What is the law that says that income tax is constitutional and where is it written?
The average person does not make enough to provide for their basic necessities anymore. Yet they do not have a choice, but to pay taxes out of the little they make. I calculated that even working minumum wage by the time you take out all the extras your bring home pay is about $3.00hr. which if you have to pay for gas leaves you nothing to live on. If you at least just worked for cash and got to keep everthing you worked for it would be something. Even an illegal can make more we are reduced to slave labor.
I have been trying to find the law that says that income tax is constitutional, but I can not. Can anyone tell me where it is written that income tax or all the other taxes we pay are even constitutional?
Answers:
16th amendment, but does it make it right no. Some people like to ignore the fact that this is not how we should be living and if we stop questioning what our government does we are going to loose everything we have.
The 16th Amendment clarifies the income tax.
While I agree that minimum wage is too low, I disagree with your overall idea. The taxes we pay go to many necessary things. Did you go to a public school? Do you like clean water? Do you have police and fire protection? The list goes on and on, and I'm sure other people who answer the question will provide more example.
Citizens of the United States pay the lowest taxes of any industrialized country in the world.
The problem is not with taxes (although I agree that the money collected in taxes is often misspent); instead, the problem lies with the fact that minimum wage has not kept up with inflation. Minimum wage was originally set to allow a family of three to remain at the poverty line. Now it is less than 2/3 of the poverty line. The Republicans refused to raise minimum wage for a decade (it wasn't raised until earlier this year, when the Democrats gained control of Congress).
Before you complain about taxes, I ask that you look at what that money provides for you (and for the rest of society).
They cant because it doesnt exist income tax is a direct tax and thus unconstitutional. Income in tax law is defined as corporate profit
http://www.w3f.com/patriots/liable.htmlf...
Thank you for asking this question again. It really needs to be asked over and over and over again. *sm*
The sixteenth amendment to the United States Constitution 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." Learn your history.
You won't be able to find it.
the 16th amendment to the constitution says that "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." and anyone who denies the constitutionality of congress' ability to levy an income tax needs to learn their history and law. there are many cases that show that an income tax is constitutional.
That would be the sixteenth amendment to the US Constitution.
It's all voluntary under the threat of prison.
But in any case...
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.
Yes, this question needs to be asked again and again, because some people won't get it through their thick skulls that income taxes are constitutional and income taxes in a constitutional sense are INDIRECT.
Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution says
"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;"
Direct taxes are prohibited unless they are proportioned. However, in a constitutional sense, direct taxes are poll or "head" taxes and taxes on land. Income taxes are not direct.
The 1895 Pollock case which tax law deniers claim made the income tax unconstitutional in reality didn't cover income taxes as a whole. The Pollock case covered a tax on income from personal property, in other words rental income and not income taxes in general. Unfortunately, the 1894 revenue act had both income from personal property and income from wages in the same section of the law. When a court declares a law unconstitutional, they can't say that only a particular sentence is unconstitutional, they have to at least declare a section unconstitutional. Therefore, by simple association of being in the same section of the Revenue Act, the income tax was deemed unconstitutional.
As a history lesson, the first income tax was enacted in 1861. The revenue act of 1862 changed the income tax so that employers were required to withhold taxes from pay and to remit those taxes to the government. 1862 was also the year the Bureau of Internal Revenue was started which later became the IRS.
In order to continue financing the larger and larger needs of our government, it became fiscally unwise to fund it only by excise taxes or tariffs. Tariffs restrict trade and in order to become a world economy, tariffs have to be kept low. That is the need for income taxes.
Because of the 1895 decision, which is the ONLY court to EVER rule that income from personal property was unconstitutional, the 16th amendment was proposed, enacted and ratified. It was properly ratified, no matter what conspiracy theorists like to say. If they have a problem with the minor errors in punctuation and spelling of the versions that were returned by the states as being ratified, then they should also have the same problem with the ratification of the 13th amendment because it had more serious errors. So any tax protestor who claims the 16th amendment wasn't ratified should also be telling all their friends that slavery is still allowed since the 13th amendment wasn't ratified. Sounds silly doesn't it.
After the ratification of the 16th amendment, the revenue act of 1913 was enacted and signed into law. Of course, it was challenged. In Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916), the court stated that “by the previous ruling [in Brushaber] it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of INDIRECT taxation to which it inherently belonged..." As I mentioned earlier, income taxes are INDIRECT and the Staton case is just ONE OF MANY that prove it.
Our current tax laws are derived from the Internal Revenue Act of 1954. In that year, Congress decided that instead of having to rewrite the entire tax code every year into a new revenue act, that they would form a basic structure and just pass amendments to that act each succeeding year. The Internal Revenue Act was renamed in 1986 under the Income Tax reform act of 1986. Also, the Internal Revenue Code is codified in the U.S. Code under Title 26. That is the law concerning income taxes, USC Title 26.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/u...
If someone walked up to you on the street and asked you if you knew what is the law concerning income tax. Would you be able to answer? How about these other questions, is there a law covering non-payment of child support? Is there a law covering counterfeiting? Is there a law covering arson? Is there a law covering embezzlement? Is there a law covering extortion? Is there a law covering fraud? Is there a law covering kidnapping? Is there a law covering perjury? Is there a law covering piracy? Is there a law covering racketeering? Is there a law covering burglary? Is there a law covering conspiracy? Is there a law covering assault? Is there a law covering murder? Can you name them? You can't without having to look them up, can you? Most people wouldn't be able to either if you approached them on the street. However, you know that they exist. It seems dramatic in a video on the Internet that people don't know what or where the tax law is, but it is completely understandable.
You know all of the above are covered by a law because if there wasn't a law against those acts, you couldn't be charged in criminal court for committing those acts. It is the same with failure to file income taxes. If there wasn't a law covering the requirement to file and pay income taxes, you couldn't be charged in criminal court with failing to file income taxes or tax evasion.
Also, if someone does get lucky and get an acquittal for failing to file income tax returns, that acquittal does not prove there isn't a law against taxes anymore than O.J. Simpson's acquittal proves there isn't a law against killing your ex-wife.
I agree to a point about minimum wage is difficult to live on, however, I believe your numbers are a little off. Only taking federal taxes into consideration, a single person making minimum wage will pay 7.65% of their income in Social Security and Medicare taxes. The standard deduction will shield $8,750 from income taxes for 2007, which means they will have to pay income taxes on about $2,900. That is in the 10% bracket, so $290 in federal income taxes. Add to that the $930 for Social Security and Medicare and that person's total federal taxes is about $1,220 which is only about 10% total out of their pay. However, I'm not going to argue about minimum wage. I think it should be higher and it should be linked to inflation so that people will not have to wait for Congress to change it.
BTW, all residents of the U.S. (even illegals) are supposed to pay income taxes if their income reaches the level where they are required to pay. Unfortunately, most are not caught and the businesses that hire them are not punished enough.
Also, in response to another answerer, income is NOT limited to corporate profit. There have been MANY cases that refute that claim. Here is one. In Myrick v. United States of America, 217 F Supp 2d 979, 2002-2 US TaxCas 650,487, KTC 2002-457, aff’d Docket: 02-16428, KTC 2003-327 (9th Cir. 2003), the court said, "One of the bases for Plaintiff’s position is that he had no taxable income since “income” can only be a derivative of corporate activity. This position, however, is simply untenable and is directly contrary to the law."
The courts, not Congress decide what is constitutional, so your question is not really on point.
In any event, read this: http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id...
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers: