PDA

View Full Version : Economics Is HAVING to pay income tax considered unconstitutional?


CoMoChief
02-13-2011, 05:28 PM
Watching a documentary involving this very issue. Some former IRS agents are testifying on this video that "there are no such law(s) that requires an individual to pay income tax". These former agents are going on record how they haven't filed an income tax return in the past decade.

So simple question....is it illegal to not file income tax...if so, where is the law that states that?

Saulbadguy
02-13-2011, 05:29 PM
no to your first
yes to your second
third, no clue

FD
02-13-2011, 05:33 PM
You can read up on it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_constitutional_arguments

alnorth
02-13-2011, 05:35 PM
Watching a documentary involving this very issue. Some former IRS agents are testifying on this video that "there are no such law(s) that requires an individual to pay income tax". These former agents are going on record how they haven't filed an income tax return in the past decade.

So simple question....is it illegal to not file income tax...if so, where is the law that states that?

no, this issue has been beaten to death. It is not unconstitutional. If you have a specific tax protestor theory that you've heard about, feel free to share it so we can debunk the theory in detail.

A whole lot of gullible fools have been taken in by scam artists promising they can legally teach them a trick to avoid paying taxes, who have later gone to jail and/or paid wicked-high fines for it.

FD
02-13-2011, 05:41 PM
You can read up on it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_constitutional_arguments

If that didn't cover your particular concern, you may find it at one of these:

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

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

That second link in particular is a fun read.

alnorth
02-13-2011, 05:50 PM
and if that doesn't help, Quatloos is also a good source.

Quatloos! (http://quatloosia.blogspot.com/)

Tax protest debunk page (http://www.quatloos.com/tax_protestors.php)

Their tax forum (http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewforum.php?f=32) is also filled with funny stories about tax protestors getting fined or worse.

gblowfish
02-13-2011, 05:58 PM
You don't have to pay taxes if you are, say, a multinational corporation.

But if you're Joe Lunchbucket, you better pay or get ready to be seriously violated by The Man.

CoMoChief
02-13-2011, 06:08 PM
no, this issue has been beaten to death. It is not unconstitutional. If you have a specific tax protestor theory that you've heard about, feel free to share it so we can debunk the theory in detail.

A whole lot of gullible fools have been taken in by scam artists promising they can legally teach them a trick to avoid paying taxes, who have later gone to jail and/or paid wicked-high fines for it.

I'm fairly new to the information I've obtained just from the documentary I happen to come across. So I don't have any theories...I've correctly filed ever since I started working, this is just new info to me and I'm wondering why "if this is true, why isn't EVERYONE doing it?" - kinda one of those deals.

Its Sunday...I'm bored...so whatev...

alnorth
02-13-2011, 06:11 PM
You don't have to pay taxes if you are, say, a multinational corporation.

But if you're Joe Lunchbucket, you better pay or get ready to be seriously violated by The Man.

Hard to blame an international company that wants to avoid paying our corporate taxes. The United States has one of the highest corporate rates in the world, worse than just about every country in Europe.

Obama has signalled that he's willing to both cut the tax rate and shut down a few loopholes, so hopefully an agreement can be reached with congress so our corporate tax rate is more competitive.

alnorth
02-13-2011, 06:15 PM
I've correctly filed ever since I started working, this is just new info to me and I'm wondering why "if this is true, why isn't EVERYONE doing it?" - kinda one of those deals.

Its Sunday...I'm bored...so whatev...

excellent question. The answer is, it is not true and a lot of people got burned for believing that nonsense.

You cant really even joke around with the IRS on this. All of the most popular tax protestor arguments have been legally designated to be "Frivolous Tax Arguments". If you send a letter to the IRS as a joke explaining that, for example, you don't owe income taxes because the 16th amendment was not properly ratified, then the IRS is authorized to immediately fine you just for making the argument, even if you file a real return a few days later. The penalty is even worse if you actually decide to go to court on it.

