Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Just so you know... Here is why Income Tax is legally collected in the US...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
WCGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 06:04 PM
Original message
Just so you know... Here is why Income Tax is legally collected in the US...
Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified. Ratified 2/3/1913. Note History

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.


It's in the Constitution....


These Tax avoiders are ridiculous when they state there is no law compelling people to pay Income Tax...


It's in the Constitution...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BrokenBeyondRepair Donating Member (642 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 06:07 PM
Response to Original message
1. didn't it fall short of the states needed to ratify?
by 4 or something..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WCGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. It's in the Constitution....
It's the 16th Amendment...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrokenBeyondRepair Donating Member (642 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #2
11. i know that. it's an amendment.. the 16th
but was it legally ratified?

There is a convincing case that the 16th amendment was not legally ratified and that Secretary of State Philander Knox was not merely in error, but committed fraud when he declared it ratified in February 1913.

Knox had received responses from 42 states when he declared the 16th amendment ratified on February 25, 1913

Utah, Conn, R.I. and N.H. rejected it, leaving only 38 states..

Attorneys who have studied the subject have agreed that Kentucky and Oklahoma should not have been counted as approvals by Philander Knox, and, moreover, if any state could be shown to have violated its own state constitution or laws in its approval process, then that state's approval would have to be thrown out.

this leaves 36 ...3/4s of the states at the time.

The state constitution of Tennessee prohibited the state legislature from acting on any proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution sent by Congress until after the next election of state legislators.

Mississippi, Ohio, Arkansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, West Virginia, Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Colorado, and Illinois also violated provisions of their constitution when ratifying this amendment.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WCGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #11
22. That is a specious argument at best and here is why...
Congress passed the Amendment on July 12, 1909 and it was sent to the states at that time...

It was not ratified until February 3rd, 1913...

New legislative sessions are created every two years in the state capitals...

In order to prove that it was against the state constitutions, you would have to see when the States in question ratified the Amendment...

If all the states in question ratified after Jan 1, 1911, then they would have been in compliance with their constitutions...

The Amendment was sent to the states during the 09-10 legislative session...

A new legislature would be created in the 1910 State elections...

I don't know for a fact, but I would wager money that the Constitutionality of the actions taken by the states would have been settled at the time...

I think the people giving you this information are presenting a what if scenario with out providing the detail...

Show me that the states in question ratified the Amendment illegally as set forth by their states Constitution and we might have a different conversation....

But as of now, I think it's all the Free Masons fault anyway...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrokenBeyondRepair Donating Member (642 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. it should be easy to verify; maybe one day it will be..
until then i'll continue to never give any government the benefit of doubt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. No
it was ultimately ratified by 42 states, 6 more than necessary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
percussivemadness Donating Member (733 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. with all due respect
wiki is hardly a relaible source of information

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #7
18. Then go to the source document
that is provided in the Wiki link - the US Govt. Printing Office.


http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/conamt.html


sheesh...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrokenBeyondRepair Donating Member (642 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. wiki?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #12
19. yeah
it provides a source document.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrokenBeyondRepair Donating Member (642 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. how is that doc proof of ratification? it's a question of legality
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CaliforniaPeggy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 06:11 PM
Response to Original message
3. That's what I thought!
I thought those people were crazy to state they didn't have to pay any income tax...

Thanks for bringing a clear answer to this question!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WCGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. There were a whole mess of confusing laws enacted in the
time period between the Civil War and the turn of the Century that these anti-tax activists rely upon to make their arguments legit...

However the 16th Amendment clarified it by getting rid of the apportionment clause which stated the states owe money to the Fed's in line with the population...

So states had to raise the money based on population and not on individuals...

Now, after the 16th Amendment, it's the individuals who are responsible for the tax and not the state...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrokenBeyondRepair Donating Member (642 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #3
14. it is an amendment that is enforced..
not paying probably isn't the smartest thing to do.

the question is whether the amendment itself was legally ratified..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
percussivemadness Donating Member (733 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 06:15 PM
Response to Original message
6. the 16th amendment was never ratified
the question as to whether taxes are a social responsibility that we all have a moral responsibility to undertakle, is another issue, however, the 16th amendment was not ratified - This is a good article http://www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/notratified...

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Yes, just like the moon is made of green cheese. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
percussivemadness Donating Member (733 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. and there were WMDS in Iraq
Peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WCGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. Just so you don't make a fool of yourself....
16th Amendment

In 1895, in the Supreme Court case of Pollock v Farmer's Loan and Trust (157 U.S. 429), the Court disallowed a federal tax on income from real property. The tax was designed to be an indirect tax, which would mean that states need not contribute portions of a whole relative to its census figures. The Court, however, ruled that the tax was a direct tax and subject to apportionment. This was the last in a series of conflicting court decisions dating back to the Civil War. Between 1895 and 1909, when the amendment was passed by Congress, the Court began to back down on its position, as it became clear not only to accountants but to everyone that the solvency of the nation was in jeopardy. 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.

Finally, with the ratification of the 16th Amendment, any doubt was removed. The text of the 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. The Congress passed the Amendment on July 12, 1909, and it was ratified on February 3, 1913 (1,302 days).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
percussivemadness Donating Member (733 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. not trying to make a fool of myself
Edited on Sun Jul-22-07 06:43 PM by percussivemadness
So you know where I stand, I believe taxation is a social responsibility that all members of society have a moral obligation to pay.

The original post was that the 16th amendment was ratified, there appears to be some doubt over that.

As you do appear to be quite knowledgeable, perhaps you could refute this article for me http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm

Peace

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrokenBeyondRepair Donating Member (642 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. taxation w/ representation and transparency
i'm all for it..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
percussivemadness Donating Member (733 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. agreed
peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. That is a nutters argument.
The fact is that the 16th Amendment was ratified, and is as clear as a bell ...

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.

There is no doubt ... only tax cheats fabricating justifications and the gullible.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WCGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #13
21. All I have to point to is this....
16th Amendment

In 1913, Wyoming ratified the 16th Amendment, providing the three-quarter majority of states necessary to amend the Constitution. The 16th Amendment gave Congress the authority to enact an income tax. That same year, the first Form 1040 appeared after Congress levied a 1 percent tax on net personal incomes above $3,000 with a 6 percent surtax on incomes of more than $500,000.

In 1918, during World War I, the top rate of the income tax rose to 77 percent to help finance the war effort. It dropped sharply in the post-war years, down to 24 percent in 1929, and rose again during the Depression. During World War II, Congress introduced payroll withholding and quarterly tax payments.


The Tax Code, which the IRS collects and also enforces, originates in the Congress...

The Tax Code was created and is edited and ammended by the House and Senate...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Oct 22nd 2014, 08:55 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC