Does the government have the right to collect income taxes?

Question

http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3290003&page=1

These people are standing up against the govt. Didn't we revolt from the British because taxes were too high?

you didn't anwer the question alea.

grips: click on the link i provided. The Browns are having a standoff right now over unpaid income taxes.

mark: INCOME taxes. i didn't say all taxes, there's a difference, don't tell me to move to some 3rd world country, jerkface.

Answer 1

The Constitution says the government can tax PROFITS, not WAGES.

Huge difference.
********************
To Stiqq: No, the 16th Amendment does no such thing.
Taxing the WAGES of Americans was invented to accommodate the FEDERAL RESERVE, which is a privately owned bank.

This is a matter whose time has come for people to investigate for themselves.

The Supreme Court ruled that the 13th Amendment did NOT give "ANY ADDITIONAL TAXING AUTHORITY."
***************************
To "Baby" : Excellent Point! Let us be clear about something: THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH PAYING TAXES, it is a fact that we have to PAY for the things we use. Roads, schools, libraries, museums, public facilities, etc.

BUT NOT - LET ME REPEAT - NOT FROM TAXING WAGES.

Please try to remember to distinguish between ALL OTHER TAXES and taxing wages.

A man's LABOR is NOT taxable.
Only TWO taxing scenarios are in the ACTUAL CONSTITUTION, and wages are NOT one of them.
***************************
To yaba: Roads are paid for with gasoline taxes.
Schools are paid for locally.
**********************
To Otto: Nice try, but let me repeat: IN THE CONSTITUTION, THERE ARE TWO cases for collecting of taxes. NEITHER of them apply to WAGES. It's about PROFITS.

The idea of taxing wages was born after the Federal Reserve - a private banking institution - was created, as a way to PAY THEIR FEES AND INTEREST!

I'm not a lawyer, and I won't pretend I can explain it to you in a manner you'd understand or accept. My best suggestion to you would be to watch Aaron Russo's film, "AMERICA - FREEDOM TO FASCISM" which does an excellent job of clarifying.

http://www.freedomtofascism.com/
***************************
To LADYZANIA: Now THAT is a killer post! Thanks for sharing it with us.

***************************************
To mbush: I don't do drugs of any kind, but thanks for showing all of us that you guys' only recourse is to insult, generalize, and resort to name-calling. And you should try READING, it's really cool.
THE SUPREME COURT SAID THAT THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT AWARDED NO NEW TAXING AUTHORITY.

"Reading the Constitution through rose-colored glasses?"
That's a scream. There are only TWO scenarios outlined in the Constitution for TAXING and neither of them are wages.

Hey! Here's an idea! Why don't YOU try reading the Constitution.

Answer 2

Yes. The constitution clearly states that they can levy taxes. The earlier document of articles of confederation failed after the revolution because the government lacked that power and had to ask for money from the states. Philosophically speaking we could revolt against the english because the colonies were not represented in the british parliament. "taxation without representation" is from there. So no, we cannot revolt under the same excuse because we are represented.

Hope this helps
D

Answer 3

No, we revolted from the British because taxes were levied on the colonists without them having any representation.

And yes, the Sixteenth Amendment, which was ratified properly, authorizes the federal income tax and the collection thereof.

OK, since some don't seem to believe it, here's the 16th 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."

And the arguments that it wasn't ratified properly talk about differences in punctuation, or when Ohio was recognized as a state, or other such technical arguments that courts have said over and over hold no water. This is the law, the government can tax your incomes and collect that tax. There's really no rational argument against it.

Answer 4

1. Does the government have the right to collect income taxes?

Yes, they do. The 16th amendment to the Constitution CLARIFIED the power of Congress to levy an income tax. Congress actually had this power all along, but the 16th amendment was written and passed to counteract a Supreme Court ruling in the 1890s said a tax on income from real property was a direct tax and therefore was subject to apportionment. If Congress didn't have the right to lay and collect an income tax after passage of the 16th amendment, how come every single challenge to that amendment has failed? If the levying and collecting of an income tax was unconstitutional, then at least ONE court between 1934 and the present would have said so. (1934 was the year of the first income tax law passed after the ratification of the 16th amendment.)

