It is unconstitutional for the government to tax your wages (income tax)?

Question

The government ratified amendment 16 in 1913 for the sole purpose of taxing corporations on the privilege of doing business in corporate form. -- http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/const...

Furthermore, from the annotations of the amendment, "[T]he Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged.' 13 "

If you have any doubt, I challenge you to find IN WRITING a statute that gives the federal government the right to tax a person's labor and/or earned wages.


http://www.freedomtofascism.com/

Nowhere in the constitution does it state the government can impose an income tax. That is why congress ratified the 16th amendment. BUT the 16th amendment does not allow the government to tax a person's wages.

Again, show me a statute e.g. A LAW. A penalty is not a LAW it is a threat. The president said that we were to pay an income tax? Since when did the judicial system and the executive system merge? Oh, I apologize, good ol' W is in office.

Answer 1

You'd better re-read the 16th Amendment, friend.

"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."

Please, tell me where, in that short paragraph, it says that the US government cannot tax your personal income. "From whatever source derived" most certainly does include your paycheck.

The major change in the 16th Amendment wasn't so much that it allowed income taxes, but that it allowed them "without apportionment among the several States". Prior to the 16th Amendment, tax levies had to be apportioned based upon the population of the several states. If that were the case, income taxes would be FAR higher for residents of CA than AK since CA has far more residents than AK.

When you add Title 26 of the US Code and many law libraries full of case law to the mix, there is no question left that income taxes on wages are perfectly legal. You can make any statement to the contrary that you wish, just as long as you pay your taxes when they are due. Freedom of Speech still does apply for the most part.

Your link to FindLaw doesn't say anything. And the Freedom to Fascism link is little more than a lunatic rant -- thankfully protected by our Constitution's guarantees of Freedom of Speech -- but still a lunatic rant.

Addendum: I gave you a law, Bozo! Title 26 of the US Code! Sheesh! Can't you READ??

Answer 2

Article I, section 8 states: 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;

This means they can lay taxes but they have to be evenly distributed. So versions of an income tax before the 16th admendment were ruled unconstutional because in effect, some states would be paying more tax than others because they have greater population. It was ruled that Congress could not lay a tax that was not uniform among all the states.

So congress passes the 16th admendment. Which 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.

So now they can lay a tax on income that does not need to be evenly apportioned among the states. It's clear as can be. They have the power to lay a tax on ANY and ALL INCOME, NO MATTER the source. I seen no mention of corporations or exclusion of workers. The only income that is not taxable is what congress says is not taxable.

The Supreme Court of the United States has never stated that the 16th admendment does not give congress the right to lay an income tax. I note on the website you listed it says,

"Are you aware the Supreme Court has ruled that the government has no authority to impose a direct unapportioned tax on the LABOR of the American people, and the 16th Amendment does not give the government that power? "

That would be true. And there is no tax on the LABOR of the American people, or any other people in the United States. You can do work all year, but if you receive no pay you don't pay a cent of tax... for the labor. But if you get paid, you pay a tax on the income... not the labor, the income! It sounds like the same thing but it isn't. That is how that website you cite, and others like it use carefully worded statements to trick people.

So I don't see how you are misreading the 16th admendment. It says EXACTLY that congress may lay a tax on income. They could not be more clear. Are wages a source of income? Yes!

Answer 3

You'd better re-read the 16th Amendment, friend. "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." Please, tell me where, in that short paragraph, it says that the US government cannot tax your personal income. "From whatever source derived" most certainly does include your paycheck. The major change in the 16th Amendment wasn't so much that it allowed income taxes, but that it allowed them "without apportionment among the several States". Prior to the 16th Amendment, tax levies had to be apportioned based upon the population of the several states. If that were the case, income taxes would be FAR higher for residents of CA than AK since CA has far more residents than AK. When you add Title 26 of the US Code and many law libraries full of case law to the mix, there is no question left that income taxes on wages are perfectly legal. You can make any statement to the contrary that you wish, just as long as you pay your taxes when they are due. Freedom of Speech still does apply for the most part. Your link to FindLaw doesn't say anything contrary to an income tax. And the YouTube link -- well, consider the source...

Answer 4

The government passed a law in 1942 as a emergency to fund the war on Japan and Germany, and that set a president for taxing the people. Furthermore, if government didn't collect taxes then how would the country be able to operate? Somehow roads have to be maintained, Congress has to be paid, all services have to be maintained somehow. So, how would you run this country if taxes weren't paid?

Answer 5

THINGS I DIDN'T KNOW UNTIL I READ THEM ON THE INTERNET:

Nobody ever really landed on the moon - it was a giant hoax. What you saw on TV was filmed in Utah.

Elvis is still alive.

It is unconstitutional for the government to tax your wages (income tax).

Excuse me now....I just won 2 million pounds in the online UK lottery when my email was randomly selected, and I have to go answer the email.....

Answer 6

III. PENALTIES FOR PURSUING FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS
Those who act on frivolous positions risk a variety of civil and criminal penalties.
Those who adopt these positions may face harsher consequences than those who merely promote them. As the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals noted in United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 499-500 (7th Cir. 1991), “Like moths to a flame, some people find themselves irresistibly drawn to the tax protester movement’s illusory claim that there is no legal requirement to pay federal income tax. And, like moths, these people sometimes get burned.”
Taxpayers filing returns with frivolous positions may be subject to the accuracy related penalty under section 6662 (twenty percent of the underpayment attributable to negligence or disregard of rules or regulations) or the civil fraud penalty under section 6663 (seventy-five percent of the underpayment attributable to fraud). Additionally, late filed returns setting forth frivolous positions may be subject to an addition to tax under section 6651(f) for fraudulent failure to timely file an income tax return (triple the amount of the standard failure to file addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1)). See Mason v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-247, 88 T.C.M. (CCH) 398 (2004) (frivolous arguments may be indicative of fraud if made in conjunction with affirmative acts designed to evade paying federal income tax).

Answer 7

to answer your question in a word, NO.
but if you feel it is unconstitutional to pay income tax I'm sure the IRS will be happy to enlighten you on the tax laws of this nation or go to court with you if you would like to take it that far.

Answer 8

If you spent this much time learning the tax code you would pay less tax. If you spent this much time learning a profession you could earn enough so that you wouldn't have time for this nonsense.

Answer 9

I can answer that.