ping...
I'm not sure what the solution is. Most kids today are being miseducated to think that their very breath ought to be regulated to protect against global warming. What will we do when these new generations come up? I guess on the other hand, those parents who neglected to protect their children from edu-predators and the cultural onslaught, will get their just desserts when their grown kids throw them under the bus when they are old and weak. Sad.
Short answer to title, NO!
Call this tax whatever you want, it is the most insidious, personally invasive, one that can also easily be used to destroy Americans lives, and it flies in the face of what this country is supposed to represent, and violates almost every one of our so called Constitutional “Rights”
The courts have not only ruled continually that there is no conflict between the responsibility to file a return and the self-incrimination prohibition of the 5th Amendment, but they have continually ruled that the argument presented by you here is nothing short of frivolous.
The 5th Amendment does not provide a defense to the requirement to file a return because the filing of a return is a civil, not a criminal issue.
“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s.”
In my humble opinion the answer is definately no!
50 years ago Frank Chodorov wrote The Income Tax: Root of all Evil and today The income tax is remains as THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL.
We will never again be a truly FREE people for so long as we have the income tax and the IRS!
“Since habitual deference to law enforcement is the only basis for the filing requirement, such deference becomes the source of government authority, rather than the plainly declared and duly ratified will of the people expressed in the Constitution.”
This is a question that used to occur to me when I was a kid reading about some trial or other in the Soviet Union.
It very forcibly struck me that it was stupid, nonsensical to allow that any court, any man, had the power to assume to ajudicate such a thing. (The cases were often with respect to fundamentals that were beyond American courts.)
I believed then and I believe today that there are some questions that no court or Gov’t has the right to place them selves in authority of and that the proper answer to any such assertion is violence on the spot. But where is that line? And in such a conditioned population as ours is becoming, would it even be recognized.
In a related case:In todays NY Post NY state chief judge Judith Kaye has orderd the legislature to give judges their first raise in pay since 1999 (The legislature voted it down)or SHE would give judges the raise. Cute, huh?
Respect for Law? Nope.
No, liberty cannot survive the income tax. It is the source of power for politicians and bureaucrats and the means by which votes are bought through redistribution of property.
bookmark
THE HISTORY OF THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT
by W. Cleon Skousen
Strange as it may seem, the Sixteenth Amendment (which gave the American people the affliction of confiscatory income taxes) was never supposed to have passed. It was introduced by the Republicans as part of a political scheme to trick the Democrats, but it backfired.
Here’s the story.
The Founding Fathers had rejected income taxes (or any other direct taxes) unless they were apportioned to each state according to population. Nevertheless, an income tax was levied during the Civil War and upheld by the Supreme Court on the somewhat tenuous reasoning. When another income tax was enacted in 1893, the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional. In connection with the two Pollock case reviewed in 1895, the Court declared that the act violated Article I, section 9 of the Constitution.
During the following decade, however, the complexion of the Court changed somewhat, and so did public sentiment. There was great social unrest and the idea of a tax to “soak the rich” began to take root among liberals in both major parties. Several times the Democrats introduced bills to provide a tax on higher incomes but each time the conservative branch of the Republican party killed it in the Senate. The Democrats used this as evidence that the Republicans were the “party of the rich” and should be thrown out of power, forcing President William Howard Taft to acknowledge in political speeches that income taxes might be all right “in principle”, but it was well known among close associates that he was strongly opposed to such a tax.
The Bailey Bill
In April 1909, Senator Joseph W. Bailey, a conservative Democrat from Texas who was also opposed to income taxes, decided to further embarrass the Republicans by forcing them to openly oppose an income tax bill similar to those which had been introduced in the past. He introduced his bill expecting it to get the usual opposition. However, to his amazement, Teddy Roosevelt and a growing element of liberals in the Republican party came out in favor of the bill and it looked as though it was going to pass.
