NationStates Jolt Archive

If what is said in this film is true, I am both confused and scared for the people of America (myself being British so I feel fine)

http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/americafreedomtofascism/trailer/

There is. The income tax was instated to help pay for WWII. Apparently the government thinks we forgot about it. And the ironic thing is that one of the big reasons we seperated from Britain was unfair taxes.

http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2006/03/11/is_the_us_income_tax.htm

This one talks about it more, it seems it somehow involves the fedural reserve and it being handed over to a private bank in 1913 or something. Does anything know about this?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Income_tax

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_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.

If the goverment removed income tax now, the goverment would financially copllapse, we can no longer fund much of anything on trade. so its income, or you can kiss every goverment program goodbye, including the military, well that last one is a good thing. hahah:cool:

If what is said in this film is true, I am both confused and scared for the people of America (myself being British so I feel fine)

http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/americafreedomtofascism/trailer/

Read my other post. I just wanted to add the guy who said there was no tax law is a complete idiot.

Read my other post. I just wanted to add the guy who said there was no tax law is a complete idiot.

But unfortunately, this nonsense is going to be passed on as "fact" even though it took me about 10 seconds to find it online.

It will probably win best documentary at the academy.

Cecil Adams' column The Straight Dope did a great job of explaining this:

Is U.S. income tax invalid because Ohio wasn't legally a state when the 16th amendment was ratified?
18-Nov-1996

Dear Cecil:

Do Americans really have to pay income tax? I have been told the 16th Amendment, which authorized the income tax, is invalid because Ohio was not legally a state at the time of ratification. So far I haven't had the nerve to actually try this argument out on the IRS, but with Christmas coming I could use the extra cash. What do you think, Cecil, is it worth a shot? --Tex R. Zister, Chicago

Dear Tex:

This is my absolute favorite anti-income-tax argument. Most claims that Americans aren't required to pay income tax rely on legal interpretations so tortured only a tax resister could possibly believe them. But the Ohio thing has just enough plausibility to give even sane people pause.

It all started when Ohio was preparing to celebrate the 150th anniversary of its admission to the Union in 1953. Researchers looking for the original statehood documents discovered there'd been a little oversight. While Congress had approved Ohio's boundaries and constitution, it had never passed a resolution formally admitting the future land of the Buckeyes. Technically, therefore, Ohio was not a state.

Predictably, when this came to light it was the subject of much merriment. One senator joshingly suggested that his colleagues from Ohio were drawing federal paychecks under false pretenses.

But Ohio congressman George Bender thought it was no laughing matter. He introduced a bill in Congress to admit Ohio to the Union retroactive to March 1, 1803. At a special session at the old state capital in Chillicothe the Ohio state legislature approved a new petition for statehood that was delivered to Washington on horseback. Congress subsequently passed a joint resolution, and President Eisenhower, after a few more jokes, signed it on August 7, 1953.

But then the tax resisters got to work. They argued that since Ohio wasn't officially a state until 1953, its ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1911 was invalid, and thus Congress had no authority to enact an income tax.

Baloney, argued rational folk. A sufficient number of states voted for ratification even if you don't count Ohio.

OK, said the resisters, but the proposed amendment had been introduced to Congress by the administration of William H. Taft. Taft had been born in Cincinnati, Ohio, in 1857. The Constitution requires that presidents be natural-born citizens of the United States. Since Ohio was not a state in 1857, Taft was not a natural-born citizen, could not legally be president, and could not legally introduce the 16th Amendment. (Presumably one would also have problems with anything done by presidents Grant, Hayes, Garfield, B. Harrison, McKinley, and Harding, who were also born in Ohio.)

Get off it, the rationalists replied. The 1953 resolution retroactively admitted Ohio as of 1803, thereby rendering all subsequent events copacetic.

Uh-uh, said the resisters. The constitution says the Congress shall make no ex post facto law. That means no retroactive admissions to statehood.

Uh, we'll get back to you on that, said the rationalists.

