Is federal income tax legal? Where is the law? I guarantee no one can find it!!?

Question

Do you know who Ed and Elaine Brown are? They have boycotted income tax ....the courts could not find where this is legal tax.

Gas taxes pay for our roads, local taxes pay for education, and corporate tax pays for the military. Our government operated just fine for its first 200 years WITHOUT an income tax. Then later the income tax was needed to support the brilliant idea of government taking loans from the private Federal Reserve that can print money out of thin air and then charge our government billions in interest on the money when our government has Constitutional Authority to tender its own money interest free.


We need Ron Paul, that is why he wants to abolish the fed and IRS.

Answer 1

For all of you who claim that the 16th amendment give the power to tax income - let me correct you.

1. The supreme Court: the highest court in the land that cannot be appealed against said: "the 16th amendment give the government no new powers of taxation."

2. The constitution also says that no direct unapportion tax may be levied against the people at any time. Federal income tax is a direct unapportioned tax.

3. The 16th amendment never received enough votes from the states to be ratified, therefore it is not actually a legal amendment. This HAS been ruled on and decided by the supreme court.

So, once again - show legal evidence that supports the income tax. Lower court decisions MUST legally fall in line with the supreme court, those that don't are acting illegally and don't count.

Wake up and smell the fascism people.

Answer 2

For the best answers, search on this site https://shorturl.im/axsxw

The income tax is legal but, is not Constitutional. Specifically, the concept of direct taxation is unConstitutional however, the Federal Income tax is law established by the 16th Amendment. The legality of the 16th Amendment has been challenged repeatedly over the years due to issues with the ratification of the bill as law by the States. In fact, an insufficient number of States ratified this Amendment as Ohio did not technically become a State until the 1950's (53 or 58, I dont remember). Therefore, as a territory its vote could not legally be counted even though it was. Additionally, the ratified versions of this Amendment that were returned to Washington were somewhat different from the text passed by the House. Law states that the returned ratified text must be verbatum and, in this case, it was quite far from that. All challenges to this Amendment have been shot down. One man has even been villified for his constant efforts. On the other hand, if you were a tool of the machine that was benefitting from this taxation, it is very unlikely that you would allow challenges to be heard. I personally do mind paying taxes. The Fed's take 35% of my salary. Can you imagine losing 35 cents of every dollar you earn just in federal income taxes? It would be one thing if that money was fairly spent and if the tax was for a reasonable percentage of my income but since neither is the case, I have a deep moral objection to this taxation. However, being a reasonable person, I also do not feel that challenges to the 16th Amendment based on the status of statehood or the verbage of a bill justify repealling a law.

Answer 3

I don give a rats butt how educated you think you are. You received that education from a institution the perpetuates and parrots what the last 150 years of dictators though elected through a dinosaur system that is designed to allow the 1% to choose a handful of candidates that they will allow you to vote for. The IRS is the collection agency for the federal reserve "private" banking system. And If you really read what the citiens were voting for it was defined originally as unearned i.e. investments or capital gains. Not earned. It was sold to the american people as a tax to level the playing by solving the import tax problem.
See if company like mexico wanted to sell its goods in the US then they had to pay a 5% import tax. Well a us company could undercut that Mexican company by 1% and still make an extra 4% in addition to the projected profit of the item. The tax would then level the playing field. But after it was voted into law they some how changed tohe definition of income to all income earned or unearned. Guys we are in this together, This is just one of many laws that are very very shady. And are designed to enslave all of us. Our Federal Government has grown too big. We no longer own it. It owns us. Its not of the people for the people any longer. It is of the corporation for the corporation. Our government has been hijacked By the IMF.
God Bless America and help us to restore the republic...AMEN

Answer 4

Is Income Tax Legal

Answer 5

The selected 'best answer' is NONSENSE. He wants to correct others, but it is he that is absolutely WRONG.

