English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

There is debate, for some reason, on whether or not we should be paying income tax, which is blatantly illeagal. whats your stance and why ?

2006-12-06 03:21:15 · 9 answers · asked by TheAwokenOne 2 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

BTW the income tax sore purpose and use is to pay back the federal reserve which is another gross illeagal mistake by this countries leaders 90some odd years ago, it barely comes close to even coverign the interest on the deficit

2006-12-06 03:27:47 · update #1

The 16th amendment was ruled 6 times by the supreme court from 1916-1920something to be unconstitutional, and null and void, they have never reversed those discisions, i'll have to dig yup the exact case's, also the 16th amendment in and of itself is illeagal because it was not ratified by the leagal number of states needed, but the president at the time signed it anyway due to political/finacial pressure of the federal reserve consortium, it was also signed on christmass break of congress with less then half the states in attendence.

2006-12-06 03:35:44 · update #2

Income tax sole purpose and use is to repay the federal reserve for money the government borrowed, never has or will it be used to pay for any public services. We have many of tax's to cover all those things. The constitution, and or bill of rights, clearly states only 2 kinds of tax's are allowed on the american people direct, (to be redistributed to the people ie medicare) and indirect (tax's on corporate profits and gains) and I don't recall seeing an amendment to either of those specificaly overturning that law.

2006-12-06 03:41:19 · update #3

9 answers

one flat tax for everyone...god only asks for 10% as a tithe...why should the gov't ask for more...????? just enough to pay for our services and stuff...

2006-12-06 03:23:45 · answer #1 · answered by badjanssen 5 · 0 2

Amendment XVI (the Sixteenth Amendment) of the United States Constitution, authorizing income taxes in their present form, was ratified on February 3, 1913. The amendment states:

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.

Prior to the 1895 U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.[6], all income taxes had been considered to be excises (indirect taxes) required to be imposed with geographical uniformity, but not required to be apportioned among the states according to population.

The Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1894 attempted to impose a federal tax of 2% on incomes over $3,000. Derided by its opponents as "communistic," it was challenged in federal court. Until that time, direct taxes had been deemed to include only capitations, or poll taxes (taxes directly on persons) and property taxes imposed on property by reason of its ownership (generally, ordinary ad valorem property taxes). Until 1895, all income taxes -- regardless of the sources of the incomes -- had been considered indirect taxes ("excises").

On August 22, 2006 the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in Murphy v. Internal Revenue Service[16] and United States [Murphy v. United States]) that 26 U.S.C. § 104(a)(2) is unconstitutional under the Sixteenth Amendment to the extent that the statute purports to tax, as income, a recovery for a non-physical personal injury for mental distress and loss of reputation not received in lieu of taxable income such as lost wages or earnings. The Court stated:

At the outset, we reject the Government’s breathtakingly expansive claim of congressional power under the Sixteenth Amendment -- upon which it founds the more far-reaching arguments it advances here. The Sixteenth Amendment simply does not authorize the Congress to tax as “incomes” every sort of revenue a taxpayer may receive. As the Supreme Court noted long ago, the “Congress cannot make a thing income which is not so in fact.”

The Court also stated:

In sum, every indication is that damages received solely in compensation for a personal injury are not income within the meaning of that term in the Sixteenth Amendment. First, as compensation for the loss of a personal attribute, such as well-being or a good reputation, the damages are not received in lieu of income. Second, the framers of the Sixteenth Amendment would not have understood compensation for a personal injury -- including a nonphysical injury -- to be income. Therefore, we hold § 104(a)(2) unconstitutional insofar as it permits the taxation of an award of damages for mental distress and loss of reputation.

The Murphy ruling is mandatory precedent only in the District of Columbia.

2006-12-06 11:29:16 · answer #2 · answered by Brite Tiger 6 · 1 0

I really don't understand income tax.

They take a percentage of money out of my husband's check every week. They have taken almost $2,000 this year. Yet, we are getting a tax refund of $5,400, mostly because we have an infant son. I don't understand how paying taxes pays for government funded operations (such as highway improvement, schools, etc) when they give me more money back than I gave them! I understand the NEED for taxes, but not how they work. Maybe I should post THIS as a question.....

2006-12-06 11:31:38 · answer #3 · answered by ilovejolie86 4 · 1 1

WOW! The sheer level of ignorance about income taxes with questions like "how would government work without them" is staggering.
Perhaps government would work just fine without income taxes considering they have SALES TAXES, PROPERTY TAXES, CORPORATE TAXES, not to mention thousands of fines, fees, charges and costs for services like obtaining a birth certificates, parking meter costs, traffic tickets, divorce filing costs, etc....
Socialists love income taxes because they allow the perpetuation of the welfare state. It's a matter of social control that is comfortable to them in their communal coccoons. They inevitably defend Big Government, and by virtue of doing so, they defend Big Brother. For all their vaunted railing against injustice through liberal law groups, they ultimately are true believers in visions of sugerplum 1984's dancing in their heads.

2006-12-06 12:34:14 · answer #4 · answered by William P 3 · 0 1

Got a cite to support your claim that an income tax is illegal? The 16th amendment specifically authorizes it.

If we don't tax income, then the money to run the government has to come from somewhere. What do you propose to replace it?

2006-12-06 11:29:11 · answer #5 · answered by Ralfcoder 7 · 0 1

The government has to collect taxes in order to pay for all the things we are given. You can go buy a piece of land, call it your country, and don't collect any taxes. But don't complain when you have to police, fire department, military, emergency response, airports, shipping ports, etc, etc,

2006-12-06 11:33:48 · answer #6 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 0 2

Yes, we have to pay for social services. You can debate illegal all you like but if you don't pay you go to federal prison. Case close!

2006-12-06 11:31:32 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Where else would the politicians get their enormous salaries and fantastic retirement benefits?

2006-12-06 11:38:02 · answer #8 · answered by CincinnatiDon 2 · 1 1

we should definitly pay income tax, so that the goverment can pay for the NHS, army, police, education, social security, fire brigade ect. how would you work things without income tax

2006-12-06 11:23:56 · answer #9 · answered by supremecritic 4 · 1 2

fedest.com, questions and answers