Baby Lee
02-13-2011, 06:41 PM
My mom didn't do a lot when she worked at the IRS, but one thing she did do was confirm that every employee of the IRS in the downtown KC office not only filed a return, but filed a timely return.

Mr. Kotter
02-13-2011, 07:20 PM
For those radical reactionary right conservative/libertarian types who are Constitutionally challenged, I present the 16th Amendment to the our beloved 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.
Don't know how much more clear it can be, unless one wants to buy into the teabagging fringe's silly obfuscation, deflection, and demogoguery on the issue.

Saul Good
02-13-2011, 07:25 PM
For those radical reactionary right conservative/libertarian types who are Constitutionally challenged, I present the 16th Amendment to the our beloved Constitution:


Don't know how much more clear it can be, unless one wants to buy into the teabagging fringe's silly obfuscation, deflection, and demogoguery on the issue.

Don't let your complete ignorance of the argument stop you from spouting off your uninformed opinion.

(Anyone who thinks that you aren't legally required to file is an idiot, but the argument isn't whether or not the words exist in the Constitution.)

go bowe
02-13-2011, 07:29 PM
For those radical reactionary right conservative/libertarian types who are Constitutionally challenged, I present the 16th Amendment to the our beloved Constitution:


Don't know how much more clear it can be, unless one wants to buy into the teabagging fringe's silly obfuscation, deflection, and demogoguery on the issue.o.d.d.?

sounds like a mental problem to me...

wrt your assertion, everyone with the heartbeat of a patriot knows that the 10th amendment makes the 16th unconstitutional...

and you teach government??? :eek: :eek: :eek:

alnorth
02-13-2011, 07:37 PM
o.d.d.?

sounds like a mental problem to me...

wrt your assertion, everyone with the heartbeat of a patriot knows that the 10th amendment makes the 16th unconstitutional...

and you teach government??? :eek: :eek: :eek:

newly-enacted constitutional amendments can not ever be unconstitutional. In the rare case that there is a conflict, the latter amendment always prevails. (otherwise how do you square the 18th and 21st amendments?)

go bowe
02-13-2011, 07:41 PM
newly-enacted constitutional amendments can not ever be unconstitutional. In the rare case that there is a conflict, the latter amendment always prevails. (otherwise how do you square the 18th and 21st amendments?)well, that's easy, the original secret text of the 10th amendment makes all the bad amendments unconstitutional...

alnorth
02-13-2011, 07:42 PM
well, that's easy, the super secret text of the 10th amendment makes all the bad amendments unconstitutional...

oh. sorry, my sarcasm detector is broken.

splatbass
02-13-2011, 07:43 PM
I'm fairly new to the information I've obtained just from the documentary I happen to come across. So I don't have any theories...I've correctly filed ever since I started working, this is just new info to me and I'm wondering why "if this is true, why isn't EVERYONE doing it?" - kinda one of those deals.



Ask Wesley Snipes....

mlyonsd
02-13-2011, 07:51 PM
We'd have been way better off if the founding fathers would have thrown in a clause into the constitution that no person would ever bear a greater burden in tax for the federal expenses than anyone else.

alnorth
02-13-2011, 07:54 PM
We'd have been way better off if the founding fathers would have thrown in a clause into the constitution that no person would ever bear a greater burden in tax for the federal expenses than anyone else.

defined how? Dollars or percent?

If you are talking a flat tax I agree. If you want a regressive tax, that is pretty unfair.

mlyonsd
02-13-2011, 07:58 PM
defined how? Dollars or percent?

If you are talking a flat tax I agree. If you want a regressive tax, that is pretty unfair.

Percent of course.

The mess we are currently in now is completely the fault of a 'someone else will pay for it' mentality.

orange
02-13-2011, 08:06 PM
well, that's easy, the original secret text of the 10th amendment makes all the bad amendments unconstitutional...

Oh, you had him there for a minute...

Mr. Kotter
02-13-2011, 08:11 PM
Don't let your complete ignorance of the argument stop you from spouting off your uninformed opinion.