Not only was Bailey surprised, but Senator Nelson W. Aldrich of Rhode Island, the Republican floor leader, frantically met with Senator Henry Cabot Lodge of
Massachusetts and President Taft to work out a strategy to demolish the Bailey tax bill. Their own party was split too widely to permit a direct confrontation, so the strategy was to pull a political end run. They announced that they favored an income tax but only if it were an amendment to the Constitution. Within their own circle, they discussed how it might get approval of the House and the Senate, but they were quite certain that it could be defeated in the more conservative states-three-fourths of which were required in order to ratify the amendment.
Thus, the Democrats were off guard when President Taft unexpectedly sent a message to Congress on June 16th, 1909, recommending the passage of a consitutional amendment to legalize federal income tax legislation.
The strategy threw the liberals into an uproar. At the very moment when their Bailey bill was about to pass, the Republicans were coming out for an amendment to the Constitution which would probably be defeated by the states.
Reaction to the Amendment
Congressman Cordell Hull (D-Tenn., and later Secretary of State under FDR) saw exactly what was happening. He took the floor to excoriate the Republican leaders. Said he:
“No person at all familiar with the present trend of national legislation will seriously insist that these same Republican leaders are over-anxious to see the country adopt an income tax...What powerful influence, what new light and deep seated motive suddenly moves these political veterans to ‘about face’ and pretend to warmly embrace this doctrine which they have heretofore uniformly denounced?” {1}
He went on to expose what he considered to be a political trick. He needn’t have been so concerned. The slogan of “soak the rich” automatically aroused Pavlovian salivation among politicians both in Washington and the states. The Senate approved the Sixteenth Amendment with an astonishing unanimity of 77-0! The House approved it by a vote of 318-14.
When Republican Congressman Sereno E. Payne of New York, who had introduced the amendment in the House, saw that this end run was turning into a winning touchdown for the opposition, he was horrified. He went to the floor and openly denounced the bill he had sponsored. Said he:
“As to the general policy of an income tax, I am utterly opposed to it. I believe with Gladstone that it tends to make a nation of liars. I believe it is the most easily concealed of any tax that can be laid, the most difficult of enforcement, and the hardest to collect; that it is, in a word, a tax upon the income of honest men and an exemption, to a greater or lesser extent, of the income of rascals; and so I am opposed to any income tax in time of peace...I hope that if the Constitution is amended in this way the time will not come when the American people will ever want to enact an income tax except in time of war.” {2}
The end run of the Republican leadership did indeed backfire. State after state ratified this “soak the rich” amendment until it went into full force and effect on
February 12, 1913 (Ed.note: Mr. Bill Benson, in his book “The Law That Never Was” has since documented massive...and outcome changing...federal interference in the certification of the votes of the individual state legislatures. The votes for and against from Kentucky, for instance, were switched by then Secretary of State Philander Knox.)
Did it Soak the Rich?
Certain writers such as Alfred Hinsey Kelly and Winfred Audif Harbison (authors of “The American Constitution: Origins” [New York: Norton, 1970]) rejoiced that this
amendment “shifted the growing burden of federal finance to the wealthy.”{3} Nothing could be further from the truth!
The wealthy, especially the super-wealthy, had anticipated this development and had created a clever device to protect their riches. It was called a “charitable
foundation”. The idea was to cosign the ownership of wealth, including stocks and securities, to a foundation and then get Congress and the state legislatures to declare all such charitable institutions exempt from taxes. By setting up boards which were under the control of these wealthy benefactors they could escape the tax and still maintain control over the disposition of these fabulous fortunes.
Long before the federal income tax was in place, multimillionaires such as John D. Rockefeller (who once said “I want to own nothing and control everything”), J.P. Morgan and Andrew Carnegie had their foundations set up and operating. The next step was to make certain that the new tax bill passed by Congress contained a provision
specifically exempting their treasure houses from taxation.
