There's no law saying you have to pay income tax and/or its Unconstitutional

[Puregonzo1188]

Last night I saw the trailer for Freedom To Fascism last night and heard several people make this claim. This is not the first time I've heard this claim, I've heard several times from various libertarian/Conservative wackjobs. Clearly it is Constitutional as their is an Amendment stating so (although I have heard the argument Ohio wasn't a real state at the time :shrug:). And the "there's no law saying you have to pay them" didn't when the Congress pass the original income tax law it stated that people had to pay them? I mean this seems like a pretty cut and dry thing. I've just always been so flabbergasted by the arguments that income tax is illegal/Unconstitutional and I'm wondering if any DUers could actually explain to me how any confusion exists over the subject.

[TahitiNut]

1. "how any confusion exists over the subject."??

There seems to be as much "confusion" over it as there is about being a "Christian nation," the age of the earth, or whether the human species evolved over billions of years.

We humans have an awesome capacity to believe what we want to believe, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[ComerPerro]

62. great points

[NoodleBoy]

2. I ran into some people basically saying the same thing-- on DU

Keep in mind, it's in an amendment to the Constitution. Saying there's no law regarding it is like saying there's no law regarding the government establishing a state religion.

[jobycom]

3. Well, the Constitution arguably forbids it, so it had to be amended. As you allude to,

the amendment's passage was rather suspect. So some people swear either that the amendment was improperly ratified, therefore an income tax is still forbidden by the Constitution (hence, no law says yuo have to pay it, since the law should rightfully be declared unconstitutional), or that the amendment went against the spirit of the Constitution and therefore is somehow invalid.

I'm not agreeing, just saying that's what they would say. I can sympathize a little because of the flag burning amendment. Imagine that passing--would we, as free speech people--accept it as part of the Constitution, or would we consider it an unconstitutional constitutional amendment? Or, would we argue in a broader sense that it violates our inalienable rights, and therefore invalidates itself and our government? Probably all of those.

[Hosnon]

7. "Went against the spirit of the Constitution and therefore is somehow invalid."

I know that is not your argument but I gotta say: :wtf:

It's an amendment.

[jobycom]

28. Do you believe in inalienable rights? All the Declaration stuff?

How about an amendment banning gay marriage? Or gay relationships?

[Hosnon]

38. It's not necessary to not believe in any of that to find the argument ridiculous.

I'm addressing the structure of the Constitution. There is only one explicit limitation on Article V today: "No state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." A suggested implicit limitation is the "amending away" of Article V itself, or some part thereof, e.g., Fictional Amendment 28: "No State shall do X and this Amendment shall not be subject to the amendment process in Article V."

A legal argument claiming that an amendment violates the "spirit" of the Constitution would most certainly fail. Moral arguments such as those you make? Sure, they may work. In the former sense, no constitutional amendment can be unconstitutional; it is, by definition, impossible. In the latter sense, however, a constitutional amendment can be unconstitutional if by "constitutional" something above and beyond the Constitution is what is being referenced, e.g., a greater sense of Justice that is merely attempted to be coded in the Constitution.

Edit: Content and grammar.

[jobycom]

49. I'm not talking about legal arguments.

Obviously the legal argument would fail. By those standards, we had no legal right to break from England, and probably Lincoln had no legal right to invade the South.

It's not even really a "moral" argument, as in a question of right or wrong, and it's not really about whether the spirit of the Constitution is violated by the letter of the Constitution.

It's more about government, and what contracts it makes with people, and what allows it to change those contracts. Thomas Jefferson stuff. I don't agree with the tax protesters on the letter of their disagreement, but I agree in spirit that a government that oversteps its bounds does damage its legitimacy. You've heard Jefferson's comments about needing a revolution every generation. The beauty of a democracy is that it is supposed to ask the people before it makes such a major change, so that government always, at least in the big picture, represents the people, and is an extension of the people.

But when laws begin to skirt the Constitution, and courts fail to uphold it, and our representation is continuously weakened by a growing population represented by the same small group of Representatives, democracy begins to be called into question. Laws, even amendments, passed by Congress become less representative of the people's will. Government fails to be an extension of the people, and becomes an alien presence over the people.

At what point does government's changes to the basic charter document that controls them violate our contract with them? At what point does it go too far? At what point does it fail to be a legitimate government--meaning, to me, the agency which the people allow to represent it--and begin to be force of oppression over the people?

The tax protesters are claiming it has already happened, with the income tax. They deny the validity of the laws (though many pay, anyway) that created the income tax. I don't agree with them on that issue, and the majority of Americans don't--thus proving they are wrong, for the most part (although one could argue that government's powers are curtailed where our inalienable rights are violated, even for a minority).

