It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Income Taxes....are they legit, or unconstitutional?

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 06:41 PM
link   
I know, i know....how do you expect social services with no incom tax right? How about we start with the fact that our income taxes, for the most part, are used to pay off interest on the national debt to the Federal Reseve System? What about that facT? I know what you people are thinking....your thinking that its just cant be true right? Not after everything you learned in economics class right? This is an issue of heated debate and controversy since there have been countless lives lost and wasted due to the illusion of owed back taxes as if they were actually "in debt" to the IRS. I would love for someone to prove the illigitimacy of the income tax in a court of law but of course, it would take such a critical mind achieve such a goal that no one man would be able to take on this noble plight. So that is the purpose of this forum....my hopes is that people bring UNBIASED information regarding the origination of the income tax and information that either shows it as being legit or not. Please dont argue or insult because that is no way to gain knowledge and before you do any individual research i feel that you should visit this website fdrs.org... or at least google the term "fractional reserve banking". There have been many books written about our economy but the onese that hold all the secrets are those that expose the federal reserve system and the central banks for the fraudulent embezzlers that they are. People its this simple....we need a reformed tax system but the only way to do that is to think outside of the box. Our social programs will be just fine under HR51 AKA the Fair tax so that argument is complete BS. The information is there for us to learn and it all started in 1913 with the federal reserve act who even woodrow wilson stated was a mistake in signing. ALso do some research into the assasination of JFK 5 months after he passed the executive order which stripped the FED from created money and lending to the US government.
The rabit hole is pretty deep....how far are you willing to go?




posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Checked out the site that you linked (fdrs.org). One thing that I couldn't help noticing was that while the site claims to be supported by extensive research by CPA's, lawyers, and economists, it doesn't bother to name these experts, nor to cite any of their published articles, nor to cite the case law that supports their position. That's a huge red flag, or should be.

If you want to prove that the income tax is unconstitutional or illegal in a court of law, you're going to need something to support that claim. The fact that nobody's done it yet could be because people are so close-minded...or it could be that there isn't sufficient legal support to argue the claim before a judge. I'd suggest that you contact an attorney to determine which is the case.

You might also check your sources on information regarding the "Fair Tax"...HR 51 has nothing to do with tax policy.

Text of H.R. 51 from the 110th Congress

Similar resolutions exist for the 106th, 107th, 108th, and 109th Congressional sessions. If you'd like, I can post links to those, too.

Getting back on topic, the short-form answer is that the current tax structure (while offensive) is legal and constitutional until the courts say otherwise. That puts the tax code in the company of a lot of things that were offensive but legal....the 'Separate but Equal' doctrine, denial of voting rights to women / minorities, and the prohibition of the manufacture of alcohol spring to mind as examples.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 07:38 PM
link   
First off...thanks for posting and i hope you dont end there because this issue is not as clear cut as you think. The fair tax may not have much influence on actual tax policy but it illiminates the IRS and the income tax thereby freeing up the billions of dollars that go into the process of only complying with the complicated tax code itself. So that right there is a plus sign for that argument. Also....the site does have references and links you just have to look for them because it definately could have been designed a little better. The resources page should have a lot of the info you want. you can even go to wiki and type in fractional reserve banking and it will give you good sources. There was one scientific study that is linked on wiki that i thought was very informative.
What it comes down to for me is this....the income tax was inherently unconstitutional because it was a direct tax on the citizens's income. This was the way the constitution was written originally and is what was intended for this country to perpetuate freedom. That was changed with the federal reserve act of 1913 because ever since then the entire country was plunged into debt....a debt that accrued interest payable to the largest and most evil cartel in the world. The legislatures new what would happen and they used their citizens as collateral because the 16th amendment reversed the orginial unconstitutionality of the direct tax on citizens and made it mandatory along with the legality of paying of debts both public and privat (important legal language there) with "legal tender" or cash notes.
So if bush passed an amendment repealing the 4th amendment in the interest of preserving safety and stopping terrorism you would be ok with that?