Blueridge: The 16th amendment clearly states that "Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes on income FROM WHATEVER SOURCE DERIVED." That includes income from wages. This has been held up in court many times. Aaron Russo is also a kook. His arguments have also been proven baseless and there are many factual errors in his "documentary". Otto correctly explained the meaning of the original constitutional text. You are the one misinterpreting it. In fact, in LadyZania's post, it actually alludes to this. It is the misinterpretation by the poster she copied that makes it seem the Supreme Court supported your position. In reality, in the Supreme Court decisions and the 16th amendment mean that an income tax is a indirect tax and therefore not subject to apportionment. In other words, there were no NEW POWERS of taxation granted to Congress, because Congress had the power to levy a indirect tax in the first place. The argument that wages are a direct exchange is also a specious argument. Title 26 of the U.S. Code (underlying statute is the Internal Revenue Code), clearly states that wages are income. This is a law that has been duly passed by Congress and signed by a President of the United States. I'll explain why it is law a little later in this post. It is a law just like any other law. If you don't believe the U.S. Code is law, then you don't believe in Title 29 either, which covers labor. Title 29 contains the minimum wage law.

Don't even get me started about the so-called "fair tax". Why do you think so many rich people are in favor of the fair tax? That's because they realize they will be paying a lot less taxes than they are now. If the rich pay less taxes, where do you think shortage is going to come from? BTW, did you know that the top earning 25% of income in the U.S. pay close to 85% of the total individual income tax collected? The top earning 25% only earn 66% of the nation's total income. The top earning 1% only earn 19% of the nation's total income, yet they pay 36.9% of all federal income taxes. To give you an idea, I'm in the top earning 1%. I won't be spending any additional money under the fair tax. Since I will be taking home a significant amount more under the fair tax than I am now, I won't be paying near as much in taxes.

2. The Browns' are idiots. They make some idiotic claims that have been proven false in court dozens of times. They have been shown the exact law many times, but then claim it is some government conspiracy. Also, by their own actions, they attempted to hide income. It is a story of personal greed and stupidity and nothing else. The Internal Revenue Code was enacted and passed by Congress in 1954. It was signed into law by President Eisenhower. When that happened, it became "positive law". The Internal Revenue Code has changed many times since then and each change has been properly passed by Congress and signed into law. You can see the original Internal Revenue Code in the U.S. Statutes at Large Volume 68A, pg. 3. The U.S. Code is a codification of both "positive law" and "prima facie" law. Title 26 is considered prima facie law. However, since Title 26 is supposed to be a literal interpretation of the Internal Revenue Code, it is in essence, positive law. In Title 26, Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter A, Part 1, § 1, the code imposes an income on every individual. People who say Section 861 counteracts Section 1 misinterpret the code and the courts have told them so many times. All tax protestor arguments have lost in court every time.

3. We revolted from the British because of taxation without representation. Every American citizen is represented in Congress, so it is not the same.

4. If you think taxes are high here, you should research other countries. In the U.S., income taxes range from 0% to 35% and there is no national sales tax or value-added tax. However, in most locations in the U.S., sales taxes range from 5% to 8%. In Germany, income taxes range from 10% to 40% and they also have a value-added tax of close to 19%. That is much higher than U.S. taxes.

Answer 5

Aparently they do.

Why don't you try not paying them and then get back to us next and let us know how it went.

Blueridgeliving-----The 16th Admendment to the Constitution was passed in 1913 allowing the government to tax income. Now if you're a strict constitutionist saying there should be no admendments to the Constitution, then of course we can forget The Bill of Rights (the first 10 admendments), blacks should count as 3/5 a person in a census, etc.

I read the link, and you know what, the Browns will probably end up shot.

Answer 6

The browns are my personal heros, because they are not just fighting for their own rights, they are also fighting for the rest of us. That is why the government bullies want to make an example of them, to scare the rest of us into compliance with their evil fraud.

