Ron Paul to Eliminate Income Tax

[RobbZer0]

Exactly where did you get that idea?

It's been said over and over again that the Income Tax is unconstitutional and illegal. So one day I heard that, it intrigued me, and so I looked it up. So now here I am. Putting what I've seen about the legality of Income Tax on this forum here to find out what others think. And it's kinda tough to say something here trying to avoid questions that would be responded to "No, no. Not that. I'm talking about this." And so I'm trying to be as clear and concise as I can be in what I post.

The 16th amendment was properly ratified. However, even if it wasn't, it is now a part of the Constitution and it will take another Constitutional amendment to repeal it. An excellent explanation can be found at LPC's Tax Protester FAQ at http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#ratification

I'd certainly welcome a repeal to the Income Tax. That's something Ron Paul would do.

BTW, 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." I don't know where you get this idea about "original" 16th amendment.

Didn't the 16th amendment originally say something along the lines of direct taxes having to be apportioned and that it must be uniform?

The government can tax you on your wages/labor and the income tax laws are constitutional.

Isn't the Income Tax in some way a tax on gains and profits made by a corporation? My money comes in via wages through labor. I know this is a real old and tired debate, but, it seems to me that if there has been any amount of debate about this subject that it's not yet been made clear enough what the differences are.

[Joey Smith]

It's been said over and over again that the Income Tax is unconstitutional and illegal.

But not by anybody who matters, or who has a lick of credibility.

ALL the thousands of court cases have said that the income tax is 100% constitutional. No accredited legal or constitutional scholar disagrees.

When did the tire changers and pool cleaners suddenly get a monopoly on knowledge anyhow?

[RyanMcC]

Exactly where did you get that idea?

It's been said over and over again that the Income Tax is unconstitutional and illegal. So one day I heard that, it intrigued me, and so I looked it up. So now here I am. Putting what I've seen about the legality of Income Tax on this forum here to find out what others think. And it's kinda tough to say something here trying to avoid questions that would be responded to "No, no. Not that. I'm talking about this." And so I'm trying to be as clear and concise as I can be in what I post.

The 16th amendment was properly ratified. However, even if it wasn't, it is now a part of the Constitution and it will take another Constitutional amendment to repeal it. An excellent explanation can be found at LPC's Tax Protester FAQ at http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#ratification

I'd certainly welcome a repeal to the Income Tax. That's something Ron Paul would do.

Congratulations for making the only online poll I've ever seen him not win BTW. It took a forum of accountants & tax attorneys but it happened. Now I have to post a link to it on youtube just to even out the numbers..

BTW, 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." I don't know where you get this idea about "original" 16th amendment.

Didn't the 16th amendment originally say something along the lines of direct taxes having to be apportioned and that it must be uniform?

The 16th amendment says what it has always said:

"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."

The constitution did say something similar to what you mentioned, but that was changed by the 16th amendment which was properly ratified:

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#ratification

The government can tax you on your wages/labor and the income tax laws are constitutional.

Isn't the Income Tax in some way a tax on gains and profits made by a corporation? My money comes in via wages through labor. I know this is a real old and tired debate, but, it seems to me that if there has been any amount of debate about this subject that it's not yet been made clear enough what the differences are.

Wages for your labor are taxable just like corporate profits are.

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#corporations

Most of these issues you bring up have been covered numerous times here already.

[The Operative]

It's been said over and over again that the Income Tax is unconstitutional and illegal. So one day I heard that, it intrigued me, and so I looked it up. So now here I am. Putting what I've seen about the legality of Income Tax on this forum here to find out what others think. And it's kinda tough to say something here trying to avoid questions that would be responded to "No, no. Not that. I'm talking about this." And so I'm trying to be as clear and concise as I can be in what I post.

It may have been said over and over again, but anyone who said the income tax was unconstitutional and illegal was wrong.

The 16th amendment was properly ratified. However, even if it wasn't, it is now a part of the Constitution and it will take another Constitutional amendment to repeal it. An excellent explanation can be found at LPC's Tax Protester FAQ at http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#ratification

I'd certainly welcome a repeal to the Income Tax. That's something Ron Paul would do.

