Is it true there's no law requiring income tax?

Factual Questions
21

There was an income tax during the Civil War. Which is probably a clue right there: The federal government has been spending a lot more during the 20th and 21st centuries than it normally did during the 19th, and one of the big things it has spent money on has been wars and the fiscal equivalent of wars (the Cold War). During the early history of the U.S., we never maintained “standing armies”; once a war was over we demobilized and went back to being about on a level with Portugal as a military power. This held true even after World War I, but the demobilization after World War II wound up being aborted by the Cold War, and we’ve maintained a major military establishment ever since, whether involved in actual shooting wars or not.

The other massive increase in government spending, of course, is in social spending (Social Security, MEdicare and Medicaid, and so forth), although payroll taxes rather than the income tax make a major contribution to paying for the biggest social spending programs. In general, the federal government does a lot more things nowadays than it did back then.

22

From that ridiculous link:

Care to explain why you’re touting this guy’s bunk even after it’s long been disproven?

23

I’m simply asking questions to be positively sure and presenting different points of view. See, I go to other message boards and I like to have my ducks in a row before going into e-battle with some know-it-all. This guy seems like a legit IRS agent and can’t see why he would lie.

I mean he was a very high ranking ex IRS enforcement agent, it seems a little odd he would risk losing his job if it weren’t all true.

I like to ferret out information, rumors and lies. And after massive investigation, I have seen nothing but conflicting views on this matter everywhere I go. Because someone on this site states that it isn’t true, doesn’t make it a commandment in my opinion.
That a good enough answer?

24

He would lie if he could make money from fools and suckers by doing so. (See the link “Ordering Information.”)

Do you even read what you write? If he’s an ex-IRS agent, which he is, what job could he possibly lose?

There are no conflicting views on this subject. There is the reality of 90 years of the income tax and every court in the country. Five minutes of investigation would be sufficient to show that.

But since you’d rather read the fraud sites rather than the compilation of court decisions denouncing them, I don’t believe that ferreting out rumors and lies is your aim. Instead, you want to believe that they’re true.

Hey, did you read about the moon hoax proving that we never went to the moon? There are conflicting views on this all over the Internet. And why would anyone say this if it wasn’t true?

25

To “accurize” that statement, I would say there are no conflicting facts on the matter. There are conflicting views, but again no real inconsistency in the views of those in authority - legislatures, courts, law enforcement.

diggleblop, what we’re trying to tell you is that while there are conflicting views, the value of those views varies with the source. If you look at The Tax Protester FAQ, you see lots of references to the actual laws and court cases that have shaped and reinforced those laws. This is what matters in the real world. In these other conflicting views you mention, you see the interpretations of various individuals. They can posture and pontificate all they want, but that won’t save anyone from consequences for following their advice. When it comes down to it, their views are meaningless in the practical application of tax law.

It appears that you are giving equal weight to views that are only backed up with rhetoric and bombast as to those with facts and history behind them. As with all information, rumors, and lies, you’ve got to consider the source to make a reasonable evaluation. The question in our minds is why you seem to give credit to noncredible sources and apparently put little stock in credible ones.

26

Here’s the thing, Digglebop.

Suppose that tax protest site was correct. Income taxes are a fraud that no one is legally required to pay, it’s all a sham, the money is being diverted to the illuminati for various nefarious purposes.

Suppose it’s all true.

So, what happens to you when you stop paying income taxes? Well, you end up in court. And what happens when you trot out your evidence that it’s all a sham, no one is required to pay income tax. What will the judge do? Will he read the evidence, realize that the tax protestors were right all along, that he’s helpless to do anything to you, and send you on your merry way a free man?

Nope. That fascist judge is going to ignore the truth, and he’s going to send you to jail. If it’s true that income tax is illegal, and the whole apparatus of collecting income taxes is illegal, well, they’re not going to let you go just because you point out that it’s illegal. No, they’ll illegally confiscate your money and send you to jail.

Even if any one tax protestor’s theories are correct (which they aren’t) it’s not going to help you one bit, because if the system is crooked the system is crooked. You might have the consolation of knowing that you’ve been railroaded while you sit in jail, but sit in jail you will.

(1) the federal income tax is voluntary and the filing of federal income tax returns is not required, that (2) the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was never ratified, and that (3) federal income taxes are not used to operate the federal government.

27

Well, no. What would happen if a judge found the protester’s objections to be valid is that Congress would just pass a new law.

But they aren’t valid. They’re stupid junk. The current laws are just fine. We know that because they’ve been looked at line by line, issue by issue, point by point, by dozens of courts over dozens of years. The courts go so far as to call the objections delusional.