A call to the IRS elicited the following official statement: "The courts have . . . rejected claims that the Sixteenth Amendment . . . was not properly ratified. . . . In Porth v. Brodrick, 214 F.2d 925 (10th Circuit 1954), the court dismissed an attack on the Sixteenth Amendment as being 'clearly unsubstantial and without merit,' as well as 'far fetched and frivolous.'"

Just one problem. The Porth decision didn't specifically address the Ohio argument. It just sort of spluttered that attacks on the 16th Amendment were stupid.

OK, they're stupid. But great matters have turned on seemingly sillier points of law. It's not like the Ohio argument couldn't have been defeated on the merits. One suspects that from a legal standpoint "ex post facto" doesn't mean exactly the same thing as "retroactive." And of course the weight of 150 years of history, during which time everyone thought Ohio had been properly admitted, ought to count for something.

I'm not defending the crackpots. But if you're a parent you recognize that "because I said so" isn't much of an argument. Guess it's different if you're a judge.

Read my other post. I just wanted to add the guy who said there was no tax law is a complete idiot.

I think I see that there is a tax law (16th Ammendment) but there is something about a bank (a privite firm) being given the power to create money, and then this is leading to the idea of a biological chip being implanted into people and used for currency. I'm trying to piece together what on earth this trailer is talking about. I can't seriously believe that a country like the US has no basis for income tax.

But unfortunately, this nonsense is going to be passed on as "fact" even though it took me about 10 seconds to find it online.

It will probably win best documentary at the academy.



I would say not, only the far right is against the income tax.

1. Technically, the law is that a tax return must be filed, but only for income from foreign sources.

2. It wasn't to pay for WW2.

3. The federal reserve wasn't "handed over" to private banks. Some private banks were cartelized into the federal reserve, making the banking system of the US technically an extension of the federal government by proxy.

The federal reserve wasn't "handed over" to private banks. Some private banks were cartelized into the federal reserve, making the banking system of the US technically an extension of the federal government by proxy.

Ok this is diffrent from what I have heard, but it sounds just as bad. Instead of a private business taking over the government, you have the government taking over what should be a private business. Thats what it sounds like. Like I said however I am completely in the dark here so I am just asking lots of questions.

1. Technically, the law is that a tax return must be filed, but only for income from foreign sources.



Not according to US code 26.

http://uscode.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000001----000-.html

Cime back to Britain! We'll party all day and night!

Ah, I see that Irwin Schiff is in the latter video...

If I recall correctly, he is currently in prison for tax evasion and for assisting others in filing false returns.

Considering that every court he's ever confronted has ruled against him, this guy really doesn't know how to take a hint.

Repeal the 16th amendment. We should have the FairTax (http://www.fairtax.org/) in place of the ungodly abomination called the income tax. There's a reason why the Constitution originally banned it in the first place. Then we won't have to argue whether or not we have to pay income tax.

Ok this is diffrent from what I have heard, but it sounds just as bad. Instead of a private business taking over the government, you have the government taking over what should be a private business. Thats what it sounds like. Like I said however I am completely in the dark here so I am just asking lots of questions.
http://www.mises.org/money/3s8.asp

Repeal the 16th amendment. We should have the FairTax (http://www.fairtax.org/) in place of the ungodly abomination called the income tax. There's a reason why the Constitution originally banned it in the first place. Then we won't have to argue whether or not we have to pay income tax.This is a common misinterpretation of the Sixteenth Amendment.

The Sixteenth Amendment did not give Congress a new power to tax incomes--Congress already had this power. All the Sixteenth Amendment does is remove the requirement that an income tax must be apportioned.

See Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad (1916).

EDIT: Actually, taxes on income from wages had previously been deemed an indirect tax, so an unapportioned tax on earned wages would have been constitutional even without the Sixteenth Amendment. Taxes on income from property, however, were declared "direct" taxes so that, prior to the Sixteenth Amendment, such a tax would have to be apportioned among the states.

