If the federal income tax is an indirect tax, that means it's tied to an activity which makes you liable. What activity did you do to establish a liability? Is it possible you aren't really subject to the income tax?

Do you think your federal tax money runs the government? If so, what did it run on for the 140 years prior to 1913 when the Income tax was enacted?

Answering part of your question, the Constitution in Article I, Section 8, empowers Congress to collect taxes. It specifies some types of taxes. Amendment XVI specifies taxes on incomes.

Paul - There are a lot of people who argue that the federal income tax is illegal. It was, in fact, found to be unconstitutional at one point by the Supreme Court. That is all irrelevant, however, because, as Tsaeb points out, The 16th ammendment makes it legal.

"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."

Is the individual Income Tax mandatory or voluntary?

"Voluntary Compliance" seems to be an oxymoron.

Mandatory. Interest and penalties exist as deterrents against nonfiling as well as against filing fraudulently, etc. Even if you were to file and state on your return some expletives about the whole thing, you would be penalized. There is zero intolerance against being against paying income taxes. I think that the voluntary part comes in when although you do not choose to file with the utmost enthusiasm, you, nevertheless, file in a manner which is deliberately civil and honest. Looking again at your first questions, you would become liable in a bad sense if you chose to be, shall we say, uncooperative?

You can check with as many dictionaries as you like, and you will find that the word "voluntary" means something done of one's own free will, and without legal obligation. So if compliance with "income tax laws" is mandatory, why would commissioner after commissioner claim that filing is voluntary if it were not? Do you really believe that "voluntary compliance" can mean the same thing as "compulsory compliance"?

If something is "voluntary," then the word "compliance" is superfluous. If, on the other hand, "compliance" is compulsory, then any use of the word "voluntary" is nonsensical. It should be perfectly evident why the government contrived this self-­contradictory expression. Have you ever heard of it in connection with anything else? The government feared that if it correctly used the solitary word "voluntary" to describe federal income taxes, the nature of the tax would become immediately apparent. So it added the word "compliance," seeking, in this way, to fool the public by the mandatory meaning that word conveys. The government relied on an ingenuous public not to notice that the preceding word, "voluntary," rendered the latter word, "compliance," meaningless. And the American public, in overwhelming measure, didn't let the government down!

Paul: How come, after all these years in the U.S., you are growling over paying income taxes?

Obeying a law is voluntary. I voluntarily drive the speed limit, pay taxes, and refrain from killing someone.

But like all actions, actions that voluntarily do NOT obey written laws have consequences.

No one is forcing you with a gun to your head to obey the law, including paying income tax. You voluntarily submit to avoid the consequences put forth--just like you voluntarily eat to avoid starvation.

IRS SPECIAL AGENT-CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DIVISION DECLARES
IRS IS LYING-TAX PROTESTERS ARE RIGHT!

Ex- IRS Special Agent Joseph R. Banister finds
NO LAW THAT REQUIRES ANY AMERICAN TO FILE AND PAY INCOME TAX!

Read the Article

While you're at it, read the other articles linked at the bottom of the page. That site declares the IRS to be under foreign control and not actually part of the US government, the current US flag to be a symbol that the Civil War is ongoing, and that a major nuclear war with a China will begin... well... several years ago. Just because some web site says something doesn't make it true, Paul.

The first American income tax was enacted in 1861.

Aside from all the other reasons why an argument about income tax being unconstitutional is silly, the most very obvious is this:

The income tax has been in place for 143 years. I would like someone to tell me how this "illegal" tax has survived 143 years in a country where a man can sue the United States Government to have the words "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegence because it caused his daughter "psychological trauma" to hear it.

The simple fact is that it is NOT illegal, and no amount of complaining is going to change that. And until Americans stop using the services paid for by income and other taxes, I think they should just get over it already.

Mx2 - While I agree with you that income tax is constitutional, it hasn't been "in place for 143 years." Income tax was instituted as a temporary measure to pay for the civil war, then gotten rid of fairly soon after the war ended. The first time it reappeared, it was declared unconstitutional. Since then, however, the constitution has been amended, making income tax constitutional.