I have copied a post that I found on your link, because I completely agree with what this person has said on the matter! I am posting it here, because it needs to be said over and over and over. Here it is:

It is a powerful testament to the influence of corporate media that so many of us fervently believe things that are outright false. Regarding the 16th amendment, immediately after it was passed in 1913, multiple Supreme Court challenges confirmed it “created no new source nor right of taxation by the government”. In other words, NO NEW TAXES were to be derived from this law, and interpretations to the contrary were unconstitutional. The present argument for the government's rights to collect personal income tax hinges on the definition of "income" mentioned in the 16th Amendment, which was construed as "gains from commerce or business". In other words, business revenues. That definition of income is directly contrasted with the modern understanding of what you or I find in our paychecks each week, which is actually legally considered "a like exchange". In other words, we exchange our labor for an equal quantity of pay. In short, Federal IRS tax codes, laws, or statutes to the contrary do not have legal basis, until such time as a new constitutional amendment is created. The fact that powerful business lobbies and the Federal Reserve have obscured the truth of the matter does not change the historical facts. Finally, the claim that personal income taxes pay for the day-to-day operation of the government is untrue. This was the case for the 137 years prior to 1913, when our government managed quite well to support armies, provide for the common defense, build roads, bridges, and schools, and it is the case today. Rather, the almost one trillion dollars we paid last year in personal income taxes went instead toward interest payments for the currency our government purchased from their friends at the Federal Reserve (which is not a government entity at all, but a privately-held bank which prints our U.S. currency and sells it to our government). The fact that this has, like the Mafia, been such a well organized crime against our citizens does not earn it the distinction of respectability. It is still, like so many of the other casual tyrannies of ambitious men, illegal and immoral. But please, do not take my word for it. As Eisenhower stated, it behooves us to become “an alert and knowledgeable citizenry”. Find out for yourselves, and do not be too quick to trust the press or politicians to provide the truth. by h5mind

Thank you for taking the time to read this post.

To those of you who seem to be in favor of the income tax, I have to ask...Do you enjoy April 15th? Do you have April 15th parties, the way some people have Super Bowl parties? Do you need a lobotomy?

I sincerely believe that we should all stand up, and replace the evil, immoral and unconstitutional income tax, with the constitutional Fair Tax! *sm*

Answer 7

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. ”


[edit] Background
The U.S. Constitution provides (in part):

The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises [ . . . ] but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States [ . . . ][1]
The Constitution also provides (in part):

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers [ . . . . ][2]
The Constitution further provides:

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.[3]
The power to impose taxes (whether deemed direct or indirect taxes) is granted by Article I, section 8, clause 1. Indirect taxes (or "excises," in the parlance of the text of the Constitution) are required to be geographically uniform, according to Article I, section 8, clause 1 and the court decisions interpreting that provision (see Knowlton v. Moore[4] and Flint v. Stone Tracy Co.[5]).

Article I, section 2, clause 3 and Article I, section 9, clause 4 of the Constitution states that all direct taxes are required to be apportioned among the state's population. This essentially means that the dollar amount of direct taxes imposed on the taxpayers in any given state is required to bear a relationship to the total dollar amount of direct taxes imposed in the entire nation that is equal to the ratio of that state's population to the total population of the nation.

Answer 8

Not sure..they say the ratification didn't go through properly, and that's why it isn't legal to take income taxes, but I don't know if it's accurate.

The interesting thing is that they did pay their realestate taxes so it's not like they have a blatant disregard...they may have a point.

Answer 9

"do no longer you think of that's hypocritical?" - confident did you already know that the federal government used to have a medical marijuana application, and that it nonetheless aspects federally grown marijuana to a final 8 residing sufferers that enrolled earlier the government close it down? considered one of them is a valuable wall highway investor. i'm going to declare returned - our tax money concurrently furnish marijuana to sufferers and pay for enforcement officers to arrest sufferers. now it particularly is a few hypocrisy

Answer 10

It is the responsibility of every law abiding citizen in this country to pay taxes to help keep this country functioning the best as possible. Where do you think our roads come from? Or how about the schools where our kids get there free education? Like Thomas Jefferson said "There are only two thing in life that are certain, death and taxes". The more this country grows as far as technology and civilization, the more expensive things get. Including taxes. It's been like this during the entire history of this country. If you don't like it, then maybe you should move to some 3rd world country and see how much better off you are.

Answer 11

This is a debate that has gone on for years. It has to do basically with the definition of "Direct Tax" vs. "Indirect Tax"...
Thats for the Lawyers to sort out. And this is nothing new as it has been in and out of Court since Woodrow Wilson instituted it in 1913.