The tax bill which the Sixteenth Amendment authorized was introduced as House Resolution 3321 on October 3, 1913. It turned out to be somewhat of a legislative potpourri for tax attorneys, accountants and the federal courts. In the ensuing years, untold millions of dollars have been spent trying to figure out exactly what this tax law, and those which followed it, were intended to provide. However,
tucked away in its inward parts was that precious key which safely locked up the riches of the super wealthy. Here are the magic words under Section 2, paragraph G:
“Provided, however, that nothing in this section shall apply...to any corporation or association organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific or educational purposes.” All of the foundations of the
super-rich were designed to qualify under one or more of these categories.
How the Cute Little Monkey Grew into a Gorilla
When the first income tax was sent out to the people, the Congress chortled confidently that “all good citizen will willingly and cheerfully support and sustain this, the fairest and cheapest of all taxes.” That was the cute little monkey part. After all, the first tax ranged from merely 1% on the first $20,000 of taxable income and was only 7% on incomes above $500,000. Who could complain?(Ed. note: In 1994 “dollars” that $20K is now over $250K and the $500K is today over $6 million!)
At first, scarcely anyone did. Little did they know that before the tinkering was done in Washington, this system would be described by many Americans as the most
unfair and expensive tax in the history of the nation. Within a few years, it had become the principal source of income for the federal government.
In the beginning, hardly anyone had to file a tax return because the tax did not apply to the vast majority of America’s work-a-day citizens. For example, in 1939, 26 years after the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted, only 5% of the population, counting both taxpayers and their dependents, was required to file returns. Today, more than 80% of the population is under the income tax.
Withholding Taxes
The collection process was greatly facilitated in 1943 by a device created by FDR to pay the costs of WWII. It was called “withholding from wages and salaries”. In other words, the tax was collected at the payroll window before it was even due to be paid by the taxpayer. Economists point out that this device, more than any other single factor, shifted the tax from its original design as a tax on the wealthy to a tax on the masses—mostly the middle class. Investigations disclosed that the truly wealthy pay relatively little or no income tax at all.
Some idea of how the cute little monkey grew into a gorilla is perceived from the fact that nearly half of all federal revenue is now raised by income taxes. Furthermore, the higher brackets are literally confiscatory—but by “due process”, of course, under the Sixteenth Amendment. Rates have been as high as 94% in the upper brackets during wartime, and even in peacetime they are presently 50%. (Ed. note: This piece was apparently written when the top rates were higher than in 1992. Not to worry, however: Watch for higher rates coming soon to an IRS office near you!) Medium income people up through the upper middle class pay between 12 & 35%. Nevertheless, at all levels it has become sufficiently burdensome to discourage the attainment of basic economic advantage which most Americans seek.
Weaknesses of the System
The most damaging aspect of the Sixteenth Amendment is the fact that it vitiated the unalienable rights provided in the 4th Amendment. This is the amendment which protects privacy—privacy of the home, business, personal papers and personal affairs of the private citizen. None of these are disturbed by a poll (head or capitation) tax because it is so much per person regardless of the circumstances, but when the tax is based on income, the IRS is assigned the most unpleasant task of making certain that everyone pays his fair share. This task is physically impossible without prying into the private papers, private business and personal affairs of the individual citizens. By any standard, it is a miserable assignment. Furthermore, it is impossible to run audits and surveys of all taxpayers and so the audits seldom check more than 2% of them.
There are many things wrong with this approach. Worst of all, it puts the government tax collectors in the gorilla role and intimidates citizens who are unlucky enough to be audited with the feeling that they are “victims” of an
unfair system.
The IRS also finds it difficult to avoid the attitude that each taxpayer is a cheat, even a criminal, who must somehow be cornered and caught. This has brought the structure of the entire income tax collection process into question.
For example, the underground economy of monetary transactions (which is conducted without records) is well known. It is estimated that losses in federal revenues from this underground economy are at least $100 billion per year. (Ed. note: Probably closer to $200-300 billion!) Obviously, this is not fair to those who are paying their share. Then there is an estimated $65 billion per year which is lost
because it is not reported. This is considered unfair. There is a lot of padding on expense accounts, which is estimated to reduce the tax total by another $18 billion.