Ron Paul can't repeal the income tax. To repeal a constitutional amendment takes an act of Congress that is passed by Congress and then ratified by the states. If he hasn't been able to do it as a member of Congress, he's not going to be able to do it as President either.

BTW, 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." I don't know where you get this idea about "original" 16th amendment.

Didn't the 16th amendment originally say something along the lines of direct taxes having to be apportioned and that it must be uniform?

The Constitution said that direct taxes must be apportioned and uniform. However, an income tax on wages are INDIRECT in a constitutional sense and always have been. Anyway, it doesn't matter whether a person considers income taxes as direct or indirect, the 16th amendment removes the requirement of apportionment even if someone considers income taxes as direct taxes. That is the purpose of amendments, to make changes to the Constitution. You really should read the Constitution.
http://www.senate.gov/civics/constituti ... tution.htm

The government can tax you on your wages/labor and the income tax laws are constitutional.

Isn't the Income Tax in some way a tax on gains and profits made by a corporation? My money comes in via wages through labor. I know this is a real old and tired debate, but, it seems to me that if there has been any amount of debate about this subject that it's not yet been made clear enough what the differences are.

Your wages are a gain to you. Gain is measured as to how much you paid for something and the amount you sell it for. Not between how much something is worth and what you sell it for. If you find a diamond ring worth $4,000 in your backyard and you immediately sell it for $3,000, you have a gain of $3,000. If the person you sold it to, then sells it to someone else for $4,000. Their gain is $1,000 or the difference between what they paid for the ring and what they sold it for. You pay nothing for your labor. Your labor may be worth $100 per hour to you, but you didn't pay anything for your labor.

The following is an excerpt from a Supreme Court case concerning personal injury awards.

...since both general and legal sources define "income" as involving gain, see, e. g., Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1143 (1976) ("a gain or recurrent benefit that is usu. measured in money . . ."); 42 C. J. S., Income, p. 531 (1944) ("In common speech `income' generally is understood as gain or profit . . ." (footnote omitted)); Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207 [481 U.S. 368, 375] (1920) ("`Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,' provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets . . ." (quoting Stratton's Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 (1913); Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185 (1918))), respondents conclude that personal injury awards cannot fairly be characterized as income. But the premise that personal injury awards cannot involve gain is obviously false, since they often are intended in significant part to compensate for the loss of
gain, e. g., lost wages.

- LUKHARD v. REED, 481 U.S. 368 (1987)

Notice the last sentence of that quote. The court specifically said that personal injury award "are intended...to compensate for the loss of gain, e. g., lost wages." When they put "e. g." that is basically the same as saying "in other words". The Supreme Court is definitely saying that wages is a gain.

[LPC]

First you seem to want to beleive that Congress is sovern because they wrote up the Constitution.

I've never said that Congress was "sovereign." All I've ever said is that Congress has the powers given to it in the Constitution, including the power to tax.

Secondly if the Common law has nothing to do with anything as you espouse

I never said that common law has nothing to do with *anything.* I said that is has practically nothing to do with the Constitution and federal statutory law.

Common law has a great deal to do with state law. In my own practice (estates and trusts), most of the law that I deal with is common law.

then what law form was used by Congress from 1776 through the late 1880's?

Legislation. Congress enacts statutes through legislation. That's Congress has done from 1790 through 1880 and from 1880 to the present. In fact, that's the only form of law Congress has ever used, because Congress is a legislative body and can only act through legislation.

Was it the civil law form or common?

Once again, your question is not altogether meaningful. You're asking if an orange is a mineral or a floor wax.

Common law is what exists in the absence of statutory law and so, as I have explained before, Congress cannot enact common law because common law is what is made by judges and not legislatures.

Now, you might think that, if Congress cannot enact common law, it must enact civil law, but that's not really accurate either. My understanding of European "civil law" is a comprehensive body of law that covers almost all legal relations, and so the civil law covers criminal conduct, contracts, negligence, rights of inheritence, etc. Congress only has the power to enact legislation within the areas described in the Constitution, and so cannot enact comprehensive rules governing the subjects that would be found in the civil code of a European nation. It is therefore not right to say that Congress enacts "civil codes" or "civil law" in the same way that France or Germany have enacted "civil codes."

