Taxes -- legal or an unconstitutional fraud

[riverdog]

Aaron Russo's full movie:  America - From Freedom to Fascism
 
http://www.poodlecrap.com/Hateliars/HL_Video1.asp?Part=0

[The Rabbi]

I'm not sure I could anything seriously from a site called "poodlecrap."

[riverdog]

Yeah, the website name lacks a bit of credibility, but don't judge the book by its cover.  The video is very interesting.

[Mannlicher]

Almost nothing in the current Federal Code was there when the Constitution was ratified.  Does that make the entire body of American law invalid?  I think not.  Federal Taxes are legal because the Legislature and the Courts say so.  Of course, logic and proof never faze the libertarians.
US Title 26 is what makes taxes legal.  Article One, section 8 of our Constitution states that "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes"

Little known is one of Russo's biggest reasons for not liking taxes.  He is facing over 2 Million in tax liens from the Feds for not paying his taxes.  He says this has nothing to do with his movie.  Right.  The man is a fraud, and a malcontent.  His other movies, such as "The Rose" were equally odious.

[grislyatoms]

I am not now nor have I ever recommended or condoned tax fraud, and I pay income tax, but I do have a little story to tell.

A former co-worker of mine has not paid income tax since 1998.

The IRS has called him in several times; he goes there with the entire tax code, the US code and some other legal stuff.

They have never been able to prosecute him, stick him in jail or take any money from him, to my knowledge. They finally, according to him, gave up and just labeled him a "tax protestor".

He purhased all of Irwin Schiff's books and such.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_Schiff

Schiff, by the way, is serving a 13 year sentence for tax fraud.

I imagine, in time, my former co-worker will be joining Schiff in the Federal Pen.

Legal or not, I don't know, I haven't bothered to research it much myself.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

They have never been able to prosecute him, stick him in jail or take any money from him, to my knowledge. They finally, according to him, gave up and just labeled him a "tax protestor".

So, what happens to the people they say are tax protestors?

[riverdog]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/31/movies/31russ.html?ex=1311998400&en=05c0d0988f58fc50&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss comments on the "documentary".  

The question is was the 16th Amendment ratified?  If it wasn't, does that necessarily mean the tax code is unconstitutional?  

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Apr-30-Sun-2006/opinion/6704537.html for more comments.

[grislyatoms]

So, what happens to the people they say are tax protestors?

I don't know. At this point, it seems to be little more than a label.

[riverdog]

Mannlicher,
If Article One, section 8 of our Constitution states that "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes", why was the 16th Amendment necessary?  Since the 16th Amendment does exist, if it is shown to be unratified does that mean congress does not have the "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."? Here's one answer

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 income tax. 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 income 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 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).

BTW, US Title 26 (Internal Revenue Code (26 USC)) is not the underlying law that makes taxes legal.  It is simply the tax code.  What makes the code legal is Article One, section 8 and the 16th Amendment.  All the arguments about direct vs indirect taxes is germane though and Article One, section 8 seems to be limited in its ability to mandate income taxes.  Also, I've read some very strong arguments against the validity of the 16th Amendment's ratification.  If the 16th is shown to be faulty ( http://www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/notratified.htm is germane) then the whole house of cards starts to break down.  Whatever, I'm no lawyer and this is really convoluted.

[Brad Johnson]

Methinks I smell Troll.

Brad

[riverdog]

Methinks I smell Troll.

Brad

Armed Polite Society, referred to as APS, is our sister forum, and a great place to discuss anything not gun-related or that is otherwise off-topic for THR. If you want to talk about things other than guns and gun rights, please take it over there. We'll be glad to discuss it with you.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=219644

[Fly320s]

I don't think he's trolling.  Any topic, as long is the discussion is civil, is allowed on APS.

I think that the federal income tax is legal and constitutional for the reasons listed above by Mannlicher and others.  Furthermore, I think that federal taxes are a necessary and good thing.  But, I think the current system where some people pay more taxes, while others pay fewer or none, borders on being unconstitutional.  For now, we are stuck with that system.  Luckily, we have many loop holes and deductions available to us which I always use to the fullest extent.

