The income tax is illegal and the government knows it!

But being the obedient sheeple we are, we keep giving.

I have to Disagree, Tax provides our Infrastructure including Fire, Police, ambulance, water, Electricity, roads, Bridges, Mass Transit, Subsidizing Railroad Construction years ago, Transportation industry, Ports, Subway's, ect ect.. i can live with paying income tax because i know at least some of it goes to good things and thats ok with me

__________________


There are Old Truckers and there are Bold Truckers, But there are no Old Bold Truckers.

The income tax collected goes towards interest on the federal reserve notes the government borrowed during the year.The infrastructure,schools etc comes from tax's not derived from income, i.e. fuel,liquor,tobacco,heavy road use tax etc.The federal income tax is and always has gone against the constitution. The 16th amendment was never legally ratified.

Do I need to spell it out for you again? income tax does not go against the constitution and the sixteen amendment was ratified. I already beat you down on this on another thread.

Will you ever give up?

Some one show me where it says that it is a law that we have to pay income tax, and a legitimate source of where the money goes to.
I believe there would be no discussion of this if something wasn't right about it.

Show me where the 16th was legally ratified. It takes 3/4 of the states to pass and in 1913 there were only 48 states. That means 36 had to agree, they did not! They went ahead anyway and said it passed.

Check the facts please.


Well now, let's take a look at Congress. Congress's responsibility for this state of affairs is multi-fold.
Number one. Congress originally accepted Philander Knox's certification that the "16th Amendment" had been validly ratified, without, as far as we know, any legislative investigation of the accuracy or good-faith of his certification. Correct? Didn't even look at it! Well if this was culpable negligence, at that time, is open to debate. No longer arguable is that such uncritical acceptance today sinks to a level far below mere negligence.
Second. Based on its original uncritical acceptance of the "16th Amendment", since 1913 Congress has enacted numerous income tax statutes and licensed the IRS to promulgate countless regulations under color of which trillions of dollars of wealth have been extracted from the American people, and who can say how many individuals have been fined, imprisoned, or otherwise penalized and punished for violating various code provisions or regulations. This looting and persecution continues unabated, not only within Congress's view, and not only to its financial benefit, but also with its acquiescence, approval, and no less than aid and comfort.
For point three, Congress has always enjoined the constitutional power, and faced with the documentation that the "16th Amendment" was not lawfully ratified, has the constitutional duty to initiate an inquiry into the legal basis for the present income tax statutes and regulations. It doesn't need Bill Benson to petition it. Doesn't need this group of people to meet here. It's always had that responsibility and that power. And not in some vaguely theoretical way either. Because court after court, in the last few years, has actually held, not merely suggested, that whether the "16th Amendment" was validly ratified, is a political question for Congress alone to decide. So the judiciary has officially dumped this issue in the Legislature's lap. And every American knows how punctilious and scrupulous Congress is in following judicial decisions.
Which brings me to point four. If Congress would've determined that officials in the Judicial and Executive branches of the government have convicted and imprisoned innocent individuals under color of tax statutes, notwithstanding that those officials were on notice, and knew, or should have known, of the invalidity of the "16th Amendment", then it seems that Congress would be at least morally required to impeach and remove from office each and every one of those officials, preliminary to the imposition of more drastic punishments

[LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Truck Forum Link.

The income tax is authorized by the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which provides: 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.
Tax protestors love to quote some old Supreme Court opinions that say that the Sixteenth Amendment "conferred no new power of taxation." Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916); see also Brushaber v. Union Pac. R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916).
Because an income tax was declared unconstitutional before the adoption of the 16th Amendment in a case called Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1894), on reh’g 158 U.S. 601 (1895), and because the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, protestors conclude that the income tax must still be unconstitutional.
This conclusion is false. The short answer is that, while the Supreme Court did hold that the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, the amendment relieved the pre-existing power to tax incomes from the constitutional requirement of apportionment. Therefore, the previous problem with the income tax was removed and the income tax is now constitutional.
Here's some more detail:
Congress's power to "law and collect taxes" is given in Article I, section 8 of the [LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Truck Forum Link. . This power, given in the original Constitution, included the power to lay and collect income taxes. In Brushaber, one of the very cases the protestors love to quote, the Supreme Court said that the power to impose income taxes was "an authority already possessed and never questioned." Brushaber v. Union Pac. R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 17 (1916).
But, according to the Pollock case, certain income taxes were subject to another provision of the original Constitution that required "direct taxes" to be apportioned among the states according to the census.
The Sixteenth Amendment overruled the Pollock case. As the Supreme Court said in Brushaber, "the Amendment was drawn for the purpose of doing away for the future with the principle upon which the Pollock Case was decided". The Amendment, the Court said, "provides that income taxes, from whatever source the income may be derived, shall not be subject to the regulation of apportionment."
Thus, the Sixteenth Amendment gives no new power to tax incomes, because that power always existed, but it relieves the pre-existing power from the requirement of apportionment. Income taxes are now constitutional because they are no longer subject to the apportionment requirement.
That is the true meaning of the statement that the Sixteenth Amendment gives "no new power of taxation." That statement does not show the income tax to be unconstitutional.

[LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Truck Forum Link.

If I do work for you for food, clothes or money. I don't have to pay taxes on the horse or food. So why should I have to pay taxes on the money. It's a trade off.

I wouldn't really mind paying taxes, if they would spend it on what they are supposed to. At least give the American people a vote on what they are spending it on.

Betcha $10 that the American people would vote down a pay raise for congress and the President if they were not doing right.

The federal income tax as it is applied is unconstitutional because it is being applied as a "direct tax" which must be apportioned among the states in accordance with the census.