(Anyone who thinks that you aren't legally required to file is an idiot, but the argument isn't whether or not the words exist in the Constitution.)

If the words "exist in the Constitution," then any "argument" is an argument of idiots.

Ignoring the "argument" of morons isn't ignorance; it's efficiency.

Mr. Kotter
02-13-2011, 08:14 PM
o.d.d.?

sounds like a mental problem to me...

wrt your assertion, everyone with the heartbeat of a patriot knows that the 10th amendment makes the 16th unconstitutional...

and you teach government??? :eek: :eek: :eek:

The tenth amendment only applies in those areas in which the feds don't have jurisdiction, and relevance. National supremacy, and all; and the S.C. makes that call....regardless of how some of us may feel about a particular ruling, or trend.

Of course, you know that...so you're just stirrin' the pot, jackwagon? :hmmm:

I LIKE it...proceed. Heh. :toast:

We'd have been way better off if the founding fathers would have thrown in a clause into the constitution that no person would ever bear a greater burden in tax for the federal expenses than anyone else.

As long as it means nullifying tax shelters and exemptions by lobbyists for the aristocrats...I'm with ya.

:hmmm:

Saul Good
02-13-2011, 08:23 PM
If the words "exist in the Constitution," then any "argument" is an argument of idiots.

Ignoring the "argument" of morons isn't ignorance; it's efficiency.

Don't bother looking up the argument or anything. Just spout off.

The argument is that the amendment wasn't properly ratified. It's a stupid argument, but that's what it is.

alnorth
02-13-2011, 08:38 PM
Don't bother looking up the argument or anything. Just spout off.

The argument is that the amendment wasn't properly ratified. It's a stupid argument, but that's what it is.

As tax protestor arguments go, "the 16th amendment wasn't properly ratified" argument is probably the least-crazy. It is still wrong, but at least they aren't trying to say that they are a sovereign man and therefore exempt from US jurisdiction.

CrazyPhuD
02-13-2011, 08:48 PM
See I'm actually quite a bit against the income tax...mostly...part of it is the nature of tax and the distribution.

What bothers me about the income tax is that the majority of our funds are from it and yet recently 45+% of people paid no income tax and that is a problem because if people pay no tax they have no reason not to demand less services and the system breaks down.

I'm much more in favor of a VAT. A it's MUCH harder to avoid so you don't have the BS tax shelters that we do and it favors consumption. So if you want to save money and be fiscally more responsible you can. The risk with any VAT is making sure it's not regressive on the poor. The very poor should get far more services that they pay in tax BUT they should still pay tax because it can remind people that there is a cost to all services and only provide that which people NEED...not that which people want.

Unfortunately our system is seriously screwed and we spend too much money on things that are wasteful and not enough on things that are helpful(ala education, although are public school system is often nonfunctional and our private school system can be substantially worse).

Mr. Kotter
02-13-2011, 08:50 PM
It's a stupid argument...

Thanks for that.

The ONLY thing that matters, really.

alnorth
02-13-2011, 09:14 PM
I'm much more in favor of a VAT. A it's MUCH harder to avoid so you don't have the BS tax shelters that we do and it favors consumption. So if you want to save money and be fiscally more responsible you can. The risk with any VAT is making sure it's not regressive on the poor. The very poor should get far more services that they pay in tax BUT they should still pay tax because it can remind people that there is a cost to all services and only provide that which people NEED...not that which people want.

Oh, God Damn no. No, a million times no.

The VAT is the most insidious, EVIL tax ever invented. At least with an income, property, or sales tax the tax is right in your face. Its written down and shown to you, you know exactly what you are paying, and if you don't like it, you yell and scream, politicians lose their jobs, etc.

With a VAT, you could increase it 5% a year for the next 20 years and a lot of ignorant fools might not notice. 20 years later, you are paying a 100% VAT but you don't know it, all you know is that a 2-liter bottle of coke now costs $4. You would fire up the torches and storm the state capital with pitchforks and murder on your mind over a 100% sales tax, but given enough time, just like the frog getting slowly accustomed to boiling water, you'd accept a huge VAT because you wouldn't really realize what was happening. Its not written on your receipt, all you know is that a new car costs $50,000 instead of $25,000.