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Brother Stormhammer
 


Sorry about that i definately through HR 51 in there for no reason

Its the fair tax i was referring to and i dont remember the name of the bill.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 07:44 PM
link   
My point regarding the amendment that instated the direct tax is a simple one. How can you make something constitutional that was already deemed to be unconstitutional upon its inception? That makes no sense whatsoever....judicial review (at least from what i have learned) exists to examine the premise of constitutionality for a particular law or sanction etc...and not determine whether or not something should have been considered in unconstitutional in the first place. That would mean that the original provision in the constitution that denied the income tax access to our pockets was unconstitutional but does that logic make sense? Absolutely not because the constitution was created to protect our interests as citizens as this country by its simplest definition and reversing a provision that clearly was created to do this is simply maddening!!



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 09:07 PM
link   
There is no law saying that we must pay taxes on our wages. If you farm chickens and barter, trading chickens for what you need, is the IRS entitled to a certain number of chickens? No. It seems funny but it is an important point:

Only PROFIT, or money ABOVE and beyond your labors are taxable. If you win a lotteryt, then you must pay. If you make interest on money stashed away, you must pay. It is ' free money ' that they tax, as well as certain other parties as defined in the ' regulations ' NOT a law book. There are NO federal statutes that require that taxes be paid; thats one of their tricks: all the garbage is IRS nonsense..they can print anything they want but that does not make it legal.

A persons labor is a RIGHT; we can keep it all. The government has NO right to our money , or chickens , made by our efforts. Just as they cannot require us to give them a portion of material goods on livestock or anything else tangible, they cannot legally make us pay taxes on our labors either. Most people pay voluntarily: W2 forms are VOLUNTARY: you do NOT have to fill IRS forms out when hired at a job, and you are not required to ' request ' that the IRS take parts of your pay: The IRS is no more than another charity that you volunteer to give a portion of your pay to: It is voluntary at all times.

However, IF you play their game and file and allow deductions, then you have to play by their rules. BUT, you do NOT have to play at all! NO LAW exists that requires the payment of direct taxes on our labors or goods, and the whole thing is a sick scam based on lies and nonsense.

I just got a bill from the IRS from 2003 !! They want jme to send them almost 4000 dollars for money I made that year. I file no returns, and thus I am not playing their game. I throw all the crap they send in the trash. And, they will never come and bother me because they stand zero chance of collecting, and they know it. They pick on the people who get intimidated easily and bluff easily as well. I am not one of them,. and if they ever did bother me, I would use the same defense that the attorney in Louisiana used to get a NOT GUILTY verdict from the same charges: He simply read the jury the law and showed the court decisions and that was it.

Sooner or later more people will realize that they are throwing money away for nothing when they give away their labors to a scam.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by GUICE2
My point regarding the amendment that instated the direct tax is a simple one. How can you make something constitutional that was already deemed to be unconstitutional upon its inception?


You can attach amendments to the Constitution. If you look at how the Constitution was originally written, it contained no provisions for the rights of citizens. At that time, blacks were counted as "fractional persons" if they were counted in government at all, and they certainly couldn't vote. Slavery was legal, and it was perfectly Constitutional to manufacture and sell alcohol. When these various oversights / omissions / down-right screwups became intolerable to enough people (at various times in our history), things that were Constitutional became unconstitutional.

The Bill of Rights made it unconstitutional to restrict speech, exercise unreasonable search and seizure, force self-incrimination, or inflict cruel and unusual punishment (among other things). The 13th amendment made slavery unconstitutional. The 26th amendment made it unconstitutional to deny the vote to any citizen over 18, and of course, the 18th amendment made it unconstitutional to produce alcohol for consumption...then the 21st amendment reversed that position.

In short, we have a long history of changing the Constitution's content.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by eyewitness86
There is no law saying that we must pay taxes on our wages. If you farm chickens and barter, trading chickens for what you need, is the IRS entitled to a certain number of chickens? No. It seems funny but it is an important point:

Only PROFIT, or money ABOVE and beyond your labors are taxable. If you win a lotteryt, then you must pay. If you make interest on money stashed away, you must pay. It is ' free money ' that they tax, as well as certain other parties as defined in the ' regulations ' NOT a law book. There are NO federal statutes that require that taxes be paid; thats one of their tricks: all the garbage is IRS nonsense..they can print anything they want but that does not make it legal.


