where in the constitution dose it state that you are required by law to pay income taxes?

Question

Someone gave me an answer according to the IRS I am talking about the constitution.By what amendment?

Answer 1

Interesting... everything I had posted before is suddenly missing (I'm sure it's because it was just too long, as when I try to re-post it, it won't show up). Good thing I have it saved as a Word Doc. Anyone who wants a copy can e-mail me at [e-mail]. Unlike some people, I'm not afraid of a good debate, and will accept e-mails. Well, here's what I was adding to it.

I actually have two legs to stand on. I love it when someone results to labelling an entire point of view as ridiculous just because he has no further logical arguments to throw against it. And to say that you "have the Constitution and over 200 years of case law on my side" is simply not being truthful, You don't have the Constitution on "your side", you have one amendment which was unjustly ratified. You never once addressed my points about the fallen Checks and Balances, which are the main cause of this injustice. You need look no further than the current scandals in the Justice Department to see why some case law would support your viewpoint. The lawyers and judges know better than to bite the hand that feeds them. It's still against the best interest of the American People, and it is still unjust and against the intent of our Forefathers when they created the Constitution as a guard against corrupt and unfair government practices. I believe I have addressed all of your points. Why did you not address mine, instead trying to demean my point of view by labeling it as ridiculous? This suggests to me that you have grown frusterated, as you have no further valid points, and have no valid argument against the points that I have brought forth, instead resorting to labels such as "frivolous tax protestor arguments". In fact, you're acting like I'm speaking out against your religion, saying things like no matter what evidence you show me, I won't see the truth. Show me some credible evidence that the 16th Amendment didn't take away our Constitutional right to be protected from unfair direct taxation, that doesn't involve case judgements corrupted by a failure in the Checks and Balances, and I'll happily concede.

The case that you're talking about on which two framers of the Constitution presided, Hylton v. United States, concerned a tax on carriages, not on income. It has nothing what so ever to do with this, as a tax on carriages is not a direct tax, anymore than a tax on title transfers are today. Income tax is still a direct tax, as I've already proven to you through definitions of "Direct Tax". as well as the definitions of "excise" and "duty". If all of your "cases" are equally valid, then I understand why you're growing tired of this debate. You'll have to come up with something better than that. I understand that as an accountant your livelihood most likely relies on these unjust practices, but that doesn't make you right, and no amount of claiming to be right will make it so. Unfortunately I don't have time to continue this tonight. I'll look forward to more of your "evidence" tomorrow.

You're just talking in circles, and providing "evidence" that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. I never claimed that Congress didn't have the authority to levy taxes, just that a tax on Wages is a Direct Tax and therefore unconstitutional, as I've stated at least three times, and have demonstrated through providing definitions. The Checks and Balances are not working, but there's really no room to debate that in this limited forum. Most of the cases that you have provided don't even deal with an income tax on wages, so I suspect that you are throwing these in there in an attempt to look knowledgable, but are failing to provide substance to your arguments. The one that does, the Springer decision, dealt with the 1862 income tax, which was enacted to fund the Civil War, which goes back to what I was saying about the government using war to rob us of our rights and freedoms. Before the ratification of the 16th, there were a series of conflicting court decisions dating back to the Civil War. Between 1895 and 1909 (some of which you have provided, some of which you have convienently neglected to mention). "In a series of cases, the definition of "direct tax" was modified, bent, twisted, and coaxed to allow more taxation efforts that approached an income tax" - http://www.usconstitution.net/constamnotes.html#Am16.
"The text of the [16th] Amendment makes it clear that though the categories of direct and indirect taxation still exist, any determination that income tax is a direct tax will be irrelevant, because taxes on incomes, from salary or from real estate, are explicitly to be treated as indirect" - http://www.answers.com/topic/springer-v-united-states . As I said... they warped the meaning of the word in order to take away the right of honest Americans to fight the direct tax placed upon their wages, by saying that the argument is irrelevent. Again, this goes against what our Forefathers intended, and is an unjust, unfair practice, and goes against the wording and spirit of Article 1, Section 9 - Limits on Congress. The fact that Congress was allowed to remove its own Constitutional Limitation and was backed up by the Judicial Branch suggests a lack of the proper functioning of the Checks and Balances.

But we could go on like this forever. As long as you have a vested interest in the current system, you will keep throwing irrelevant cases into the debate in an attempt to confuse the issues. That's fine, I'm done with you. This isn't the proper forum for this type of debate. I wish you well in all that you do.

Answer 2

"We the people in order to form a more perfect union..." That states that the undersigned and those they represent are forming a government. This should convey to you or anyone seeking protection or relief under the Constitution that it will take financial resources to create and operate this government.

The Constitution further sets out the three branches of government, their duties and responsibilities. Here again any person with even low intelligence should understand that this will require financial resources.

The Constitution calls for the election of a congress to enact the laws to operate this government. These laws must be approved by the elected president and found to be Constitutional by the courts.

Our elected congress chose to raise these needed financial resources through the sale of land and various taxes, rather than setting up a lemonade stand at the borders.

Constitution forms the government, we elect the representatives and they say pay taxes. What more do you need?

Pay your taxes or move somewhere that does not finance its government through income taxes, like say China or North Korea.

The Constitution also doesn't state what reasons to go to war or that we can stop people at our borders or that we can launch a space station. The Constitution doesn't say anything about abortion, native hunting rights, the need for a fishing license or driver's license, or the creation of the Coast Guard, National Guard, Air Guard or Boy Scouts.

Pay your share or move out, pretty simple.

Answer 3

Dose? It dose not...er... I mean it does not say it that way.

The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution is the enabling document. It states that "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."

This is the source and the the legal basis for the tax laws. The Constitution does not set forth the laws, it merely gives Congress the authority to write the laws.

Answer 4

The LAW you are looking for that requires you to pay income taxes is found in the "Internal Revenue Code or IRC." Go to the IRS website, www.irs.gov., and you can read and learn about the IRC in its splendid entirety. Another poster cited the correct Federal Statute where the IRC is found as its part of the United States Code within the Title cited. It says that all US Citizens are subject to a tax on income "from whatever source derived." That's why Al Capone went to jail. He did not pay taxes to the IRS on income that he made from bootlegging. Notice the IRC says "whatever source," even if it's an illegal source. Hope this helps!!

Answer 5

The 16th amendment to the constitution was ratified in 1913. It states that congress has the authority to lay and collect taxes on income. It's been the law ever since.

Answer 6

Just because something is the law, doesn't mean it's in the constitution. Some people make arguments that because it's not in the constitution, then they don't have to pay income taxes. I think that if you don't pay all your taxes, then you don't deserve to use roads, electricity, water or gas sent through municipal lines, public schools, the court system, or anything else paid for by the government.

Answer 7

Amendment XVI
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 8

The 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 9

Where in the constitution does it say that if I run a red light I can be given a ticket?

Answer 10

It does not its in the artical 10 of the united states COde

Answer 11

I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't be in the Constitution. The Constitution is to protect the rights of citizens. It is not laws and such; it's your rights.