Income Tax Fraud!!!!?

Question

Why do you pay income taxes? There is no law stating we must do such a thing. Think it was added as the 16th admendment? Well think again! Your wrong! Its a fraud! The 16th amendment was NEVER ratified by the states, which means it can NEVER be legally implamented. The American people were lied to! No American Citizen should pay income taxes! Dont believe me, check this out.. Then tell me what you think!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&q=america+freedom+to+fascism&total=967&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2

We are so far in debt our taxes dont even pay the interest!

Since apparently your not watching the link.... Quote-- hear me again QUOTE! " If you.... examine the 16th amendment carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment" -US District Court Judge, James C Fox 2003!

Answer 1

I only wish it were true. But taxes DO help, IF they are used as they are supposed to be used. They DO build roads, schools, etc etc etc. as long as thats what the money goes too and not lining yet another rich SOB's pockets.

Answer 2

Yes, the 16th Amendment was ratified -- in the same way the 19th Amendment (granting women the right to vote) was ratified -- as confirmed the US Supreme Court 90 years ago. in Brushaber v. Union Pac. R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916). The 16th Amendment was ratified in writing by 37 of the 48 states, with 36 being required.

So, if you want to start ignoring Supreme Court rulings -- which do you want to throw away first -- the ratification of the 19th Amendment, Miranda warnings, what?

And there are plenty of federal laws on the subject -- all of Title 26 of the US code for example.

Many delusional people have argued otherwise -- and most of them are in jail now, or have finally gotten out of jail after serving long sentences.

Long version of the answer linked below.

Answer 3

You have no idea what you are talking about. Look it up--the necessary 3/4 of the states did ratify it. The courts have rejected such silly claims as yours. If you don't like paying taxes, move to some 3rd world country that doesn't collect taxes and see how you like living there. No roads, no water, no schools, no nothing!

Answer 4

bypass to the two of theses 2 information superhighway web pages,the U. S. government or the IRS the two have a one million-800 warm line to report fraud,you are able to proceed to be nameless in case you like,if it a huge quantity and that they assemble you're able to as nicely get a money advantages. That first hyperlink in the respond above is a lot extra effective than calling and gets suitable answer

Answer 5

I don't have to watch your link, I've already seen it. Aaron Russo's film, "America: Freedom to Fascism" is a movie full of inaccuracies and out-of-context quotes.

I suggest you go to http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html and lookup almost every point in the film. I also recommend that you try and verify different quotes from the film from RELIABLE websites.

BTW, the book, "The Law that Never Was" by Bill Benson has been completed refuted. Also, no court has EVER accepted any of the arguments brought forth in that book. Here is a court case that discussed the book. In U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986), the court stated,
[QUOTE]
"Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913. Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal instruments of ratification to the Secretary of State. (Minnesota notified the Secretary orally, and additional states ratified later; we consider only those Secretary Knox considered.) Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. The text Congress transmitted to the states was: “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.” Many of the instruments neglected to capitalize “States,” and some capitalized other words instead. The instrument from Illinois had “remuneration” in place of “enumeration”; the instrument from Missouri substituted “levy” for “lay”; the instrument from Washington had “income” not “incomes”; others made similar blunders.

“Thomas insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and--taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems--advised the Secretary that he was authorized to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so."

Although Thomas urges us to take the view of several state courts that only agreement on the literal text may make a legal document effective, the Supreme Court follows the “enrolled bill rule.” If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted.
[END QUOTE]

A few sentences later in the same decision, the court continues, "Secretary Knox declared that enough states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary’ decision is not transparently defective. We need not decide when, if ever, such a decision may be reviewed in order to know that Secretary Knox’ decision is now beyond review."
[END QUOTE OF CASE]

Judge Fox's statement was in the context of giving an example. He was not making a statement of fact. Here is a larger portion of the transcripts where that quote was made.
[QUOTE]
"I will say I think, you know, colonel, I have to tell you that there are cases where a long course of history in fact does change the Constitution, and I can think of one instance. I believe I'm correct on this. I think if you were to go back and try to find and review the ratification of the 16th amendment, which was the internal revenue, income tax, I think if you went back and examined that carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment...And nonetheless, I think it's fair to say that it is part of the Constitution of the United States, and I don't think any court would ever...set it aside."
[END QUOTE]
The comments made by Judge Fox were made in passing, without judicial review, and in a case that had nothing to do with the 16th amendment. In the end, the Judge also said that he didn't think any court would ever set it aside.

As I have pointed out in other answers, the Federal Reserve act was properly passed by Congress and does not require a Constitutional amendment. While the Federal Reserve Act was passed on Dec. 23, 1913, according to the Congressional record, the bill passed the house by a count of 298 to 60. 358 members voted out of 435, that's pretty good attendance. That's probably better attendance than the current House of Representative gets on most days. The Senate passed the bill with a vote of 43 to 25. That's 68 members voted out of 96. Again, that is good attendance.

Finally, the quote by Woodrow Wilson that the film says he made in 1919 is false. First, there is no record anywhere that Woodrow Wilson said the first part of that quote. The rest of the quote is taken from Woodrow Wilson's book, "The New Freedom". However, "The New Freedom" was published in 1913! Also, the book is actually a compilation of speeches he made on the campaign trail during 1911 and 1912. He was really discussing corporate monopolies and not the Federal Reserve (which didn't exist yet) or the banks. You can read "The New Freedom" for yourself at http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/14811

Look at all I have written refuting many points in the movie, "Freedom to Fascism" and that's only the first five minutes of it.

What it all boils down to is the movie is inaccurate conspiracy theory nonsense.
The facts are:
1. There is a law concerning income taxes and it is the Internal Revenue Act of 1954. That Act was extensively modified by the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Various amendments to the income tax laws have been passed since. All of which were passed by Congress and signed into law by a President. The Internal Revenue laws are codified in Title 26 U.S.C. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26.html

2. The Federal Reserve system is not some great conspiracy by bankers to control our government. The truth is the Federal Reserve is setup according to law and is controlled by a presidentially appointed Board of Governors. The Federal Reserve is audited every year and that audit is part of the Federal Reserve Annual Report to Congress.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongress/

BTW, the claim that income taxes only go to pay interest on the U.S. Government debt is easily refuted. In 2006, the IRS collected approximately $1.04 trillion in individual income taxes. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?DocID=203&Topic2id=20&Topic3id=21
Since the debt at the end of 2006 was approximately $8.5 trillion, the interest rate would have to be close to 12% in order for all income taxes to only go to interest. The true interest rate on the debt isn't anywhere near that. In fact, it is only about 4.7%. The total interest paid on U.S. Government debt in 2006 was $405,872,109,315.83
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm

Anyway, the Federal Reserve is REQUIRED BY LAW to return excess income to the U.S. Treasury. This can be seen in the AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS I linked to earlier. In 2006, the Federal Reserve collected $36.5 billion in interest on U.S. Government debt. The Federal Reserve returned to the U.S. Treasury $29.1 billion.

On a final note, people who know constitutional law and those who know how to properly read court decisions can tell you that an income tax on wages IS constitutional and has ALWAYS been constitutional. That is because an income tax on wages is an INDIRECT tax in a constitutional sense.

Answer 6

If you don't want to use any of our roads, schools and public facilities, since that's what that money goes to so... go ahead and believe that crap that you found on youtube.

Answer 7

Well if you don't want military and police go right ahead.

Answer 8

You just go ahead and tell yourself that