posted
I did a search for this, but didn't come up with anything, so if it is there if someone could just direct me to it, I'd appreciate it. I'd heard it before, but then someone brought it up today. "They" say its against the constitution for the U.S. government to levy taxes, and there are lawyers that will successfully take the case to court. Of course, the person who brought this up hasn't actually contacted one of these lawyers, but they insist that this is true. Anything I could cite would be useful. Thanks.
-------------------- I'll drive it ugly. You can't see the paint job when you're behind the wheel, anyway. Posts: 570 | From: Central Valley, California | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would seem, no matter the status of a gag order, that this would be all over the news if it were true.
-------------------- 1st Infantry, SpecialOps Brigade - The Iron Faction. I survived Initiation 2005... with Naked Mole Rat Sumotori and Bill O'Reilly Posts: 264 | From: San Antonio, Texas | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Constitution is very clear on this subject. In Artical 1, Section 8 the Constitution lays out the powers given to Congress. The very first sentence reads as follows: 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. End of story.
-------------------- Let your TV bleed- Tom Petty Posts: 329 | From: Wiesbaden, Germany | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wikipedia actually has quite a good article on the whole issue in their entry on the Sixteenth Amendment.
A guy named Bill Benson wrote a book claiming that the Sixteenth Amendment was never ratified, and therefore Congress cannot impose an income tax. This apparently is irrelevent since the Supreme Court ruled that Congress already had the power to impose an income tax on wages, as SPC Sharki cited above. The 16th Amendment gave them the power to levy a "direct tax" which would apply to other forms of income (property, stocks, capital gains, etc.).
Anyway, in spite of this, Benson's been arguing for close to 20 years now, and has had his arguments routinely thrown out and rejected by several courts.
Sadly, Benson and his kind are a little nutty, but also can cause a lot of trouble for people. I had a soldier who refused to pay taxes for nearly a decade after reading on the Internet that the government could not legally tax his income.
Well, they can, he had to pay it all back, and he lost his security clearance in the process, which basically ended his military career.
posted
Another variation of the argument is that Ohio was not legally a state when the amendment was passed; even if that were true, there were enough states to pass the amendment.
Quite right, these people are very dangerous, and those who try to use these arguments in court face huge fines. Somebody in fact wrote a letter in our local newspaper making a similar argument.
The Wikipedia article is great; also, the IRS has a lengthy piece on its website, "The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments" (updated December 2005), which has more than you'd want to know on that and other anti-tax arguments.
posted
I don't have a problem paying taxes, because I don't mind benefitting from what they buy me. But for those who complain so much about them, fine, don't pay them. But that also means you have to stop driving on the roads, you can't call 911 in an emergency, you can't send your kids to public school, etc.
-------------------- Back in the days before electricity, we were forced to watch TV by candlelight. Posts: 229 | From: Paoli, PA | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: But for those who complain so much about them, fine, don't pay them. But that also means you have to stop driving on the roads, you can't call 911 in an emergency, you can't send your kids to public school, etc.
You left out "go to jail".
BB&S
-------------------- "How dare your reality hinder my ability to believe what I want!" Joe Bentley Posts: 697 | From: Backwoods of Arkansas | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by NobbyNobbs: But for those who complain so much about them, fine, don't pay them. But that also means you have to stop driving on the roads, you can't call 911 in an emergency, you can't send your kids to public school, etc.
Those are state or local functions of government, which can be covered by state or local taxes. The OP is more about federal taxes.
-------------------- All posts foretold by Nostradamus.
Turing test failures: 6 Posts: 5481 | From: Decatur, GA | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most roads are paid for at least in part by Federal matching funds, Jason.
Seaboe.
-------------------- Education is not the filling of a hard drive, but the lighting of a bulb. -- Yeats via Esprise Me Posts: 5562 | From: Seattle, WA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
You can check out the site of one of these goofy bastards here. They go to court constantly, claiming they don't have to pay taxes. And they always lose.
-------------------- Patrick Posts: 576 | From: Illinois | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the info. I'm printing out some stuff to show him, but I don't know if it'll make a difference. This isn't the first time he's said something that I knew (thank you, Snopes) to be false. It's just that this time he said I peobably knew more about it than he did, then when I began to explain that this was a UL, he shot me down.
-------------------- I'll drive it ugly. You can't see the paint job when you're behind the wheel, anyway. Posts: 570 | From: Central Valley, California | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Seaboe Muffinchucker: Most roads are paid for at least in part by Federal matching funds, Jason.
Seaboe.
And public schools. A good part of the outcry about No Child Left Behind is that it's a federal mandate but it wasn't followed up with the money that the feds promised. Only a portion of what was needed was paid to the schools.