Hence, the frequent attacks of anti-taxers on the Sixteenth Amendment are seriously misplaced.

The interesting thing no one has mentioned is that income tax was only to be levied on the rich, never on the poor or middle. We've come a long way baby!

Repeal the 16th amendment. We should have the FairTax (http://www.fairtax.org/) in place of the ungodly abomination called the income tax. There's a reason why the Constitution originally banned it in the first place. Then we won't have to argue whether or not we have to pay income tax.
The writers of the constitution were in a "third world" nation. Before income tax the government made it's money on import tax. Nearly everything that was imported had a "protective tax" designed to protect American industry from imports from industrial nations.

When the US became an industrialized nation we wanted open markets so we had to open our markets. That meant we needed to find another source of tax. The income tax is still the fairest tax, although over the last 26 years it has become so flat that it is no longer paid from the excess income at the top but from the needed income at the bottom.

If what is said in this film is true, I am both confused and scared for the people of America (myself being British so I feel fine)

http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/americafreedomtofascism/trailer/

and Canadian citizens must pay income tax as well in Canada. However not to worry, the income tax measure was brought in 'temporarily' in 1917 so I am sure our federal leaders will get around to removing it sometime.

There have been instances however where some Canadians have gotten away with not filing their income tax. However that is due to the government owing them money so if they do not wish to file it then the government assumes they do not want to be reimbursed... :P

Absolutely true. But it is not limited to america. EVERY government thinks this way, sooner or later - in a Taker society. (see Ishmael and My Ishmael by Daniel Quinn for more details on Taker vs. Leaver society)

There is. The income tax was instated to help pay for WWII. Apparently the government thinks we forgot about it. And the ironic thing is that one of the big reasons we seperated from Britain was unfair taxes.
well, britain was taxation without representation. We were represented for the income tax. Therefore, our interests were served.

Talking about the Income tax, I have one thing to say, "It is NOT the Founder's Way"

Talking about the Income tax, I have one thing to say, "It is NOT the Founder's Way"Trite though it may be, one can say the same thing of slavery...

Talking about the Income tax, I have one thing to say, "It is NOT the Founder's Way"

How would the founders pay for the funcitioning of a government?

I have no problem with being taxed to support government programs.
I do however, wish I had some say as to where that money would be spent.
Or at least, WICH programs.

I have no problem with being taxed to support government programs.
I do however, wish I had some say as to where that money would be spent.
Or at least, WICH programs.

Australia didn't have any income tax until after WWII and then this evil thing stayed. About 30% of my income just disappears instantly when I get paid, great isn't it. I want to shoot the person who suggested people "pre-paid" their business income too.

Australia didn't have any income tax until after WWII and then this evil thing stayed. About 30% of my income just disappears instantly when I get paid, great isn't it. I want to shoot the person who suggested people "pre-paid" their business income too.
That's what happens in the US, too. Look, taxes are what you pay for civilization. They pay for the armed forces, for the police, for all those lovely public mod cons that you couldn't live without.

That's what happens in the US, too. Look, taxes are what you pay for civilization. They pay for the armed forces, for the police, for all those lovely public mod cons that you couldn't live without.

Don't mind that, I just don't like it going to Canberra. The Federal Government should get nothing but the leavings of the states.

The space between Parkway and Boardwalk on the Monopoly board.

Talking about the Income tax, I have one thing to say, "It is NOT the Founder's Way"
The "Founder's Way" was import tax for the Feds to protect US industry and tax those things the rich were buying. And property tax for local government. Property tax was chosen because only the wealthy had property and if you were wealthy nearly all of your money was in property. So only the wealthy that could afford to pay taxes, paid taxes.

In today's economy that would mean we would tax only stocks and other money investments. We wouldn't have things like sales tax which hits the poor harder than the rich.

Want the "Founder's Way"? You'll have to start by doing away with all of the "tax reform?" over the last 26 years.