In the mean time I support the FairTax and I encourage my elected reps to do the same.

[MicroBalrog]

Since when is 'malcontent' a negative?

[Bogie]

Here's how it works...

The guys with the guns, and unlimited budget, wanna slice of protection money from you. You have two choices:

1) You pay them. Most of us do.

2) You don't pay them, and they ruin your life.

[Mannlicher]

next to hookers, tax collection has got to be the oldest job classification.  Romans paid taxes, Joseph and Mary paid taxes, Hammurabi levied taxes, I bet ole Glog in his cave was taxed.
Taxes aren't going away.  The best we an hope for is to replace the current tax mess with a Fair Tax, a VAT, or something that will make things a bit more even.  The problem is that those with the most to lose by changing the tax code, are in charge of writing it.  Darn.

[richyoung]

The BIG issue, concerning legality of income tax, is how does the FEDERAL government get the power to tax commerce that ISN'T international, or interstate?  The Supreme Court has ruled that the 16th Ammendment ddid NOT extend the FEDGOV's taxing authority - so by that logic, in-state income is "out of bounds" to the Fed Gov.

[Werewolf]

Here's how it works...

The guys with the guns, and unlimited budget, wanna slice of protection money from you. You have two choices:

1) You pay them. Most of us do.

2) You don't pay them, and they ruin your life.

Wow! Someone who gets it. A more succinct and definitive description of government I have never read.

A whole college level government course boiled down to 4 sentences. I think every politician ever born must have the above ingrained in his/her genetic code.

The above may not be how governments start out but it sure is the way they end up and it doesn't take long to get there.

[Otherguy Overby]

Google up Philander Knox.

here's a link:  http://www.worldnewsstand.net/history/PhilanderKnox.htm

Understanding a crime or a misdeed involves learning not only what was done and who did it, but also what the motivation was. With a clear motive, evidence of the "what" and "who" becomes much more credible. Allegations that Secretary of State Philander Knox was not merely in error, but committed fraud when he falsely declared the 16th amendment ratified in 1913, require us to look at who he was to understand why he would commit such an act. The following sketch was prepared by the We The People Foundation For Constitutional Education and is condensed from Bill Benson's research report on the ratification of the 16th Amendment, The Law That Never Was, Volume II (1985), pages 122-135.

You should read the complete article, btw.

Tthat a guy named Philander fraudulently verified the states' votes on the 16th amendment is indeed irony...

[CAnnoneer]

I think most people would agree that there is inherent benefit to minimal government. The trick is to keep it minimal. In that, human societies have consistently failed. Each government desperately fights to increase its power, be it by external conquest, internal crackdown, or taxation. In virtually all cases, governments have succeeded to do so until destroyed by other governments or depleting the available resources through ravenous spending or mismanagement. In fact, I cannot think of any historical example when a government has voluntarily reduced its power.

From this perspective, it is inevitable that old taxes will be expanded while new taxes will be instituted. "Tax cuts" are just temporary gimmicks to trick people into believing that there is a regression in the process, while in fact the averages steadily increase. Moreover, devaluing the dollar by ridiculous spending is an even bigger yet covert form of taxation - the government procures at the expense of decreased buying power of the population. How is that not taxation?

The only hope in slowing down the growth of the monster is to oppose consistently any new laws or Propositions which increase taxes or allows the government to issue bonds or otherwise borrow and spend, even if the particular initiative seems to have ethical or aesthetic appeal. To control the monster, you must starve the monster. Then politicians will have no options left but to cut programs and statist bureaucracy.

Having said the above, oppose the system by legal means. Ending up in jail for tax default/evasion only feeds the monster your assets while also justifying further budgetary increases to maintain you incarcerated at the taxpayer's expense.

[thebaldguy]

I think most will agree that we all have to kick in a little to make it work. As a person who has libertarian leanings, I have problems with how much I'm paying, and also how it's spent. I guess I have some issues with tax protesters too - they use our roads, schools, and emergency services and won't pay for them. I pay for what they use, and they pay nothing. I certainly don't think that's fair. And if they end up in jail, I pay for that as well.