I don't suppose you have a legal citation to support these contentions? A quick look at the relevant Constitutional passage (Article 1, Section 8) doesn't seem to support your claim at all....quite the contrary:


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


And if you want to make sure I didn't edit it:

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1

Nowhere in that text do I see anything preventing Congress from taxing anything they please, directly or indirectly, so long as the taxes are "uniform throughout the states". All the infamous 16th amendment did was remove the 'uniformity' restriction.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Actually all the 16th amendment did was state that the taxes to be levied and taken by congress were taken from all income from whatever source derived and withouth aportionment to the states etc.....
That is directly from the little constitution booklet i have in front of me. Yet, no big deal....they can only now tax our income which is a direct tax, but not only one source of income, ALL SOURCES!!! NOw usually laws that are ambiguous and vague and impead on a persons rights are interpreted by the supreme court to be unconstitutional on account of the language being to broad. So you mean to tell me that what this amendment says regarding how ALL SOURCES of income are to be taxed without regard to any concensus or enumeration is constitutional by that logic and benefits civil rights??

So we already know that these income taxes are not being distributed to the states... and you can see that by the definition of the word apportionment.

dictionary.reference.com...

Now lets looka at the words enumeration and census which pretty much mean the same thing.

dictionary.reference.com...


So now another question regarding this topic....do you consider the information above to constitute taxation without representation?
How can they have such broad language in the constitution that makes no specific affirmation of rights? If labor is our right as citizens then all income from that is a right as well. O and by the way....this is PROOF that the income tax is not distributed to the states and is not a coincidence that it was passed in 1913 when the federal reserve act was passed.
So do you think its fair that we are collateral for our own country's outstanding debts?
The info is here for yo uto see and is right htere in the constitution and i gurantee the supreme court will interpret a case of this magnitude for the people of the US if presented with all the evidence.
Man i hope people see this becuase it really should end this argument.




[edit on 27-12-2007 by GUICE2]



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by eyewitness86
There is no law saying that we must pay taxes on our wages. If you farm chickens and barter, trading chickens for what you need, is the IRS entitled to a certain number of chickens?


Actually, it might be.



No. It seems funny but it is an important point:

Only PROFIT, or money ABOVE and beyond your labors are taxable.


No, compensation received for your labor is taxable. If you dig a hole on your property for whatever reason you are not taxed if you receive no money or other compensation for doing so.



If you win a lotteryt, then you must pay. If you make interest on money stashed away, you must pay. It is ' free money ' that they tax, as well as certain other parties as defined in the ' regulations ' NOT a law book. There are NO federal statutes that require that taxes be paid; thats one of their tricks: all the garbage is IRS nonsense..they can print anything they want but that does not make it legal.


This is entirely incorrect.

Please read this, from actual lawyers who know actual laws:

It refutes all of the nutty pseudo-legalisms.

evans-legal.com...



A persons labor is a RIGHT; we can keep it all. The government has NO right to our money , or chickens , made by our efforts. Just as they cannot require us to give them a portion of material goods on livestock or anything else tangible, they cannot legally make us pay taxes on our labors either.


Sure they can.


Most people pay voluntarily: W2 forms are VOLUNTARY: you do NOT have to fill IRS forms out when hired at a job, and you are not required to ' request ' that the IRS take parts of your pay: The IRS is no more than another charity that you volunteer to give a portion of your pay to: It is voluntary at all times.


Nope.


However, IF you play their game and file and allow deductions, then you have to play by their rules. BUT, you do NOT have to play at all! NO LAW exists that requires the payment of direct taxes on our labors or goods, and the whole thing is a sick scam based on lies and nonsense.


The law is known as the Internal Revenue Code.

evans-legal.com...




I just got a bill from the IRS from 2003 !! They want jme to send them almost 4000 dollars for money I made that year. I file no returns, and thus I am not playing their game. I throw all the crap they send in the trash. And, they will never come and bother me because they stand zero chance of collecting, and they know it. They pick on the people who get intimidated easily and bluff easily as well. I am not one of them,. and if they ever did bother me, I would use the same defense that the attorney in Louisiana used to get a NOT GUILTY verdict from the same charges: He simply read the jury the law and showed the court decisions and that was it.

Sooner or later more people will realize that they are throwing money away for nothing when they give away their labors to a scam.


Just incorrect.