Other operations, both legal and illegal, jumps the total up a few billion more.
There has also been extensive criticism of the prosecution of tax cases. The appeal is through a system of tax courts which are without juries. In order to get a tax case into a regular court where there is a jury, the citizen must pay the tax and then sue the government.
Thousands of complaints have also poured into the IRS concerning the tactics used by some of its agents. Citizens feel they are treated as criminals rather than suspects who are innocent until proven guilty.
Is there a better way? Here is one answer by a former head of the IRS.
A Former IRS Commissioner’s Statement
T. Coleman Andrews served as commissioner of IRS for nearly 3 years during the early 1950s. Following his resignation, he made the following statement:
“Congress [in implementing the Sixteenth Amendment] went beyond merely enacting an income tax law and repealed Article IV of the Bill of Rights, by empowering the tax collector to do the very things from which that article says we were to be secure. It opened up our homes, our papers and our effects to the prying eyes of government agents and set the stage for searches of our books and vaults and for
inquiries into our private affairs whenever the tax men might decide, even though there might not be any justification beyond mere cynical suspicion.
“The income tax is bad because it has robbed you and me of the guarantee of privacy and the respect for our property that were given to us in Article IV of the Bill of Rights. This invasion is absolute and complete as far as the amount of tax that can be assessed is concerned. Please remember that under the Sixteenth Amendment, Congress can take 100% of our income anytime it wants to. As a matter of fact, right now it is imposing a tax as high as 91%. This is downright confiscation and cannot be defended on any other grounds.
“The income tax is bad because it was conceived in class hatred, is an instrument of vengeance and plays right into the hands of the communists. It employs the vicious communist principle of taking from each according to his accumulation of the fruits of his labor and giving to others according to their needs, regardless of whether those needs are the result of indolence or lack of pride, self-respect,
personal dignity or other attributes of men.
“The income tax is fulfilling the Marxist prophecy that the surest way to destroy a capitalist society is by - _steeply graduated_ taxes on income and heavy levies upon the estates of people when they die.
As matters now stand, if our children make the most of their capabilities and training, they will have to give most of it to the tax collector and so become slaves of the government. People cannot pull themselves up by the bootstraps anymore because the tax collector gets the boots and the straps as well.
“The income tax is bad because it is oppressive to all and discriminates particularly against those people who prove themselves most adept at keeping the wheels of business turning and creating maximum employment and a high standard of living for their fellow men.
“I believe that a better way to raise revenue not only can be found but must be found because I am convinced that the present system is leading us right back to the very tyranny from which those, who established this land of freedom, risked their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to forever free themselves...”{4}
REFERENCES
{1} Congressional Record-House, July 12,1909,p.4404
{2} Congressional Record-House, July 12,1909,p.4390
{3} Original edition, p.626
{4} The Utah Independent, March 29, 1973
EDITOR’S NOTE:
THERE IS A BETTER WAY. GIVEN THE CURRENT LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING AMONG THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AN IMMEDIATE RETURN TO THE FULLY CONSTITUTIONAL CAPITATION, HEAD OR POLL TAX
WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE AT THIS TIME. THERE IS, HOWEVER, AN INTERIM STEP: THE REPLACEMENT OF THE CURRENT INCOME TAX WITH A FEDERAL CONSUMPTION TAX LEVIED AT THE POINT OF PURCHASE.
We should embrace the laudable concepts of federalism and free market competition. The taxes needed to run the federal government should be collected directly from state governments, with each state’s percentage based on how many members it has in the House of Representatives. Failure to pay would mean loss of the representatives votes. Leave it up to states to figure out how they want to generate the money to pay.
Two big benefits to this are:
1) Productive people and businesses would quickly migrate to states with non-onerous taxation systems, forcing all states to develop a non-onerous system.