But there is a line somewhere that would make most of us agree government can't cross and be legitimate. For many, myself included, it was crossed on December 12, 2000, with the Bush v Gore decision. For many it was crossed in March of 03, when our government used our soldiers to slaughter innocent people in a foreign land, without excuse. Both of those cases were individual--they didn't change the Constitution, thus they didn't invalidate the entire structure of government in the US. They invalidated the legitimacy of the Bush government, and of the members of the Supreme Court at that time, but there was and is reason to hope that our government will be cured of those problems.

But when does an amendment cross that line? Normally the amendment process is so difficult that an amendment can't pass without a strong majority of the nation wanting it to pass. But some argue that the income tax amendment was passed illegally. And the flag amendment is unpopular with the majority, and came disgustingly close to being passed through Congress. We could mention prohibition, even.

There is a line, was my point. So I disagree with the tax protesters on substance. But I have an understanding of them based on theory.

[Larry Ogg]

65. Very well said jobycom, I could only add to your argument.

The final points of any government’s legitimacy mite be made with undue force, precipitating that mite be; when the oppressor is made arbitrator over the legitimacy and legality of the laws with out the consent of the governed. I believe we have long been at the latter… Unjust laws only serve the unjust…

[dysfunctional press]

19. a flag burning amendment would be meaningless-

all you have to do is make a flag with only 12 stripes, and use it for burning.
it will look like an american flag to most people, but since it will only have had 12 stripes, it wouldn't be one, and therefore not covered.

[jobycom]

26. Not relevant to my point. nt

[dysfunctional press]

29. i'm answering your question by saying that a flag-burning amendment wouldn't bother me...

in the least.

[jobycom]

31. Ah. Well, it would bother me. nt

[dysfunctional press]

36. i would actually CHEER a flag-burning amendment...

just to see armies of 12-striped flag-burners show them how stupid and pointless the amendment would be.

[jobycom]

50. Problem is, the amendment wouldn't ban anything.

It would only allow states and local governments to ban what they considered desecration of the flag. If the states passed a law saying it was illegal to burn a twelve striped flag because it was meant in spirit to represent the flag, then your armies would be arrested. They might win the case in our Supreme Court, but I have trouble believing it, barring a major change.

Question--if that happened, if the Supreme Court upheld laws burning anything approximating the flag, would you still cheer, or would decide then that the government had gone too far?

[dysfunctional press]

56. it wouldn't happen...it would be too vague.

it wouldn't ban flag burning, but rather flag desecration, which would also cover burning. if they tried to make a law banning desecration of anything approximating the flag, the rnc would never be able to hold another convention.

[jobycom]

59. So you've seen something yu trust in the current Supreme Court, you're saying.

We've all been shocked by recent court decisions. They decided an election could be decided without counting all the votes, even though they unanimously agreed that there were legally cast votes that had never been counted.

And I'm not sure you understand the amendment proposed, from what you say. The amendment does not ban flag desecration at all. The amendment only allows states to ban it if the states want, since the 90s SCOTUS ruling said states could not ban it. (A lot of people misunderstand this issue, which is why so many have misunderstood Clinton's and Boxer's flag bill). How vague or narrowly that is interpreted is between the states and the SCOTUS, and I don't share your opinion on how narrowly this supposedly states-rights oriented court will decide.

[Hosnon]

40. Well, the Amendment could outlaw the burning of anything that

resembles an American flag, thus covering your 12 stripe flag. However, that would be crazy vague and would have less of a chance of passing than a strict definition.

[cherokeeprogressive]

57. A flag with only 12 stripes would NOT be an American Flag

Who cares what it looks like? It still wouldn't be an American flag. So what in the world would be the point of burning it? Burning something that LOOKS like an American flag is meaningless on the face of it. If you're not burning the American flag, you're not protesting anything at all.

[lazer47]

4. Most people who practice this, usually have a lot of time

to reconsider the folly of this, usually 3 to 7 yrs in a minimum security facility

[BadgerLaw2010]

5. There is no confusion; the arguments have no factual or legal merit.

People who try to claim confusion are just trying to avoid paying. Or are fringe lunatics who think the UN is coming for them in black helicopters.

[ConfidentialStatus]

8. Oh Geez

You forgot to use the word frivilous. Where can I find your master?

[ConfidentialStatus]

6. You should see the entire film

My question to you... This national debt that we have, who do we pay the interest to? Another question: How did people survive from 1776 - 1936 before Social Security taxes came into play?

