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




.

One question first (and not to be taken as a critcism in any way) MrGray, but I was wondering why you put this in the Cafe rather than the Politics forum?

I suppose I can see how theoretically it could be considered a philosophical question, but given the topic I don't see how the discussion cannot get political in a hurry. ;-)

In any event, a couple of logical and factual problems I see with the presentation from the start (I'll admit I haven't watched the whole thing yet. I mean after all it's longer than most PBS documentaries. <g>) are:

1.) The author makes no distinction between the various vehicles for government revenue generation. Whereas to the layman there may be no difference between a fee, duty, excise, or surcharge compared to a 'straight' tax, trust me there is from a legal POV. The lawyers made sure of that! ;-)

2.) The ratification issue has been tried all the way to the Supreme Court (IIRC) and has failed. The fact that ratification may have been (was) bought is irrelevent since the Court has ruled it was ratified, therefore it is.

3.) The real problem with the 16th is that it is so vague in definition and broad in scope, that it gives Congress virtually carte blanche to do anything it desires when it comes to revenue. At the same time it limits the ability of the Supreme Court to do anything about it, since unless the Act which enables the revenue vehicle runs afoul of some other provision in the Constitution or the Amendments thereto it has no power to rule on or potentially even hear arguments on the matter. I think this has been used as a reply from the Court for refusing to hear cases related to the Federal Income Tax in the past.

Alinator

I found a link with the dates of the ratification of the amendment.

http://www.law.emory.edu/index.php?id=3106

The relevant portion is:

Amendment XVI: Income tax.


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

Proposal and Ratification

The sixteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the Sixty-first Congress on the 12th of July, 1909, and was declared, in a proclamation of the Secretary of State, dated the 25th of February, 1913, to have been ratified by 36 of the 48 States. The dates of ratification were: Alabama, August 10, 1909; Kentucky, February 8, 1910; South Carolina, February 19, 1910; Illinois, March 1, 1910; Mississippi, March 7, 1910; Oklahoma, March 10, 1910; Maryland, April 8, 1910; Georgia, August 3, 1910; Texas, August 16, 1910; Ohio, January 19, 1911; Idaho, January 20, 1911; Oregon, January 23, 1911; Washington, January 26, 1911; Montana, January 30, 1911; Indiana, January 30, 1911; California, January 31, 1911; Nevada, January 31, 1911; South Dakota, February 3, 1911; Nebraska, February 9, 1911; North Carolina, February 11, 1911; Colorado, February 15, 1911; North Dakota, February 17, 1911; Kansas, February 18, 1911; Michigan, February 23, 1911; Iowa, February 24, 1911; Missouri, March 16, 1911; Maine, March 31, 1911; Tennessee, April 7, 1911; Arkansas, April 22, 1911 (after having rejected it earlier); Wisconsin, May 26, 1911; New York, July 12, 1911; Arizona, April 6, 1912; Minnesota, June 11, 1912; Louisiana, June 28, 1912; West Virginia, January 31, 1913; New Mexico, February 3, 1913.

Ratification was completed on February 3, 1913.

The amendment was subsequently ratified by Massachusetts, March 4, 1913; New Hampshire, March 7, 1913 (after having rejected it on March 2, 1911).

The amendment was rejected (and not subsequently ratified) by Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Utah.

---

BOINC WIKI

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

MrGray, you are mixing the terms 'legal' and 'Constitutional'.

The Income Tax in the USA is 100% legal, if for no other reason than the US Federal Courts (especially the Supreme Court) have ruled that it is.

The Income Tax may or may not be Constitutional in one's opinion, depending of course on whether or not one believes that the 16th Amendment to the Constitution was (or was not) properly ratified. However, I submit to you that the question of Constitutionality is moot. Virtually since its founding with the ratification of the Constitution, the US Government has ignored at least some aspects of the Constitution when it was politically expedient to do so. And beginning with the actions of FDR in the 1930s, the problem of the US Federal Government ignoring Constitutional restrictions has grown many, many times worse. Today, the US Constitution can only be considered to be a rough guideline for the actions of the Federal Government, not as any sort of iron-clad restrictions on their powers and authorities.

