Is the Income Tax Legal?

[AlwaysRIGHT]

After credible officials have questioned the legality of the income tax in the United States, I have come to believe both the tax and the Federal Reserve are oppressive, unnecessary and downright dangerous to Americans. Below are some links. What do you think?

http://www.freedomabovefortune.com
http://www.freedomtofascism.com

I think you should move to a different country if you don't like it here and don't want to play by the rules that have been in place since you were born. Crybaby.

he term "Whackjob" leaps to mind

[AlwaysRIGHT]

No thanks. I actually like it here and I am playing by the rules that were in place before any of us were born. You know - like 1778. It is unconstitutional to put the coinage of money in the hands of any other than the U.S. Congress. If you are a sworn officer you took an oath to defend and protect that constitution. Some of us remain loyal to it while others just attack those that remain loyal to it.

I expected this kind of a reaction. When all else fails just resort to childish name calling. What are you in third grade? How does it feel to be a traitor?

[AlwaysRIGHT]

Informative Video on the Federal Reserve (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-466210540567002553&q=mises)

Let's try this, shall we? Try not paying your taxes for a couple of years and then calling the IRS and tell them they can't touch you because you are alwaysRIGHT and certainly no traitor and they are goose-stepping Nazi thugs. See how that works for you. You remind me of the guy I stopped a couple of years back who insisted that, since his taxes paid for the road, he didn't need a driver's license. The irony here is that his taxes also paid for County Jail....so he really got his money's worth that day.
Like I said...Whackjob.
PS - do the black helicoptrs follow you around, too?

[AlwaysRIGHT]

I have been cited for traffic violations in the past and was courteous to the officer that issued it. I paid the ticket without complaint. But I think this is a separate issue.

I personally have nothing against taxing as long it is legal.
There is no law requiring us to pay a direct and unapportioned tax on money received from our labor. The proponents that defend the federal income tax usually claim that it is authorized by the 16th Amendment. The 16th Amendment was never legally ratified. Nowhere in the Tax Code does it state that the income tax is mandatory.

The U.S. Goverment funds its multi-billion dollar operation by borrowing money from the Federal Reserve. The interest charged on this loan is paid by the federal income tax revenues (your money).

If you are going to approach this issue from a law enforcement perspective, the Federal Reserve cannot legally coin our currency and the federal income tax is illegal. Apparently, your animousity has been misdirected toward someone who supports law enforcement.

[AlwaysRIGHT]

The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit...

The law of supply and demand is not to be conned. As the supply of money (of claims) increases relative to the supply of tangible assets in the economy, prices must eventually rise. Thus the earnings saved by the productive members of the society lose value in terms of goods. When the economy's books are finally balanced, one finds that this loss in value represents the goods purchased by the government for welfare or other purposes with the money proceeds of the government bonds financed by bank credit expansion...

In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the "hidden" confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard.

Gold and Economic Freedom, by Alan Greenspan, 1966

[AlwaysRIGHT]

“I believe that, in both spirit and substance, our tax system has come to be un-American. Death and taxes may be inevitable, but unjust taxes are not. The first American Revolution was sparked by an unshakable conviction — taxation without representation is tyranny. Two centuries later, a second American revolution for hope and opportunity is gathering force again — a peaceful revolution, but born of popular resentment against a tax system that is unwise, unwanted, and unfair.”


Ronald Reagan (”Address to the Nation on Tax Reform,” May 28, 1985)

you got to just love these idiots that just want to lay down and stay ignorant.

Wesley Snipes was acquitted of tax fraud but was convicted of failure to file taxes, in a Florida courtroom Friday.

Snipes, 45, who was convicted of three misdemeanor counts of failing to file a tax return, faces up to three years in federal prison. His income over the period of time in which he failed to file amounted to millions of dollars.

He was acquitted of two felonies, including conspiracy to commit tax fraud. He was also acquitted of three misdemeanor counts of willful failure to file a tax return.

The actor, who is currently free on bond, told PEOPLE after the ruling: "I'm feeling great – a little confused, but great." Asked if he is worried about going to prison, he said, "I don't know. It's nice to be out here with you right now. We live in the moment."

A Florida jury of seven women and five men announced the verdict Friday afternoon, after beginning deliberations Wednesday.

During the course of the trial, attorneys for the actor admitted he was "dead wrong" not to have paid taxes and that he would make restitution. In so arguing, they also claimed that no fraud was perpetrated and that no trial was even necessary.

"Disagreement with the IRS is not fraud of the IRS, is not deception," argued defense attorney Robert Barnes.

When the day's session concluded on Tuesday, Snipes said outside the courthouse, "Of course you would be nervous,. You're on trial. Anybody would have a certain amount of anxiety about that. But I have a great deal of faith in the Most High and the Good Lord and the truth shall set you free. So, I'm looking forward to being free, going back to what I do best."

Snipes, who starred in the Blade vampire trilogy, as a cross-dresser in To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar and as a fugitive in U.S. Marshals, is due to be seen later this year in Gallowwalker, which was shot in the African nation of Namibia.