Congress has had the power to tax incomes since the origination of the Constitution.



“It was, however, obviously the intention of the framers of the Constitution, that Congress should possess full power over every species of taxable property, except exports. The term taxes, is generical, and was made use of to vest in Congress plenary authority in all cases of taxation. Supreme Court Justice Patterson (1796)”


He was a member of the Constitutional Convention.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer

Nowhere in that text do I see anything preventing Congress from taxing anything they please, directly or indirectly, so long as the taxes are "uniform throughout the states". All the infamous 16th amendment did was remove the 'uniformity' restriction.


Not quite.

Uniformity means that Congress cannot pass Federal laws to tax certain states explicitly more or less than others. This makes sense: only legislatures of those states can do so. That was already required by the Constitution.

The 16th Amendment clarified when certain taxes needed apportionment (division according to state's population) but the power to lay income taxes by Congress was always there since the beginning. At the time of the amendment, legal precedent was somewhat divided.

The one tax that is, in truth, Constitutionally illegal is taxes on exports.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Dude i have the constitution right in front of me so point me to the section that clearly states all income will be taxed that isnt the 16th amendment? I dont see anything that says that upon the origination of the income tax.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 10:56 AM
link   
This whole argument falls on the shoulders of interpretation of the language involved. That is what the supreme court is here for and i feel that they need to reinterpret the 16th amendment in order to take into account all the social implications that it has created over the years especially in this time of great debt. Bottom line is this...taxes have to be paid if there are social services offered to the people which makes sense. Yet direct taxes on a persons income in the present day are more of a hardship than anything else especially when those taxes dont go towards all the necessary services but towards the national debt and interest.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Very interesting facts guys. I believe all of it. Just one thing; I'm from Canada, do the laws apply the same as the U.S.? On a few occations, when I haven't paid taxes that I've owed, they would garnish my wages and take my money that way. Recently, I received a bill stating I owe $620.00 because I forgot to claim some income from a short period job I did. I owe that much because of federal and provincial charges for not claiming. The date I was suppose to pay them by was Dec. 17. Before xmas? Forget that. The thing I don't get is, they started taking my gst cheques then stopped taking them away from me, and continued to send them. Which makes no sense if I owed them money. It's all bull crap, and honestly, someone has to step up and let everyone know that we are paying into our countries debts. People are too closed minded. We need to do something fast.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by GUICE2
Our social programs will be just fine under HR51 AKA the Fair tax so that argument is complete BS.


HR51 is not the fair tax. HR25 is the fair tax and the only tax system that we should use. But by doing this the politicians will lose alot of power and the people won't need their help, so the fair tax will be hard to pass, if at all. The Income tax is unconstitutional and was suppost to be temporary just to fund the war. But then politicians started thinking about how useful to them it would be and how powerless the citizens would not be.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Well how much national debt does canada have?
You guys also have great social programs for the important stuff like healthcare and education. Also, isnt all medication the same price in a pharmacy or something? Your country is so much more safe as well isnt it?
What about public transportation? Is it as corrupt as it is here?



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Even if you have the most compelling and well reasoned argument that income taxes are illegal, you will be penalized if you fail to pay your taxes. There is no court that is going to buy into the argument because the federal government, as well as many state governments, rely on income taxes as a vital source of revenue.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by GUICE2
 


We don't have to pay for health care, and most of the public transportation is given money to upgrade and all that bull. I'm not exactly sure how much our debt is, but I'm going to take a look into it.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


Yet this isnt revenue for the govt because it all goes towards the interest on their own loans! Why doesnt anybody make that connection? Its not a conspiracy theory!!! Kennedy knew it, jefferson new it, even wilson new it and thats why they spoke out against the federal reserve and its cartel.
None of the income tax is used for our states....it says so in the constitution!! So how can it be revenue? They either use it entirely for war which some people argue or entirely for the national debt.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Canibor666
 


you see thats the issue....its not an arguement regarding whether or not a populace should pay taxes to support its own country. After all, we are the government so if we need certain social services like healthcare (which we dont have) then we obviously have to pay taxes on it. The problem is that our government is too involved with corporations whose main concern is profit and the federal reserve is the largest corporation of them all. When you play with pigs you get mud on your pants......it fits. Just think about it.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join