going on with the taxes, direct and indirect, the federal reserve, the case law, all too much singulary, let alone all together. I have a pain between my ears over it all. Call me simple.

:P




.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

I agree,
Lots going on with the taxes, direct and indirect, the federal reserve, the case law, all too much singulary, let alone all together. I have a pain between my ears over it all. Call me simple.

:P
.

OK. I'm not a US citizen but wouldn't it be easier to sort out the law and pin that down first and then ask all the real questions afterwards?

A house needs foundations. Being clear about the law (the things we accept and don't) seems like a good foundation.

As it was your question & out of interest do you think (equitable) taxes are good?

Don't ask me about my country. We riot sometimes. Then we run and hide.. Hehehhe.