My Annual Income Tax Rant

JTP

JTP

New Member
About to spend most of a Saturday going through the maze. They probably "owe" me approx. $100 or so. I'd be happy if they'd keep it and I went fishing instead. Filing is such a waste of time. They've already got the money, but you must file by law. Got a headache just thinking about it.
Let's replace the Income Tax with a National Sales Tax on all goods and services.
1.- Could be administered with about 5% of the current IRS staff.
2.-The entire economy would get a boost as people would have more incentive to earn and invest.
3.-Defense contractors, prostitutes, illegal gambling halls and church-owned businesses could make a debut as Major Stars of the U.S. tax base.
4.-Drug dealers don't file tax returns, but they do spend money. As long as drugs are illegal, this is the only way to derive tax revenue from them.
5.-I would have one more headache-free Saturday every year to go fishing.
Whattaya say? *peepwall*
 
I'd be happier with a flat tax. Hpwever, anything has to beat this stupid progressive system.
 
JTP said:
About to spend most of a Saturday going through the maze. They probably "owe" me approx. $100 or so. I'd be happy if they'd keep it and I went fishing instead. Filing is such a waste of time. They've already got the money, but you must file by law. Got a headache just thinking about it.
Let's replace the Income Tax with a National Sales Tax on all goods and services.
1.- Could be administered with about 5% of the current IRS staff.
2.-The entire economy would get a boost as people would have more incentive to earn and invest.
3.-Defense contractors, prostitutes, illegal gambling halls and church-owned businesses could make a debut as Major Stars of the U.S. tax base.
4.-Drug dealers don't file tax returns, but they do spend money. As long as drugs are illegal, this is the only way to derive tax revenue from them.
5.-I would have one more headache-free Saturday every year to go fishing.
Whattaya say? *peepwall*
Click to expand...

I say, for starters, show me the law where it says you have to pay an income tax.
 
AMENDMENT XVI
Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.

Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.

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.
Click to expand...

Sad fact
 
The 16th amendment was not properly ratified. Even if it was, it was understood around the time of its ratification that it does not empower the Federal Government to levy a new tax.

Income is defined as corporate profit, not wages or labor. The average American is not profiting by being employed. Your labor and other services are EXCHANGED for money or other forms of property.

Corporate Income Tax is legal.

There is no law requiring the average American to pay a Federal Income Tax, nor is there a law requiring an average American to file a 1040.
 
Tax revolt or Die!

Hardy har har har them blood suckas are gonna
institute a VAT tax on top of the current taxes.
The only way out of this is a tax revolt
but sadly it ain't nevah gonna happen.
If you think you've got troubles gettin' by on the 50 cents
of every dollar you are left with after taxes think how much fun
yer life will be when you only get 30 cents on the dollar?

Seriously folks, why quibble over the legality of income tax
or how wonderful a flat or vat tax will be?

Not much different than a slave pondering the difference
between the types of ropes he’s bound with?
(do you prefer cotton to nylon)?

The truth will set you free!
 
Gonz said:
Sadly irrelvant.
Click to expand...

Well, let me post here what is relevant of what I posted in the other thread. The following will show how most people started paying the Income Tax and how we are still paying it voluntarily (i.e., not mandatory according to law):

Prior to World War II, no one outside the government paid income tax; the people were, and understood themselves to be, immune from that tax. During WWII, Congress passed the Victory Tax (56 Stat. 884) to impose an income tax on every individual in The United States of America, something which had not been done by any previous income tax act. Excepted from that tax were those already paying income taxes per I.R.C. 211(a) - nonresident alien individuals with no United States business or office but living in a "contiguous country" and having income from United States sources.

Because the Victory Tax, a wartime measure, was imposed on individuals in the states of the union (and not countries such as Canada or Mexico), those already taxed by section 211(a) had to be excepted from the Victory Tax or they would be taxed twice. This suggests that the nonresident alien individuals living in "contiguous countries" were in fact living in states such as Virginia and Maryland - being outside the United States (District of Columbia).

The Victory Tax was repealed by section 6 of Income Tax Act of 1944, which in amending the I.R.C. includes the states of the union in the terms "certain foreign countries" (section 6 (b)(3)) and "foreign countries and possessions of the United States" (section 6 (b)(4)). This restored the scope of income taxation to what it had been prior to the Victory Tax, as not including individuals in the states of the union.

The states of the union are then seen to be included in the terms "contiguous countries", "certain foreign countries" and "foreign countries and possessions of the United States". This shows that every state of the union is foreign to the United States. Those taxed under I.R.C. 211(a) must then be those living in a state of the union and working for government or one of its agencies - drawing income from "sources within the United States".

But because Congress failed to make it generally known that the Victory Tax was no longer in effect, people did not know to discontinue the withholding begun for the Victory Tax. One was then considered as being a volunteer in paying income tax.

The scope of the I.R.C. never targeted all individuals in the union. Only for a brief period, and under war powers, were all individuals made subject to taxation of income. The repeal of the Victory Tax means the scope of what is taxed was restored to its original intent, and individuals in the states of the union do not have to pay taxes on their incomes. And as the Victory Tax was the only act to have levied any such tax, the scope of taxation has never again expanded to include the whole of The United States of America.
Click to expand...

Source


Gonz said:
That's the words that are written into law.
Click to expand...

The 16th Amendment was not properly ratified:

PROOF THAT STATES DID NOT RATIFY THE 16TH AMENDMENT:

In 1909, Congress passed the proposed l6th Amendment It was sent to the states for ratification by the state legislatures. There were 48 states. Three-fourths, or 36, of them were required to give their approval in order for it to be ratified.