The main problem is that the Federal Courts (especially the Supreme Court) have assumed the mantle of being the sole interpreters of the meaning of the US Constitution. It now means exactly what they say it means, regardless of what words may be written in ink on a certain piece of parchment.

From my study of History, the last time I know of that the Supreme Court actually tried to stand up to the rest of the Government in a serious way was back in the 1930s. FDR was proposing all sorts of new government programs in his attempt to mitigate the economic disaster known as the Great Depression. Congress passed many of them, and FDR signed them into law. However, the Supreme Court kept on ruling that those laws establishing those programs were Unconstitutional. Finally, FDR had had enough, and threatened to 'pack the Court' unless the Supreme Court stopped. 'Pack the Court' meant, with Congress' cooperation, FDR would appoint enough additional Supreme Court Justices (increasing the number well beyond the traditional 9) loyal to him and his programs to ensure his programs would not be struck down again.

The Supreme Court caved in, and ever since (remembering this threat) has basically been totally owned and operated by the rest of the Federal Government. The President and The Congress pretty much get to do what they want now, subject only to feuding between those two branches of Government. The Court system has pretty much been knocked out of the game.

So, one must conclude that the Income tax is both Legal and Constitutional. It is legal, because the Congress has passed legislation establishing it, and the Presidency has signed that legislation into Law. It is Constitutional, because the US Federal Courts (including the Supreme Court) have ruled it so.

Don't worry. Your $100 is safe. I don't want it.

<humor>
If you don't believe me try an experiment.

1. Stop paying your income taxes. Now, the IRS might not catch you right away, they can't catch everyone, yet. But their ability to catch people is improving by the day as technology improves.

2. Start proclaiming to everyone that they don't have to pay it either, and convince as many others as possible to stop as well. This definitely WILL get their attention on you.

3. Put all your affairs in order, for you will be taking a long vacation (at Taxpayer expense, even!) soon.

4. Make friends with your new roommate, Bubba. He is sure to just LOVE having you around!
</humor>

Seriously, I am not a fan of the Income Tax either. But the Federal Government does need a source of Revenue to operate, and I see few other alternatives (and most of THOSE would have people complaining as well).

One question first (and not to be taken as a critcism in any way) MrGray, but I was wondering why you put this in the Cafe rather than the Politics forum?

Better exposure the lower a thread is in the forum tree. I thought it important enough to have more peoples input. I know many people won't click the political forums link. I hate clicking it myself lately, lol.




.

---

"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 see, KWSN - MajorKong. Thanks!

I know plenty about what happens to people who don't pay taxes. My interest was on the legal side of the taxes themselves.




.

---

"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

One question first (and not to be taken as a critcism in any way) MrGray, but I was wondering why you put this in the Cafe rather than the Politics forum?

Better exposure the lower a thread is in the forum tree. I thought it important enough to have more peoples input. I know many people won't click the political forums link. I hate clicking it myself lately, lol.
.

OK, sounds good to me. ;-)

@ Kong:

Can't say I disagree with anything you said there.

In addition the New Deal also accelerated a phenomena which had already been developing for a while, but has progressively accelerated in the decades since.

That is the creation of a class of 'professional' (term used loosely) elected public servants, who's sole reason for existence has become to consolidate and keep more power unto themselves, and indirectly to the financial powers that back them in their campaigns.

The idea of the 'citizen statesman' as the founding fathers envisioned it has for all intents and purposes been dead for at least a century.

Given the levels of apathy from most voters in most elections in the US, I think it's pretty self evident that most Americans don't perceive much difference bewteen candidates nowadays, and put little to no stock in the idiotic drivel they insult the voters' intelligence with under the guise of policy statements and platform planks.

Alinator

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.



.

My Brother went to a seminar in the late 70's that convinced him of that...In 1990 he wanted to buy a house. He finally paid off the IRS 3 years ago. $23,000 is what they settled for.

---

Official Abuser of Boinc Buttons...
And no good credit hound!

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.

Many people have tried. All have failed.

Just ask Al Capone! They did not send him to jail for being a mobster, they sent him to jail for not paying TAXES on his income while being a mobster!!

---

MajorKong,


You've got some very good points in you post, but let me touch on something about your take on the history.