1. The 'best answer' misrepresents what the Supreme Court stated and he takes the quote out of context. He doesn't provide a citation but the quote he is referring to comes from Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916). Here is a more complete quote...

"by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th 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, and being placed in the category of direct taxation....”

Read that very carefully. The Supreme Court makes it clear that the 16th amendment doesn't confer any new power of taxation because Congress had the power FROM THE BEGINNING and the 16th amendment simply clarifies that income taxes are to be treated as INDIRECT taxes. Of course, idiot tax protesters would understand that if they knew how to do real research.

2. For the 'best answer's' next contention about the income tax being a direct unapportioned tax, see the Supreme Court decision in #1. The Supreme Court makes it clear that income taxes are INDIRECT in a Constitutional sense. Regardless, even if income taxes are to be considered direct taxes, the 16th amendment removes any apportionment requirement.

3. Once again, the 'best answer' is wrong. The 16th amendment was ratified by enough states to be legally declared a valid amendment. The claim that states did not ratify the amendment is obviously wrong because when the Secretary of State declared the amendment ratified, he had the list of ratifying states published in all the major newspapers across the country. If the state legislatures did not intend to ratify the amendment, it would make sense that at least one legislator from one of the states would have spoken up and stated that their state did not actually ratify the amendment. Not one legislator from any of the list of ratifying states complained that they did not actually ratify the amendment. NOT ONE. Regardless, the Supreme Court has NEVER said that the 16th amendment was not properly ratified.

Obviously, the 'best answer' is WRONG.

Answer 6

I think you answered your own question. Thank you for bringing this up. People need to wake up and smell the coffee.
I am also glad you brought up the Federal Reserve. There is nothing "federal" about the Federal Reserve. Many of the founding fathers were vehemently against having a centralized bank. The the founding fathers did not choose to have a centralized bank. The Fed came about in the early 1900's if I remember correctly.
The value of our US Dollars could be in jeopardy with the Fed printing way too many of them. The Congressional Republicans want the Fed to print more dollars to fund the war and the Dems on the other side of the aisle want the Fed to do the same for more social programs, meanwhile the dollars in your pocket are worth less and less.

Answer 7

This Site Might Help You.

RE:
Is federal income tax legal? Where is the law? I guarantee no one can find it!!?
Do you know who Ed and Elaine Brown are? They have boycotted income tax ....the courts could not find where this is legal tax.

Gas taxes pay for our roads, local taxes pay for education, and corporate tax pays for the military. Our government operated just fine for its first 200 years WITHOUT...

Answer 8

My grandfather was charged with sedition and tried before he United States senate for his firm stance against the Federal Reserve system. One of the most brilliant orators of his time, with 30 million followers (in 1930 America), he made the same point you do: The U.S. Consitution grants authority to Congress to print money without any restriction or borrowing. William Jennings Bryant (the "Great Commoner") also lead a movement to invoke that constitutional provision (read his "Cross of Gold" speach). Both Bryant and my grandfather after him were soundly defeated by the people who profit from the Fed. Every other constitutional democracy in the world prints money without incurring debt as do most other nations (except in the Third-World where they haven't caught on to how the game ought to be played), regardless of their politics.

This Ron Paul people seem to be talking so much about--for all his "the Constition says" malarkey, has failed to bring this up. Does anyone wonder why?

Side note: Grandpa defended himself before the Senate was acquitted of all charges--the only private person to have been subjected to a Senate trial in the 20'th century.

Answer 9

That sticky little law (copied below) enacted by the GOP right after Teddy Roosevelt busted the corporate trusts and retired..

U.S. Constitution:
Sixteenth Amendment

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.

Answer 10

I don't like paying taxes either but it is what makes most citizens of this country in the top 1% of the world in terms of wealth and lifestyle, Ed Brown is a looney as for finding a law you really dont have to since there is an amendment to the constitution number sixteen. Did you ever hear the term No taxation without representation? Well every tax on the books was put there by elected officials.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Income_tax