Knox declared the 16th amendment ratified on February 25, 1913, just a few days before leaving office. He counted 38 states as having approved it

• Kentucky: The Kentucky legislature REJECTED the amendment 22-9, but Knox counted it as having PASSED 22-9.
• Oklahoma: Oklahoma voted FOR the amendment but changed the wording to mean the OPPOSITE of the proposed amendment—even though a memo from chief legal counsel Reuben Clark warned that states were NOT allowed to change the proposed amendment
• Tennessee: Tennessee violated its own state constitution when they failed to delay the amendment vote until a new state legislature was elected. The obvious reason for this state constitutional clause was to insure that the People of Tennessee would have direct political input on the federal constitutional amendment process. Tennessee also violated their own state constitution by failing to read the resolution on three different days as prescribed by Article II, Section 18. These state constitutional violations make their approval of the amendment null and void.
• Texas and Louisiana: Texas and Louisiana violated provisions in their state constitutions prohibiting the legislatures from empowering the federal government with any additional taxing authority.

Now the number is down to 33.
Click to expand...

Source
 
Oklahoma: Oklahoma voted FOR the amendment but changed the wording to mean the OPPOSITE of the proposed amendment—even though a memo from chief legal counsel Reuben Clark warned that states were NOT allowed to change the proposed amendment
Click to expand...

They can't change the wording, so they voted FOR it.


There were 46 states in 1909, not 48. NM & AZ were admitted in 1912, AK & HI, much later. Now we're at 34 & ratified.
 
you're probably a racist homophobe who pours milk
on starving kittens in hopes of enticing them to cannabalism
 
a racist homophobe who pours milk on starving kittens in hopes of enticing them to cannabalism who wishes our Gothaholic member was right.
 
Gonz said:
They can't change the wording, so they voted FOR it.
Click to expand...

In Oklahoma, the proposed amendment was passed by the Oklahoma House and the language of the resolution perfectly matched the one passed by Congress. However, the Oklahoma Senate obviously disliked what Congress had proposed, so it amended the language of the 16th Amendment in such a fashion as to have a precisely opposite meaning.
Click to expand...

Source


Gonz said:
There were 46 states in 1909, not 48. NM & AZ were admitted in 1912, AK & HI, much later. Now we're at 34 & ratified.
Click to expand...

Article V of the U.S. Constitution controls the amending process, which requires that three-fourths of the states ratify any amendment proposed by Congress. In 1913, there were 48 States in the American union, so to adopt any amendment required the affirmative act of 36 states. In February 1913, Knox issued a proclamation claiming that 38 states had ratified the amendment -- including Kentucky, California and Oklahoma. But since Kentucky had rejected the amendment, California had not voted on it, and Oklahoma wanted something entirely different, the amendment was not legally adopted, the number of ratifying States being only 35. Then again, a total of 11 states failed to vote on the amendment, 33 changed the language of the amendment and Minnesota sent in nothing. In the final analysis, if the process of the adoption of the 16th Amendment is subjected to strict legal scrutiny, the amendment was never adopted.
Click to expand...

Source


Also...

  • The federal government claims Kentucky was the second state to ratify the 16th Amendment, on Feb. 8, 1910. However, the records of the State of Kentucky show that after the Kentucky House proposed a resolution to adopt the amendment and sent it to the Senate, on Feb. 8, 1910 the Kentucky Senate voted upon that resolution, but rejected it by a vote of 9 in favor and 22 opposed. Apparently, the Kentucky Senate never did ratify that amendment. Federal officials, who had possession of documents showing this rejection, nevertheless claimed Kentucky had ratified the amendment.
  • The California legislative assembly never recorded any vote upon any proposal to adopt the 16th Amendment. And whatever California did adopt bore no resemblance to what Congress had proposed. Several states engaged in the unauthorized activity of amending the language of the amendment proposed by Congress, a power that these states did not possess.
  • Minnesota sent nothing to the Secretary of State in Washington, but this did not deter Philander Knox from claiming that Minnesota ratified the amendment, regardless of the absence of any documentation from the State of Minnesota.
Click to expand...

Source
 
It matters not what they meant to vote for...if they voted on the Amendment, then they voted for the one passed by Congress. A bad time to play practical jokes.

Passed by Congress July 2, 1909
Click to expand...
That is the date to be used for the 3/4 rule. Otherwise, it would be possible to make it impossible to pass...just add a state every time you get within one. There is no time limit on amendments (that I know of)


Gotholic said:
What is that suppose to mean?
Click to expand...

Nothing, Chill out.

There are hundreds of men & women in federal prisons that believe there is no federal income tax. That doesn't keep them from prison. Plenty of pretty lies doesn not the truth make.
 
Gonz said:
It matters not what they meant to vote for...if they voted on the Amendment, then they voted for the one passed by Congress. A bad time to play practical jokes.


That is the date to be used for the 3/4 rule. Otherwise, it would be possible to make it impossible to pass...just add a state every time you get within one. There is no time limit on amendments (that I know of)




Nothing, Chill out.

There are hundreds of men & women in federal prisons that believe there is no federal income tax. That doesn't keep them from prison. Plenty of pretty lies doesn not the truth make.
Click to expand...

I will look up the 16th Amendment ratification some more later.

Gonz, it is to my understanding that most Americans did not pay an income tax prior to WWII. If the 16th Amendment allowed the Federal Government to tax every American's income in 1913 then why was that not done right after the Amendment was ratified? Also, why did the Federal Government pass the Victory Tax which did allow them to collect income taxes (voluntarily from I what I understand) on most Americans if the 16th Amendment granted them that authority anyways? That Victory Tax was repealed and thus there is now no law requiring Americans to pay an income tax.
 
Because the shearing hadn't been completed in 1913.

First, get 'em used to the noise
then
take 'em down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top