I have tried numerous times to contact elected officals about reducing taxes. Our property taxes have more than doubled in the last five year. No respones, no results. In Minneapolis, in 1998, we passed a referendum requiring public approval before new sales taxes can be levied for new stadiums. What happened? Our state legislature and governor overruled the public referendum this year. They basically ignored the wishes of the public. We will have a new sales tax starting in January. Our last stadium tax levied 25 years ago is still in effect, although the stadium is long paid for. Governments get addicted to tax revenue like a crackhead on a pipe. To the best of my knowledge, few taxes have every been repealed. We need to prevent tax increases, because once they start, they never go away and are never repealed.

[BryanP]

Try not paying your taxes for a few years.  Let us know how that works for you.l

[The Rabbi]

I have tried numerous times to contact elected officals about reducing taxes. Our property taxes have more than doubled in the last five year. No respones, no results. In Minneapolis, in 1998, we passed a referendum requiring public approval before new sales taxes can be levied for new stadiums. What happened? Our state legislature and governor overruled the public referendum this year. They basically ignored the wishes of the public. We will have a new sales tax starting in January. Our last stadium tax levied 25 years ago is still in effect, although the stadium is long paid for. Governments get addicted to tax revenue like a crackhead on a pipe. To the best of my knowledge, few taxes have every been repealed. We need to prevent tax increases, because once they start, they never go away and are never repealed.

Taxes are like potholes.  They never shrink.  The last tax repealed I heard about was a telephone tax.  Enacted to finance the war.  The Spanish-American War of 1898 that is.  It was repealed this year I think.
Reagan was right that the way to shrink gov't is to starve it of tax revenue.  If you dont they will increase taxes to pay for more programs, that will need more funding.

[thebaldguy]

Rabbi, you got me there. To be honest, I forgot about that tax being repealed.

Our first stadium tax was inacted in 1981 to pay for the Metrodome. It's just .5% they said. Then in the late 80's, Minneapolis shoved a downtown entertainment tax of 3% down the throats of citizens without consent. Now we have a new additional .15% tax to pay for a new outdoor Twins stadium. The tax will last for 30 years. For those not familar with Minnesota, our fall and spring can be cold. Summers can be very hot and humid. So now we are paying a tax for a billionaire owner and millionaire players where we will be hot and cold to watch baseball. The local newspaper, the StarTribune, endorsed the tax as good for Minneapolis. The Twins spend lots of money advertising in the paper, so of course they wanted the new stadium and the tax. They bribed (oops, lobbied) elected officals to override our 1998 referendum banning new taxes for stadiums without local taxpayer consent. The outstate folks who didn't have to pay the tax on a daily basis loved the tax; they got a new stadium, and didn't have to live with the tax.

I think the phrase that applies here is divide and conquer.

I always vote no on tax referendums. Our last one for education passed. It's for the children, they said. No politican would dare vote against children, so they all endorsed it. And as you guessed, much of the money never made it to the classroom.

Our city spends money like a drunken sailor (my apologies to alcoholics and sailors. sorry!) Our property taxes have been going through the roof. What can be done?

Leave. My girlfriend and I are leaving the big city for a suburb with less crime and taxes. The city loses another middle class family; we lose thousands of dollars a year in taxes. That's the only legal solution we have found to beat taxes. Move somewhere where taxes are cheaper. When we retire, we are moving to Texas where taxes are generally much lower.

[The Rabbi]

Baldguy, you must live in Nashville.  There hasnt been a tax increase voted on here since I 've been here that was not "for education."  Fortunately people have wised up and the last one failed.  Overwhelmingly.

[thebaldguy]

Nope, Rabbi. Minneapolis, Minnesota. Land of 10,000 lakes and 10,000 taxes.

Tax people 'till it hurts and tax them some more.

Some friends of mine live in the suburbs here. Every election they have a property tax increase referendum on the ballot for education. Every election they say no. Guess what? Next election they ask again. They never stop. Even when they finally say yes, next time they ask for an increase.

How much money do governments need?

All of it.

Why are us citizens expected to live within our means, but our governments cannot?