Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldenboy219  Unfortunately, all taxes on the individual were taxes based on appropriation and enumeration. |
Again, this is incorrect.
Quote:
|
When the Civil War erupted, the Congress passed the Revenue Act of 1861, which restored earlier excises taxes and imposed a tax on personal incomes. The income tax was levied at 3 percent on all incomes higher than $800 a year. This tax on personal income was a new direction for a Federal tax system based mainly on excise taxes and customs duties.
|
U.S. Treasury - Fact Sheet on the History of the U.S. Tax System
The income tax expanded from there, was eventually deemed partly unconstitutional by the court in that particular format, was minimized, and was then revamped in a different format leading up to the 16th amendment.
Quote:
|
The 16th amendment is what allowed income tax as we see it now...
|
Strictly speaking, yes. But your arguments that:
a) Art 1, Sec 8 does not authorize an income tax, and
b) There was no federal income tax before 1913
are both completely false.
Quote:
Whats up with this wiki argument of yours??? Am i wrong, or did the OP say something along the lines of ?????
Previously to 1913, they didnt tax a persons income as they did now. That was the OP's actual question, not whether income tax in any form under any premise existed. Try and stay on topic...
|
I'm not arguing about the OP, I'm merely responding to the incorrect information that you posted in response to JeffMerriman.
Quote:
|
It is actually true that the ratification of this amendment was obtained in multiple unconstitutional ways.
|
Actually, no it's not. Please link me to one reputable Constitutional or legal scholar who agrees with you.
The only people who believe this **** are tax protester conspiracy theorists, the bulk of whom end up getting convicted of tax evasion when they try to practice the idiocy that they preach.
Quote:
|
That is fairly accurate. It would seem like a responsible thing to A.) officially prove what is the truth once and for all B.) investigate if in fact unconstitutional practices have in fact enacted a law...
|
Funny you should mention it, but they have addressed it in the past. Over and over, they've rejected every single idiotic argument these idiots make.
One of my favorites:
Miller v. US (1999) Quote:
| Both Complaints brought by Miller are absolutely without merit, as the claims he makes therein have been routinely rejected by federal courts. See McLaughlin v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Serv., 832 F.2d 986, 986-87 (7th Cir. 1987) (tax protesters who claim they are exempt from payment of income taxes are "thorns in the side of the federal judiciary"); see also Biermann v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Serv., 769 F.2d 707, 709 (11th Cir. 1985) (plaintiff's claim that he was not subjected to tax liability as a "natural individual" and "unenfranchised freeman" rejected by the court); Madison v. United States, 752 F.2d 607, 608-09 (11th Cir. 1985) (argument that wage earners are not subject to income tax deemed frivolous). "The starting point for income taxation is that all sums paid to, or on behalf of, an employee are taxable income." Howell v. United States, 775 F.2d 887, 889 [7th Cir. 1985). Miller's 1996 and 1997 W-2s, which are attached to his Complaints, show that he received "[w]ages, tips, other compensation" from United Airlines during both of these years which is subject to federal income tax. His arguments to the contrary are nothing more than rhetoric. Perhaps the Magistrate Judge stated it best in his R&R: "Most of plaintiff's arguments are, at best, only marginally coherent. To the extent they can be understood at all, these arguments involve tortured and nonsensical interpretations of the [IRC]." |
The best part is that the douchebag then got Rule 11 sanctions for being so incompetent and wasting the court's time.
Quote:
|
If you couldnt tell the line, i was responding in part to the OP.
|
Be that as it may, it's interesting that you cite a case that refutes your argument.
Quote:
|
Just thought it was something worth noting in regards to income tax discussion.
|
See above.
Quote:
The original discussion was in regards to the "CURRENT TAX SYSTEM". The only thing that was posted that has not been proved is unconstitutional ratification.
While most arguments are in essence ridicules, there are some instances where specific state constitutions prohibit the legislature from granting federal tax authority. In these instances, the specific constitutions require a vote of the population, legislature (state) isnt given the authority to ratify such an amendment...
|
Link?