Income Taxes are Cartoon Images of the Law

When you volunteer to pay your taxes each year (and each paycheck), you can thank Walt Disney and Donald Duck. The US Government used them to convince people that they were taxpayers, even though the law did not make them so. Once upon a time, there was virtually no income tax. Only nonresident aliens and US citizens not living in one of the States had to pay taxes and then only after they had earned over $20,000, the equivalent of nearly $350,000 in 2002. The tax rate was only 1% up to 7% on incomes above $500,000 ($6 million). Very few people were subject to the tax in the first place -- only about 1% of the wealthiest Americans were originally required to file. However, in 1942, things changed even though the law and the Constitution didn't.

The full article can be read here.



[This message was edited by Karrow on 01-07-04 at 07:18 PM.]

I don't see how advertisements used have any substance in the law.

Should I assume, based on this logic, that fire safety laws are only in place because Smokey the Bear said so?

M--

It used to be legal to separate people by race. It used to be legal to own other people. There are many other examples of things that were once okay, and are now not, or vice versa--it used to be illegal to marry someone of another race. It was considered Constitutional to do these things.

The historical rulings of Constitutiality really do not matter--as far as the courts are concerned NOW, when we are here paying, the income tax is in fact legal. And it remains legal despite challenges.

Look it up in the IRC (Internal Revenue Code) and get back to me with the results.

You can find it here.

The tax laws in the IRC are correct but the IRS misapplies them and takes them out of context.

When someone studies the code and applies it to themselves, the IRS hates that.

Your assumption that the income tax is legal is not incorrect. But, to whom does it apply.

Do some research (if you're the least bit concerned) then the truth will be gnawing at your conscience.

quote:

---

Frivolous Arguments. Frivolous arguments are false arguments that are unsupported by law.When a scheme promoter says “I don’t pay taxes – why should you” or urges you to “untax yourself for $49.95,” beware. These scams are as old as snake oil, but people continue to be taken in. And now they’re on the Internet. The ads may say that paying taxes is “voluntary,” but that’s just plain wrong. The U.S. courts have continuously rejected this and other frivolous arguments. Unfortunately, hundreds of people across the country have paid for the “secret” of not paying taxes or have bought “untax packages.” Then they find out that following the advice contained in them can result in civil and/or criminal penalties. Numerous sellers of the bogus schemes have been convicted on criminal tax charges.

---

What's gnawing on my conscience, Paul, is that you've apparently fallen for a scam.

What bugs me is that I work two jobs to make ends meet, but my state, federal, and FICA taxes are close to 50 percent of my second income, that is, for every buck I make on my second job, the government gets half of it. Coupled with the expenses associated with my second job, I end up with about 30 bucks for every 100 bucks I make. I suppose 30 bucks is better than nothing which would be the case if I didn't work the 2nd job, but it still seems so high a price to pay, especially when such a large chunk of it goes to fund George's War.

That's one of those "costs of working" issues.

My husband is active duty Air Force, and I'm a stay at home mom. Even if his schedule permitted me to work full time, with FICA, taxes, and child care, I'd actually be losing money.

Fact of life, I guess.

quote:

---

What's gnawing on my conscience, Paul, is that you've apparently fallen for a scam.

---

Yes, it was unfortunate that I volunteered to waive one or more of my Constitutional protections when I was very young by signing, under penalty of perjury, a W-4 form, because I was told I was required to do so. That was not only a scam perpetrated by by greedy politicians but a down and outright lie by the IRS.

Don't go to the IRS website for Tax Scam information because the IRS LIES through their teeth.

I've been on this planet twice as long as you have so I've been aware of what is actually happening to our country for some time now.

I don't have to purchase a worthless tax scheme to keep the IRS out of my pockets, using the Internal Revenue Code can do that.

The Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 3402(n) (since you won't look it up yourself) says: "Employees incurring no income tax liability.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, an employer shall not be required to deduct and withhold any tax under this chapter upon a payment of wages to an employee if there is in effect with respect to such payment a withholding exemption certificate (in such form containing such other information as the Secretary may prescribe) furnished to the employer certifying that the employee-
(1) incurred no liability for income tax imposed under subtitle A for his preceding taxable year, and
2) anticipates that he will incur no liability for income tax imposed under subtitle A for his current taxable year.
The Secretary shall by regulations provide for the coordination of the provisions of this subsection with the provisions of subsection (l)"

Yes, I fell for one of the biggest frauds of this nation....believing government con men.

"Sign this contract and we'll take care of you"

Baloney!!!!!!!!!

Jesus asked once, "Tell me. Do governments impose taxes on their own citizens or on conquered foriegners?"

The reply he got was, "Conquered foriegners, of course!"

(Duh!)

What's wrong with this picture?