If it was civil then why the need for civil law statutes and codes that define what a "U.S. citizen" is when the constitution was enough?

Your question is once again incoherent. Citizenship rarely has anything to do with the application of laws, regardless of whether the laws are common law, civil law, or something else. So, for example, if you are in a state and sign a contract in that state with another person in that state, the laws of that state can apply to the contract regardless of whether you are a citizen of that state and regardless of whether the "law" in question is a question of common law, a civil code (such as would be in force in Louisiana), or a statute enacted in what would otherwise be a common law jurisdiction (such as the Uniform Commercial Code).

[LPC]

It's been said over and over again that the Income Tax is unconstitutional and illegal. So one day I heard that, it intrigued me, and so I looked it up.

And what was it that you looked up?

When I first encountered tax deniers, I was confused because what they were saying didn't match anything I remembered from law school, so I looked up the cases they were talking about (Brushaber and Pollock), and then went back and read other earlier Supreme Court decisions (such as Springer and Hylton) and realized that they were absolutely, positively wrong.

So what have you read?

And if you haven't read the Brushaber decision, why not?

And if you have read it, how could you possibly think that the constitutionality of the income tax could be questioned?

Isn't the Income Tax in some way a tax on gains and profits made by a corporation?

Where did you get that idea?

See http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#corporations for an answer.

I know this is a real old and tired debate, but, it seems to me that if there has been any amount of debate about this subject that it's not yet been made clear enough what the differences are.

You underestimate the power of greed and self-delusion:

Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest. ‘Tax protesters’ have convinced themselves that wages are not income, that only gold is money, that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional, and so on. These beliefs all lead--so tax protesters think--to the elimination of their obligation to pay taxes.

Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 69 (7th Cir. 1986).

[Evil Squirrel Overlord]

If it has no value, why are people willing to accept it in compensation for their goods and services?

Also, why doesn't a single country, anywhere in the world, back their money with precious metal?

Well the 82% rule might apply here whereas most people are unaware of the fact that our money isn't backed by anything of value. We've simply gotten used to the idea that a paper is worth something.

Or because of the mere fact that because humans value it, it has value. Seriously, other than utlitatrian purposes what value do precious metals really have? They are considered valuable for no other reason than people believe they have value. Pipestone is a rarer commodity than gold, but since it isn't valued by an extremely large number of people and hoarding large quantities of it won't raise your social status very high, the percieved value is low.

Bank notes are the same. They are valued because people assign them value. We also now have imaginary money. Rarely do I use any physical bank notes to make transactions. They are done on an elaborate digital accounting network which includes my employer and my banks. I can exchange those funds for the paper, but it is less useful for me to do so.

[Evil Squirrel Overlord]

It's been said over and over again that the Income Tax is unconstitutional and illegal.

It has been said over and over that the moon landing was faked, the Conquistadors acted alone against the Aztecs and crystals can help you communicate with your dead dog.

Isn't the Income Tax in some way a tax on gains and profits made by a corporation? My money comes in via wages through labor. I know this is a real old and tired debate, but, it seems to me that if there has been any amount of debate about this subject that it's not yet been made clear enough what the differences are.

Please present that code fragment again. The word "include" does not mean income was limited to those items listed afterwards, but that the definition of income included a subset which included those specifically listed items.

For example: I am going to a baseball game. Price includes one hot dog and one beer. A baseball protestor might argue that the game only consists of a hotdog and beer and that the actual watching the players on the field play ball is not listed so why should they have to pay for a ticket to attend the game or (show up at game time).

[webhick]

Or because of the mere fact that because humans value it, it has value. Seriously, other than utlitatrian purposes what value do precious metals really have?

They're shiny and sparkly. And shiny and sparkly things make us feel shiny and sparkly which makes us feel better about not being born shiny and sparkly. You'll also notice that pretty things (models, flowers), soft things (silk, satin), and things that make noise (squeeky toys, muscle cars) are also valued.