[Puregonzo1188]

9. I'm watching it right now. (n/t)

[Solon]

11. Uhm the average lifespan for people from 1776 to around 1936 was about 45-55 years old...

In fact, during most of human history, the lifespan was around this, and sometimes less.

Just to let you know, Social Security generally didn't kick in till around 65 years old.

[ConfidentialStatus]

14. Oh I see

They died and wouldn't be able to collect. We have a solution for SS crisis... raise the age to 95.

[Solon]

24. Considering that lifespans continue to increase, that would be a stop gap measure at best...

we have practically doubled the lifespan of the human species in the past century, I doubt that's going to slow down anytime soon. There are no problems with Social Security that are insurmountable, I was answering a question, for most people in the past, they simply didn't survive beyond a certain age, so the idea of "taking care of the elderly" was actually only the purview of the wealthy, they were the ones who had a balanced diet and access to the best doctors of the time. In addition to this, the "elderly" of the time were people past the age of around 50, we redefined that entirely, due to medical science, so much so that the "elderly" of today are defined as those who are around 70+ years old.

[Doremus]

12. Here's how they survived.

[ConfidentialStatus]

17. Boys as young eight years old sometimes died

It's a good thing some boys survived, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[RaleighNCDUer]

35. How did people survive...?

Frankly, a lot of them didn't.

Before SS, 50% of the elderly lived in poverty. They died for lack of protection by either the state or their former employers. Old people starved to death, died from the heat in the summer, died from the cold in the winter, died from inadequate medical care. Anyone unlucky enough to not have an extended family had nothing but personal savings to fall back on, and when the banks went under and wiped out those saving (if they had any to begin with) they were just shit out of luck. Private charities were completely inadequate to the task of providing for them. A very few former military got military pensions which might keep them from starving. Most companies had no pension plans, and most of the workforce didn't work for companies anyway - self-employed businesses, farmers, craftsmen, had only their own resources. Laborers were screwed.

[northzax]

47. oh sure

but they didn't have to pay social security taxes, the ungrateful wretches!

[northzax]

44. you mean old people?

they starved or died if they had no money.

[MUSTANG_2004]

63. Poorhouses

While there was no federal safety net, cities and counties did have poorhouses. They were far less dignified than SS, but they were the safety net to keep the old and infirm from dying of starvation.

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

[renie408]

10. Try explaining that to the IRS. n/t

[Beelzebud]

13. Tell them to point out the law that says you have to pay taxes.

They can't.

[Puregonzo1188]

16. Wouldn't the orginal 1913 Income Tax Law say that people did have to pay an income tax?

[sarge43]

41. Article XVI, USC says

"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."

[dragonlady]

18. It's called the Internal Revenue Code

Passed by Congress and amended many, many times.

[Lex]

21. yeah but that's a "code" not a "law"

Just kidding! :rofl:

[ConfidentialStatus]

22. Who can honestly say they read the code?

Most people find it ambigous? But maybe you're the exception.

[BadgerLaw2010]

23. Stop trying to encourage people in illegal activity.

It's not going to keep you out of jail to send more people there.

[ConfidentialStatus]

30. Huh?

Whoa fear and intimidation. People are not smart enough and need others to tell them what they should do. Be a true Patriot and don't research or gather information, only listen to people who have your best interest at heart.

Hey... you know I met a few Code Pink ladies who are not paying any income taxes and guess what they are not in jail. I'll let you know if that changes.

[LanternWaste]

43. I'm afraid I don't understand the relevance of the question.

I'm afraid I don't understand the relevance of the question. Does the amount of readership make a law any less valid?

Aren't most laws somewhat ambiguous to the layperson?

[northzax]

48. I dunno, maybe I am smarter than the average bear

but this doesn't seem all that ambiguous to me:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000001----000-.html

US Code 26:A:1. read it. it's really pretty simple for most people. you add up your income, you subtract your deductions, you look up an amount on a table and pay what it says. how is this ambiguous?

or is your argument that the US Code of Laws are not, in fact, laws?

[Crabby Appleton]

70. Here I am pointing to the Federal Law that says you pay income tax

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000001----000-.html

For example:

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 1Prev | Next § 1. Tax imposed
(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of—
(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, and
(2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2 (a)),
a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
If taxable income is: The tax is:


Not over $36,900 15% of taxable income.
Over $36,900 but not over $89,150 $5,535, plus 28% of the excess over $36,900.
Over $89,150 but not over $140,000 $20,165, plus 31% of the excess over $89,150.
Over $140,000 but not over $250,000 $35,928.50, plus 36% of the excess over $140,000.
Over $250,000 $75,528.50, plus 39.6% of the excess over $250,000.

etc, etc, etc

or start here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26_10_A_20_1.html

or here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/

In case there any confusion, the US Code is what the body of of Federal Law is called, it contains federal criminal offenses as well as other regulations. The Federal Tax law is as legal as any other Federal law passed by congress as described below.


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/1/chapters/3/sections/section_204.html

[no_hypocrisy]

15. The Supreme Court has ruled the creation of the IRS and its

ability to collect revenue on behalf of the federal government to be constitutional.

End of story.

[ConfidentialStatus]

20. What does it say? And what year?

You mean to tell me they use the words creation? What year did this happen?

[Puregonzo1188]

25. I don't disbelieve you, but could you give me the name of the case?

As multiply times during Freedom To Fascism Aaron Russo and the people keep arguing the Supreme Court has ruled the income tax is not Constitutional. I have no familiarity with any of these cases, although I will research them.

[BadgerLaw2010]

32. Most recently, Cheek v. United States (1991)

Wiki page on the case

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheek_v._United_States

Opinion:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=498&page=192

The Court specifically held that a belief that tax law is invalid or unconstitutional is not a defense.

It's a defense to claim misunderstanding as a result of genuine, good faith belief, but if you're arguing constitutionality or specifics of the tax code, you're demonstrating plenty of understanding.

[ConfidentialStatus]

What trumps?

Does supreme court cases trump case law?

[BadgerLaw2010]

34. Supreme Court trumps everything except constituional ammendments. They ARE case law.

Especially in the federal system. You cannot have federal case law that conflicts with a Supreme Court opinion, nor should you have later rulings that conflict with said opinion if the federal judge is doing his job.

The only two ways of overturning a SCOTUS opinion are with a new SCOTUS opinion - you pass a new law and hope that the Court makeup has changed to be more favorable to your point of view - or with an ammendment.

[northzax]

45. the Supreme Court MAKES case law

so yes, the most recent Supreme Court decision on a subject becomes the relevant case law. By very defintion.

[ieoeja]

58. Yes, the Supreme Court trumps case law.

I was going to get all snarky, but then it occurred to me you might be some kid who honestly did not know this. So, yes, the Supreme Court is the top ranking court in the United States. They have the authority to make the absolute, final decision on legal issues.

[no_hypocrisy]

Please read this article and then go to Lexis for the case cited.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/30860.html

In 1895, the Supreme Court, in Pollack v. Farmers Loan and Trust Company, struck down the 1894 income tax as unconstitutional. But the Court didn't rule that every federal income tax would be unconstitutional.


------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_constitutional_arguments#Constitutional_status_of_the_1986_Internal_Revenue_Code_in_case_law

Constitutional status of the 1986 Internal Revenue Code in case law
Neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor any other Federal court has ever ruled that any Federal income tax<72> imposed under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is unconstitutional.

[northzax]

46. which was addressed by the 16th Amendment

in 1913. It was unconstitutional, then the constitution was amended to make it constitutional. Just as slavery was Constitutional, until the 13th Amendment made it unconstitutional.

[porphyrian]

27. Maybe not, but there's precedent for putting those who don't in jail.

Pick your battles wisely.

[Lex]

33. The Tax Protestor Movement: Proof that PT Barnum was right

http://www.taxprophet.com/hot/feb96.html

[Tesha]

37. We have a name for the class of people who believe that.

We have a name for the class of people who believe that:

Federal prisoners.

It's been legislated and litigated, and people who
tell you otherwise are either stupid or con men.

Tesha

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

42. LOL If That Don't Hit The Nail On The Head.

It's amazing how naive some people are who actually claim this to be true. Just goes to show that some people will believe anything!

[semillama]

53. Here's an example of a pending member of that class:

http://www.theledger.com/article/20070830/NEWS/708300552/1039

"Dentist: I Don't Have to Pay Taxes

By Dana Willhoit
The Ledger

TAMPA | A Lakeland children's dentist, representing herself at her trial on charges of tax evasion, insisted Wednesday she is not subject to federal law and shouldn't be forced to pay income taxes.

Federal prosecutors say Dr. Nancy Montgomery-Ware didn't pay taxes on more than $1 million in income in 2000 and 2001, and didn't file federal income tax returns in 2002, 2003, and 2004, when she earned between $500,000 and $730,000 per year.