The VAT can never, ever be permitted to exist in our country, it is why European countries have been able to raise taxes so much, they finally found one that people don't notice as much.

If you want a big sales tax, then fine. Have the guts to pass it as a sales tax so that every person has to know that they are paying 30% (or whatever) to the government for that gallon of milk. Don't try to hide that crap behind the scenes as a VAT.

Amnorix
02-14-2011, 07:50 AM
Percent of course.

The mess we are currently in now is completely the fault of a 'someone else will pay for it' mentality.

They didn't even have an income tax, so how would they have anticipated what kind of structure it would take?

Ignore my last.

Royal Fanatic
02-14-2011, 08:20 AM
Oh, God Damn no. No, a million times no.

The VAT is the most insidious, EVIL tax ever invented. At least with an income, property, or sales tax the tax is right in your face. Its written down and shown to you, you know exactly what you are paying, and if you don't like it, you yell and scream, politicians lose their jobs, etc.

With a VAT, you could increase it 5% a year for the next 20 years and a lot of ignorant fools might not notice. 20 years later, you are paying a 100% VAT but you don't know it, all you know is that a 2-liter bottle of coke now costs $4. You would fire up the torches and storm the state capital with pitchforks and murder on your mind over a 100% sales tax, but given enough time, just like the frog getting slowly accustomed to boiling water, you'd accept a huge VAT because you wouldn't really realize what was happening. Its not written on your receipt, all you know is that a new car costs $50,000 instead of $25,000.

The VAT can never, ever be permitted to exist in our country, it is why European countries have been able to raise taxes so much, they finally found one that people don't notice as much.

If you want a big sales tax, then fine. Have the guts to pass it as a sales tax so that every person has to know that they are paying 30% (or whatever) to the government for that gallon of milk. Don't try to hide that crap behind the scenes as a VAT.
This X 1000.

I don't know how anyone in his right mind could support a VAT. It's one of the most ridiculous ideas ever, for exactly the reason you stated.

HonestChieffan
02-14-2011, 11:41 AM
Truthers, birthers, unconstitutional income tax, bigfoot, alien anal probes.....jeeze

FD
02-14-2011, 01:02 PM
Oh, God Damn no. No, a million times no.

The VAT is the most insidious, EVIL tax ever invented. At least with an income, property, or sales tax the tax is right in your face. Its written down and shown to you, you know exactly what you are paying, and if you don't like it, you yell and scream, politicians lose their jobs, etc.

With a VAT, you could increase it 5% a year for the next 20 years and a lot of ignorant fools might not notice. 20 years later, you are paying a 100% VAT but you don't know it, all you know is that a 2-liter bottle of coke now costs $4. You would fire up the torches and storm the state capital with pitchforks and murder on your mind over a 100% sales tax, but given enough time, just like the frog getting slowly accustomed to boiling water, you'd accept a huge VAT because you wouldn't really realize what was happening. Its not written on your receipt, all you know is that a new car costs $50,000 instead of $25,000.

The VAT can never, ever be permitted to exist in our country, it is why European countries have been able to raise taxes so much, they finally found one that people don't notice as much.

If you want a big sales tax, then fine. Have the guts to pass it as a sales tax so that every person has to know that they are paying 30% (or whatever) to the government for that gallon of milk. Don't try to hide that crap behind the scenes as a VAT.

I disagree. Its not complicated at all to require that receipts have a line stating the amount of the purchase attributable to the VAT. People would then fully know how much of their purchase comes from taxes.

The VAT is one of the most efficient, pro-growth, non-distortionary taxes that exists. It is also one of the hardest to evade. Plus your concern is easily dealt with. Shifting a large portion of our tax base off of employment, earnings and profits and onto a VAT would be a great reform.

Chief Faithful
02-14-2011, 01:27 PM
Illegal? Yes, because the government has the power to enforce taxation per the 16th Amendment.