You said:

From my study of History, the last time I know of that the Supreme Court actually tried to stand up to the rest of the Government in a serious way was back in the 1930s... The Supreme Court caved in, and ever since (remembering this threat) has basically been totally owned and operated by the rest of the Federal Government.

I think you greatly underestimate the courage and resolve of the Supreme Court, overall.

I know it was well before the 1930s, but when push came to shove, requiring Chief Justice Marshall to stand up for the courts, he did exactly that in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), by ruling that the Supreme Court was necessarily exactly that in the constitution: supreme.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

The reason given for that was that someone had to decide in issues between congress and the executive, but that's only the rationale. Constitutionally, the Judiciary is supreme.

It may be that the Supreme Court backed down from confronting FDR in the 1930s, but they have stood up against the presidency often enough in striking down federal legislation since then. I totally disagree with your opinion that the Justices of the Supreme Court are 'owned'.

I think an example of the Justices' integrity is their united (and at the time, very controversial) support in upholding desegregation. I know that they were very worried that they would not be obeyed, but they did the right thing.

More recently, the Court has stood up to the Bush administration over the practices in Guantanamo and the secret trials the government was trying to keep in place.

I don't think that 'Packing the Court' is such a simple matter. I don't think the American people would stand for it, and I don't think the Supreme Court Justices fear that. And even if they did, I think they would stand up, just as Chief Justice Marshall did.

That's just my take on it. I'm certainly no expert in American law. :)

---

My interest was on the legal side of the taxes themselves.

The direct taxes on salaries which are imposed by the government today, as they are imposed, are unconstitutional, period. The Founders did not give Congress the power to impose oppressive taxes on the salaries of citizens.

---

My interest was on the legal side of the taxes themselves.

The direct taxes on salaries which are imposed by the government today, as they are imposed, are unconstitutional, period. The Founders did not give Congress the power to impose oppressive taxes on the salaries of citizens.

But even agreeing with you, at least the United States is solvent and has always been solvent, which is more than countries like Argentina can say.

You want to see real suffering? Enforce your "unconstitutional, period" and get ready to pay $1,800 USD for a single banana. I wonder how long you'd last.

---

My interest was on the legal side of the taxes themselves.

The direct taxes on salaries which are imposed by the government today, as they are imposed, are unconstitutional, period. The Founders did not give Congress the power to impose oppressive taxes on the salaries of citizens.

But even agreeing with you, at least the United States is solvent and has always been solvent, which is more than countries like Argentina can say.

You want to see real suffering? Enforce your "unconstitutional, period" and get ready to pay $1,800 USD for a single banana. I wonder how long you'd last.

It's a good thing I don't really like bananas.

---

My interest was on the legal side of the taxes themselves.

The direct taxes on salaries which are imposed by the government today, as they are imposed, are unconstitutional, period. The Founders did not give Congress the power to impose oppressive taxes on the salaries of citizens.

The constitution of the US can be modified by ammendments. I posted the text of the relevant amendment and its ratification history earlier in the thread. This pretty much proves that the constitution was modified to make the income tax constitutional.

---

BOINC WIKI

My interest was on the legal side of the taxes themselves.

The direct taxes on salaries which are imposed by the government today, as they are imposed, are unconstitutional, period. The Founders did not give Congress the power to impose oppressive taxes on the salaries of citizens.

The constitution of the US can be modified by ammendments. I posted the text of the relevant amendment and its ratification history earlier in the thread. This pretty much proves that the constitution was modified to make the income tax constitutional.

I noticed that John, really. But fwiw the clip we're discussing claims that there wasn't a true quorum at the Christmas vote on the 16th Ammendment. I have no idea if that's true or not.

---

My interest was on the legal side of the taxes themselves.

The direct taxes on salaries which are imposed by the government today, as they are imposed, are unconstitutional, period. The Founders did not give Congress the power to impose oppressive taxes on the salaries of citizens.

But even agreeing with you, at least the United States is solvent and has always been solvent, which is more than countries like Argentina can say.

You want to see real suffering? Enforce your "unconstitutional, period" and get ready to pay $1,800 USD for a single banana. I wonder how long you'd last.

It's a good thing I don't really like bananas.

<Sings>

Yes, we have no bananas. We have no bananas todaaay!!!

---