She was indicted in April by a federal ground jury on two counts of tax evasion and three counts of failing to file an income tax return. If convicted, she could have to trade her lucrative dental practice for up to 13 years in a federal prison.

Montgomery-Ware claims she doesn't have to pay federal income taxes because she is a "domiciled resident" of the state of Florida and not a citizen of the United States. In fact, she said, most people who live in the U.S. are not legally obligated to pay the federal income tax."

Good luck with that one...

[Tesha]

67. Here in NH, we have the Browns. Oddly enough, she was also a dentist...

...until her practice was seized over the tax battle.

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

Maybe it's the extended periods of mercury exposure? ;)

Tesha

[BadgerLaw2010]

71. That's a weird one. Defense by selectively renouncing your American citizenship?

I think I know the real reason she's representing herself. No lawyer who values his reputation and possibly his license would want to try this song-and-dance in front of a federal District Judge.

[BadgerLaw2010]

72. UPDATE: Now a current member of that class.

Convicted, five counts.

http://www.theledger.com/article/20070831/NEWS/708310418

Born in New York and trying to argue you aren't a US citizen and that there's no such thing as a US citizen...good job.

[LSK]

61. Leeches

[Pithlet]

64. This is the best one.

:thumbsup:

[uhhuh]

39. I Don't Know About 'Illegal" Or 'Unconstitutional'

But I did see an argument presented once that stated that "Income" and "Wages" are not the same thing, and that the code only allows for taxes on income, not wages. I didn't research it deeply, and I have no idea if it makes any real sense, so I pay my taxes, but if "Income" is a specific type of earnings separate from your regular pay, and wages are not clearly defined as taxable in the Code, I guess there could be a case made by most people with a job that they don't have "Income". :shrug:

[Puregonzo1188]

68. I think that might be must of their argument, when I watched Freedom To Fascism today

many of the people in the film said "There's no taxes on labor and/or wages" and also "There is not law making Americans pay income tax" or the "The average American doesn't have to pay income taxes" so I was thinking that maybe that was what they were going for the wages are not income agreement. But then they'd be someone who would go "There's no law saying you have to pay income tax" again so I don't really know. I just feel like this would be a rather simple thing were someone could point to a law and it would all be resolved. Wouldn't the original income tax law passed by Congress state something to this affect? I really don't know anything at all about tax law and the Constitution other then the basics so that's probably why I'm so baffled by all this.

[Greyhound]

51. If you're really curious, and not just going for a superiority rush, why not look

into it? There are thousands of resources and many valid arguments on both sides.

There are more than a few people that have been fighting this battle for decades and have not paid any income taxes at all. What the situation appears to be to me is similar to the idea of corporate person-hood, it was never properly established but has been accepted over the years in spite of that.

[Puregonzo1188]

69. Well that's the reason I posted a topic on this to look into it, figuring that some DUers

might know about the subject and be able to share their knowledge with me. I was not in any way going for a "superiority rush."

[Bushwick Bill]

52. Some former IRS agents disagree.

Paint the anti-tax people as nuts all you want, but you get a few pretty respectable former IRS agents in that movie who swear by their argument. Sheldon whatshisnuts also doesn't acquit himself very well when quizzed by Russo (yes, I know that's not a legal argument). :shrug:

[RaleighNCDUer]

54. It seems to me that if that were fact,

it would take only 1 person to successfully defend himself on tax evasion charges for not paying his income tax - the every other person in the country would follow suit.

I would suggest that because it is not happening, it hasn't happened.

[LanternWaste]

55. I watched a movie in which the Death Star blew up an ENTIRE planet

I watched a movie in which the Death Star blew up an ENTIRE planet, so that bolsters my case to open Area 51 to the public?

But seriously folks...
Can you point to a peer-reviewed, in-print publication that both argues your case, and explains precisely why congress is prohibited from levying a federal income tax?

:shrug:

[LSK]

60. yet these fucking assholes use our streets, drink our water, go to our schools

use our legal system, have our military defend them, have our food and water made safe.

But these FUCKERS dont want to pay for it.

FUCK THEM.

[Odin2005]

66. It's Libertarian BS,

[Little Star]

73. Scientology shit also.

When I was a young married person a friend of mine got involved and married some guy who was into scientology. He tried like hell to recruit my husband and I. The big selling point back then in the early 70's was pay no taxes and they would teach you how. He moved my friend away and she lost all contact with friends and family. She was an only child and her parents were heart broken.

[Disturbed]

74. There is a way to avoid taxes.

Become an ordained Minister & gather a flock of worshipers. Hmmm...how many members would that require?