Is the Income tax illegal?

Question

If yes, then why do Americans pay it?
Would you support Ron Paul in abolishing the IRS.

Answer 1

yes, its illegal, income is not properly defined in the 16th amendment and wasn't properly ratified. We pay it because we get threats from the mafioso IRS and yes i support Ron Paul, why the heck wouldnt you.

Answer 2

I wonder if they teach in the Constitution in high school anymore. When I taught American Government, I made the Constitution the basis of the class. Now I wonder if anybody has read the document.

The 16th Amendment grants Congress the power to levy an income tax. We can not pick and choose which parts of the Constitution to follow. If you feel that the federal income tax should be done away with, ask your representatives in Congress to introduce an amendment to repeal the 16th Amendment; there is a process according to Article V.

Answer 3

Did you pay ANY attention in a government or US history class? Read the Constitution; it's not illegal.
Although it would be an interesting discussion over the topic of whether or not the founding fathers intended for something like it.

As far as Ron Paul goes, get a real candidate already.

Answer 4

Prior to the Sixteenth Amendment, there was an attempt to levy an income tax which was found to be unconstitutional. Those who want to claim that the income tax is unconstitutional keep on citing to this case. However, as they used to teach in high school civics (when they used to teach high school civics), one of the checks that Congress has on the Supreme Court is the ability to propose Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. That is exactly what happened with the Sixteenth Amendment and so now an income tax is authorized by the U.S. Constitution.

Answer 5

History and civics lessons are sorely needed in this country.

Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution granted Congress the 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;"

Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution says "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken"

This is where people get confused. Economists (and others) define income taxes as a direct tax, however, in a Constitutional sense, income taxes are indirect.
In Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 75 U.S. 533, 543 (1869) the Supreme Court said, "This review [of the history of Congressional impositions of “direct taxes”] shows that personal property, contracts, occupations, and the like, have never been regarded by Congress as proper subjects of direct tax."

The first income tax in the U.S. was enacted in 1861 and was renewed every year until 1872. The Revenue Act of 1864 was challenged in Springer v. U.S. In that case, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the income tax. The Bureau of Internal Revenue was created in 1862 and it was later renamed the Internal Revenue Service.

What many tax protestors point to is the Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601, 637 (1895) case. The majority opinion of the court concluded that a tax on income from property (rental income) was a direct tax and therefore unconstitutional. However, the court questioned themselves on whether they had the constitutional intent correct as evidenced by the following statement.
"The first question to be considered is whether a tax on the rents or income of real estate is a direct tax within the meaning of the constitution. Ordinarily, all taxes paid primarily by persons who can shift the burden upon some one else, or who are under no legal compulsion to pay them, are considered indirect taxes; but a tax upon property holders in respect of their estates, whether real or personal, or of the income yielded by such estates, and the payment of which cannot be avoided, are direct taxes. Nevertheless, it may be admitted that, although this definition of direct taxes is prima facie correct, and to be applied in the consideration of the question before us, yet the constitution may bear a different meaning, and that such different meaning must be recognized."

Because of the 1895 Pollock decision, Congress proposed the 16th amendment which was subsequently ratified. The 16th 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."

This clarified the power of Congress to lay and collect an income tax. It basically made clear that it didn't matter if income taxes were considered direct or indirect, that Congress had the power to collect an income tax in either case.

Many tax protestors like to proclaim that the Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916) decision said the 16th amendment gave Congress "no new power to tax", which is partially true. However, that quote is taken completely out of context. The court actually said, "by the previous ruling [in Brushaber] 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..."

As anyone can plainly see, the court stated that Congress had the power to tax incomes "from the beginning".
The Supreme Court has never stated that the 16th Amendment gave Congress “no new power” without also affirming that Congress already had the power to tax incomes even before the 16th Amendment.

So, to answer your question, the income tax is not illegal and it never has been.

Would I support Ron Paul? Maybe, but he panders too much to the tax protestors. He (or his staff) also makes statements about income taxes and tax protestors that he later has to backpedal on.

Will he abolish the IRS? Doubtful, even if he could get elected, even if he could get Congress to enact the fair tax legislation and rescind the Internal Revenue Code, which are two VERY BIG IFs. The government would still need an agency to implement everything that would be required by the fair tax. For example, mailing of prebate checks, processing business sales tax documents, processing the monthly payments by businesses, etc.

Answer 6

I don't know if it's legal or not, but... Yes, I would support the good Dr. in abolishing the IRS... Definitely! Anyone who says no, are either not old enough for taxes to affect them or are just plain stupid.

Answer 7

Abolishing the IRS and not paying taxes is two different issues. Many have said that but at the end of the day they pay.
I do believe everyone should pay taxes even the poor. But, I do think the tax code should be reformed.

Answer 8

Absolutely not. Read the Sixteenth Ammendment to the US Constitution:
"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

The 16th amendment to the constituion grants congress the legal authority to levy an income tax.

The tax is legal, the IRS is broken.

Answer 10

The Income Tax as presently applied is illegal. There is no constitutional basis for the personal income tax. My source is the US Constitution. Read and Weep!