Snipes was convicted along with his accountant and the founder of a tax-protest outfit called American Rights Litigators.

"The defendants know what the law is, they just don't like the law," Assistant U.S. Attorney Scotland Morris told the jury members before they went to verdict. "The defendants are tax protesters."

[johnwk]

What should always be kept in mind concerning the 16th Amendment is, the 16th Amendment did not, nor was it intended to, remove the requirement that “direct taxes” are to be apportioned among the states!

For confirmation see the wording of the 16th Amendment which does not mention “direct taxes”. In addition, see, BROMLEY v. MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929) the Court states, well after the adoption of the 16th Amendment, and in crystal clear language: “As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.”

Also see EISNER v. MACOMBER , 252 U.S. 189 (1920), also decided after the 16th Amendment’s adoption in which the court states ‘a proper regard for its genesis, as well as its very clear language, requires also that this amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes upon property, real and personal, this limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.”

As to what the Sixteenth Amendment accomplished, it seems quite clear that it really granted no new power of taxation and merely confirmed what had already be decided by the SCOTUS in FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107 (1911) (http://supreme.justia.com/us/220/107/), that Congress already had power to lay and calculate a tax from income without having to apportion the tax when such a tax was not direct. The tax calculated from income in the Flint case was considered by the court to be indirect because it taxed the “privilege of being a corporation”, a privilege created by government, and the measure of the tax was calculated from the profits and gains earned under the privilege, and, no tax was payable, as stated by the Court, if business was not carried on in the prescribed manner with the advantages a corporation exercises. The court stated in part:



Indirect taxation includes a tax on business done in a corporate capacity; the difference between it and direct taxation imposed on property because of its ownership is substantial, and not merely nominal.

Excises are taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale, or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations and upon corporate privileges; the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of the privilege, and if business is not done in the manner described, no tax is payable.


Until an amendment is added to our Constitution stating in clear language that the existing apportionment requirement for “direct taxes” is hereby repealed, the protection still exists and has been repeatedly upheld by the court!

But why did our founders require “direct taxes” to be apportioned?


Our founding fathers intended that if insufficient revenue was raised by Congress from its normal taxing powers and Congress needed additional revenue, Congress was then intended to lay a “direct tax” among the states for the additional sum needed.

To insure protection against the abuse of the “direct taxing” power, our founding fathers provided a [i]fair share formula to be followed which determined each State`s share of the total sum being raised by Congress.

Considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution, that fair share formula may be represented as follows:



State`s population
-------------------------------X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE
Total U.S. Population




The intentions of the founder`s fair share formula is very much part of federalism and based upon the idea of ___ Representation with proportional obligation,___ an idea which socialists and the friends of big government dread with a passion!

After determining each state`s share of the sum to be raised using the fair share formula, each State`s Congressional Delegation is to return to their own state with a bill for their State`s share of the tax and the various state Governors and Legislatures are to be left with the responsibility of transferring their State`s share from the state treasury into the treasury of the United States, or, raising additional taxes within the state and then transferring that money into the treasury of the United States.

Now, what would happen to the king of pork, the pride and joy of Pennsylvania, Representative John Murtha, if he should have to return home with a bill for his state Governor and Legislature to pay to finance the millions of pork barrel earmarks he now channels to his district by plundering the federal treasury?

The point is, our founder`s plan provides a very real moment of accountability when Congress engages in reckless spending and borrowing but the leadership of both the Republican and Democrat parties ignore the solution so they may continue to engage in deficit spending.

Under the Founder’s plan there are no loopholes, no manipulation, and, those state congressional delegations with the biggest mouth in Congress, who would dare use their large voting strength to squander federal revenue, create big government or send our money to distant lands through a “United Nations” [a money laundering operation] are to bring home to their State Governor a bill for the largest share of the apportioned tax which the Governor and State Legislature would then be responsible for raising and then depositing into the treasury of the United States.


Picture for a moment the expression on the faces of the Governor of New York and the New York State Legislature, if New York should receive a bill for its apportioned share [29/435] of the 2005 federal deficit. This threat would create a compelling incentive for the Governor of each state, and the various state legislatures, to keep a jealous eye on the spending habits of their Congressional Delegation . . . it would require the fiscal accountability which the state governments once demanded from their Senate and House Members!

Finally, here is an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=003/llsl003.db&recNum=94) using the rule of apportionment and showing each state’s share of the tax


Also see Section 7 of direct tax of 1813 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=003/llsl003.db&recNum=112) allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.

Question is, when will we get back to following the wisdom of our founding fathers…Representation with Proportional Obligation which is our Constitution‘s fair share formula for taxation?


Sorry for carrying on but I thought some would find the above information interesting since our government schools no longer teach the intentions and beliefs under which our federal Constitution was adopted.

JWK

If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon a federal government check, we can then bribe them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s working population [Joe the American plumber] enslaved to pay the bills ____ our Washington Establishment’s Marxist game plan, a plan to establish a federal plantation and redistribute the wages earned by labor.