I want a freshly waxed muscle car upholstered in silk with a trunk full of squeeky toys and it has to be driven by a straight male underwear model wearing nothing but a sequined thong.

[grixit]

Or because of the mere fact that because humans value it, it has value. Seriously, other than utlitatrian purposes what value do precious metals really have?

They're shiny and sparkly. And shiny and sparkly things make us feel shiny and sparkly which makes us feel better about not being born shiny and sparkly. You'll also notice that pretty things (models, flowers), soft things (silk, satin), and things that make noise (squeeky toys, muscle cars) are also valued.

I want a freshly waxed muscle car upholstered in silk with a trunk full of squeeky toys and it has to be driven by a straight male underwear model wearing nothing but a sequined thong.

Libbies make good sequins.

[webhick]

For example: I am going to a baseball game. Price includes one hot dog and one beer. A baseball protestor might argue that the game only consists of a hotdog and beer and that the actual watching the players on the field play ball is not listed so why should they have to pay for a ticket to attend the game or (show up at game time).

From what I understand of the "including" argument, your example sounds right, but the reasoning isn't.

I believe it should be that you included items not normally included in the definition of a baseball game and therefore redefined what a baseball game is (which effectively excluded the game itself, but don't use the word "excluded" because then they go off in a fit about how "included" isn't a term of "exclusion" which is true, but they refuse to acknowledge that they used it to exclude the definition of a game - they'll just insist that the included list "redefined" the term as if "including" is something that can wipe out a previous definition of a term...you know, exclude the previous definition...but OH, they're not using it as a term of exclusion, they're using it to exclude the established definition..but wait! They're not using it as a term of exclusion...).

It appears I've gotten myself into an infinite loop.

[Evil Squirrel Overlord]

It appears I've gotten myself into an infinite loop.

Excellent! My plan is working. You are confused enough to subscribe to this sequined credit-style card. It's sparkly and you can spread the sparkle to your friends and business associates through my new MLM catalog scam...

[Quixote]

What use are precious metals?

Platinum is used as a catalyst in any number of biochemical reactions. And it may have certain medical uses too,

Gold has use in electronics (pins on connector cables), satellites, and other applications where you need a semi-conductor that will not oxidize under normal conditions, or you wish to preserve data damn near forever (the recordings on Voyager I and II were gold plated for that reason), such as connectors on your car's airbags.

Silver is used in solder in certain electrical applications as it is a better conductor than copper. Plus, it is handy in killing werewolves.......

Palladium is used (I think) in the catalytic convertors in cars. Seems like a good thing.

Do not dismiss precious metals as simply sparkly, shiny stuff with no real purpose, there are a number of things you use everyday that involves precious metals in either their operation or manufacture.

The US should go on the helium standard. The use of helium in electronics manufacturing has created a shortage, which is discussed at length just before any holiday that involves parades with balloons. By tying the dollar to helium, the US would not only encourage the development of controlled fusion, the most tangible byproduct of which is helium, but would discourage people from wasting helium to talk in a squeeky voice.

[webhick]

The US should go on the helium standard. The use of helium in electronics manufacturing has created a shortage, which is discussed at length just before any holiday that involves parades with balloons. By tying the dollar to helium, the US would not only encourage the development of controlled fusion, the most tangible byproduct of which is helium, but would discourage people from wasting helium to talk in a squeeky voice.

My vote is for US currency to be backed by methane. The unfortunate side-effect is that Vermont would be the richest state in the union. Screw it. I want to be able to tell people that I have $1.52 worth of cow farts in my pocket.

Go Methane!

[Nikki]

The US should go on the helium standard. The use of helium in electronics manufacturing has created a shortage, which is discussed at length just before any holiday that involves parades with balloons. By tying the dollar to helium, the US would not only encourage the development of controlled fusion, the most tangible byproduct of which is helium, but would discourage people from wasting helium to talk in a squeeky voice.

Wouldn't that upset all the banking laws regarding float?

[Prof]

I would be more concerned about inflation with such a rapidly expanding currency.