-------------------- Back in the days before electricity, we were forced to watch TV by candlelight. Posts: 229 | From: Paoli, PA | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Seaboe Muffinchucker: Most roads are paid for at least in part by Federal matching funds, Jason.
Seaboe.
And public schools. A good part of the outcry about No Child Left Behind is that it's a federal mandate but it wasn't followed up with the money that the feds promised. Only a portion of what was needed was paid to the schools.
This is a favorite ploy of our state legislature as well: the Unfunded Mandate. The legislature will provide that all public-school teachers will have a "duty-free lunch period"--that is, they have time to eat, do a little photocopying, fill in their gradebooks, whatever--but then turn around and not provide funds so the children can be supervised...which means that teachers still have lunchroom duty. Another favorite trick is to ballyhoo the raises the teachers get: last year, for example, we got a 1.8 per cent raise. Except the legislature delayed implementing it until halfway through the year...so it was actually only a .9 per cent raise (in a year when our insurance premiums went up 30 per cent, by the way).
Oh, I like your handle, Nobby--I once played Sergeant Colon in a production of "Guards! Guards!"
-------------------- "No hard feelin's and HOPpy New Year!"--Walt Kelly Hear what you're missing: ARTC podcasts! http://artcpodcast.org/ Posts: 7581 | From: Gainesville, Georgia | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Unfunded Mandate was a huge munchkin for my grandfather. He knew that it was just a way for legislatures to weasel out of making a decision between doing something that would cost money and saving the money. For example, there was a bill passed (I think by the Maine legislature) that every senior citizen in Maine was to get at least two hot meals a day. But without any funds to pay for this it meant nothing. But each legislator could point out how he was supporting the senior citizens.
-------------------- IIRC, it wasn't the shoe bomber's loud prayers that sparked the takedown by the other passengers; it was that he was trying to light his shoe on fire. Very, very different. Canuckistan Posts: 3694 | From: Arizona | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brad from Georgia: Another favorite trick is to ballyhoo the raises the teachers get: last year, for example, we got a 1.8 per cent raise. Except the legislature delayed implementing it until halfway through the year...so it was actually only a .9 per cent raise (in a year when our insurance premiums went up 30 per cent, by the way).
It's a good thing you have such a high-paying second career, then, isn't it?
Seaboe
-------------------- Education is not the filling of a hard drive, but the lighting of a bulb. -- Yeats via Esprise Me Posts: 5562 | From: Seattle, WA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brad from Georgia: Oh, I like your handle, Nobby--I once played Sergeant Colon in a production of "Guards! Guards!"
Pratchett on stage?! Where do I get tickets?
-------------------- Back in the days before electricity, we were forced to watch TV by candlelight. Posts: 229 | From: Paoli, PA | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brad from Georgia: Oh, I like your handle, Nobby--I once played Sergeant Colon in a production of "Guards! Guards!"
Pratchett on stage?! Where do I get tickets?
Alas, it was a one-time performance at DrgonCon a few years ago. Lupine Wonse was played by the inimitable John Rhys-Davies, the only "name" in the cast. The Atlanta Radio Theatre Company worked out an agreement with Terry Pratchett; instead of paying royalties, we adopted an orangutan! My favorite Colon line: "Sun's goin' down. That means...." (pregnant pause)..."it'll be night soon."
-------------------- "No hard feelin's and HOPpy New Year!"--Walt Kelly Hear what you're missing: ARTC podcasts! http://artcpodcast.org/ Posts: 7581 | From: Gainesville, Georgia | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
[hijack]Pratchett is - in Germany - quite often on stage, mostly done by amateur groups. Never yet have they done "Small Gods" yet, for I'd like to play P'Tang-P'Tang or Fasta Benj.[/hijack]
What I do not get about these tax evasion loonies: If all government and all judges conspired to get taxes they have no right to due to some part of the code or whatever... wouldn't it have been much easier to just change the code, if indeed it was deemed illegal or whatever, than to put up with this "farce"? So basically: even if there were some right objections in 1954, they would be done away with, and everything they find must therefore have been argued about a gazillion times?
Of course, those are the same people who would think they are the very first to make a funny remark about someone's name being "Littlebottom" that he or she never heard before.
-------------------- Movie characters never make typing mistakes. Posts: 586 | From: Hamburg, Germany | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I find really odd about this rumor, and a lot of other rumors in the format of "such-and-such is secretly (il)legal" is the pparent distinction between law and government. I mean, if someone has decided to disobey the express, enforced, policed wishes of the government, then why do they get their rocks off by telling themselves that they aren't breaking the law? I don't get it.
Posts: 330 | From: New Haven, VT | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