2) There would be a much more direct relationship between the will of the people of the level of federal spending. If the tab is too high, people will vote for state government reps who will vote not to pay some or all of the tab, and to forgo having some or all of the state’s votes in Congress. Salary and expenses (including staff salaries) for Congressional Representatives should be determined by and paid by the Representative’s state (and presumably the amount citizens of a state would be willing to pay for a non-voting Representative would be quite low). This would force Congress to slash the federal budget to the level which the citizens are willing to pay. A Representative’s failure to vote for measures that would slash the federal budget would mean voting him/herself out of a job.
Baaa....Baaaaa....... < /mindless drone >
interesting article
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Ping for your info
-----
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
The Federalist No. 32
yet I am willing here to allow, in its full extent, the justness of the reasoning which requires that the individual States should possess an independent and uncontrollable authority to raise their own revenues for the supply of their own wants. And making this concession, I affirm that (with the sole exception of duties on imports and exports) they would, under the plan of the convention, retain that authority in the most absolute and unqualified sense; and that an attempt on the part of the national government to abridge them in the exercise of it, would be a violent assumption of power, unwarranted by any article or clause of its Constitution.
-----
As GovernmentShrinker said in post #44;
The taxes needed to run the federal government should be collected directly from state governments, with each state’s percentage based on how many members it has in the House of Representatives.
This follows constitutional intent, at least according to Alexander Hamilton:
The Federalist No. 36
Let it be recollected that the proportion of these taxes is not to be left to the discretion of the national legislature, but is to be determined by the numbers of each State, as described in the second section of the first article. An actual census or enumeration of the people must furnish the rule, a circumstance which effectually shuts the door to partiality or oppression. The abuse of this power of taxation seems to have been provided against with guarded circumspection. In addition to the precaution just mentioned, there is a provision that "all duties, imposts, and excises shall be UNIFORM throughout the United States."
-----
The federal government is authorized to lay duties on consumables as the enter or leave the country, but the taxes at these points must be uniform in every State.
This doesn't even mean the federal government actually collects the tax. At the point of entry/exit, the state and federal government have whats called 'concurrent jurisdiction' and the state collects the tax on behalf of the federal government.
----------
Taxes that are collected on real property, or real estate, are considered the income of the State, with a portion forwarded to the federal government by the parties to the Compact.
§ 947. In a general sense, all contributions imposed by the government upon individuals for the service of the state, are called taxes, by whatever name they may be known, whether by the name of tribute, tythe, talliage, impost, duty, gabel, custom, subsidy, aid, supply, excise, or other name. In this sense, they are usually divided into two great classes, those, which are direct, and those, which are indirect. Under the former denomination are included taxes on land, or real property, and under the latter, taxes on articles of consumption. The constitution, by giving the power to lay and collect taxes in general terms, doubtless meant to include all sorts of taxes, whether direct or indirect. But, it may be asked, if such was the intention, why were the subsequent words, duties, imposts and excises, added in the clause? Two reasons may be suggested; the first, that it was done to avoid all possibility of doubt in the construction of the clause, since, in common parlance, the word taxes is sometimes applied in contradistinction to duties, imposts, and excises, and, in the delegation of so vital a power, it was desirable to avoid all possible misconception of this sort; and, accordingly, we find, in the very first draft of the constitution, these explanatory words are added. Another reason was, that the constitution prescribed different rules of laying taxes in different cases, and, therefore, it was indispensable to make a discrimination between the classes, to which each rule was meant to apply.
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution
....ENOUGH taxation and you have SOCIALISM, plain and simple...
TOO much and you get a REVOLUTION....[or so I’ve heard]
Good rant, but it won’t happen. Both parties love the tax because it finances the biggest welfare system in the world, a huge war machine, unbelievable perks for the politicians, obscene amounts of “foreign aid” and immense waste.
It won’t change.
The current system extracts money from the industrious, hard-working people and gives it to slackers. No surprise that the income tax is one of the goals of world communism.
Both parties have a vested interest in keeping the current system.
All you need to know is here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198
Watch every minute of it, all the way to the end.
Bookmark for later.