There is no other side on this. It’s not my opinion. It’s the courts’.

28

Wow, you’re all over the place aren’t ya?

Do you even read before you respond? I used the word “was”. He "was"an ex IRS agent.

So far I have posted three links showing that there ARE conflicting views on this subject. Brain fart or are you just ignorant?

Thanks for telling me what I want to believe, can you come over and tell me how other stuff I want to believe? Go home, Junior Varsity.
And so far, nobody has showed me where this guy is incorrect. All I’ve seen so far is “ahh, he’s a fraud” or “don’t believe that comspiracy theory crap”.

Granted, before I posted the links there were some thoughtful intelligent replies.

Now it seems you guys just have the “attack the messenger” mentality. I’m specifically asking WHY this guy is a fraud. Proof he is a fraud. Not “because we said so.” This man lost everything ebcause he stated that it is illegal for Americans to be locked up for not paying taxes. Why did he do that? Is he lying?

29

But I posted a link to the report that got him “retired” from his job. Did you not read it? I know it’s long. But seriously, I’m only asking questions about the validity of this man and his report.

30

I wish there were an edit button. When I say he was an ex IRD agent and why would he risk losing everything. I mean, why would he risk losing everything by putting out his report while employed as an agent.

31

Yes, I have. Here it is again. Tax Protester FAQ.

32

See? Let’s say he was right. What did it get him? He lost everything, the system crushed him. And what will it get you when you follow his theories around tax time? Nothing, the system will crush you.

33

No you haven’t. You posted a very informative link about some tax laws. I’m talking about refutting his report directly. Go read it and then come back and argue with me.

I hear ya and agree. But what I’m saying is, he must’ve felt very strongly about this to lose that job. I mean, I couldn’t imagine the years schooling and money he had to go through to land that job. All to be thrown away for something that isn’t the truth? See what I’m saying?

34

and for the record, I’m not trying to argue or debate in this thread. I know you guys are all highly intelligent and know your proverbial “shit”. I just don’t get why someone would put themselves through what this man put himself through.

I’ve read sites that say Alex Jones is a planted CIA agent with the notion to spread disinformation about 9-11 in order to divert attention away from the Zionists actually being behind it. So, I’ve heard some whoppers about this and the 9-11 subject. I don’t believe them perse’, I just question them over and over again until there is nothing left to question. :slight_smile:

35

Because he figured that he could make more money skamming people.

Because he’s a whack-job.

Because he was let go from the IRS for other reasons and holds a grudge.

The point is, it doesn’t matter what his motivations were since he’s wrong on the facts, wrong on the law, and just plain wrong.

36

Good point.

37

Okay, I looked at a smattering of his report. That was enough.

He makes a big deal of the word “voluntary” (or “voluntarily”) appearing in the wording of some regulations. From this he purports to make the case that Federal Income Tax is voluntary.

Here’s one example: “Section 4022.65/Place and Time for Appearance/(3)When a person indicates he/she will voluntarily comply but requests that he/she be served with a summons as evidence of his/her legal duty to produce records or testify…/(Emphasis added)”

Here’s another: “The primary mission of Taxpayer Service is to promote voluntary compliance through education and assistance to taxpayers. (Emphasis added)”

The case he actually makes is that he is an idiot. The first example addresses some situation (he conveniently doesn’t put the whole description in, he just wants to highlight the word “voluntarily”) where someone isn’t balking, but justs wants a legal paper trail for some reason. The form of this paper trail is “a summons as evidence of his/her legal duty…” [bolding mine]. Now, “summons” and “legal duty” shout “mandatory and enforceable under law” but he just ignores that - the phrase has that magic word “voluntarily.”

The second example describes a program, not a law. His argument is laws against, say, murder, don’t offer voluntary compliance, so this phrase must mean income tax laws do.

What rubbish. Neither of these in any way say or even suggest that compliance with tax laws is strictly voluntary. Governments do expect voluntary compliance with laws against murder. They generally don’t need special programs for it because the overwhelming majority of people are raised so as not to commit murder and there’s no need for a program to reinforce that. The reason there’s a program for tax compliance is that there’s more resistance to paying taxes than to refraining from murder, and it’s more cost-effective to encourage compliance than to prosecute non-compliance. To argue that the existance of this program proves that compliance is strictly voluntary is just plain stupid.

This fool exhibits no critical thinking skills. His logic is faulty, to say the least. His key points have been refuted time and time again with facts.

I’m not going to read and address his whole report. I know convoluted illogical argument when I see it. I know horsecrap when I see it. It’s not worth my time to sift through mountains of it just to document how much crap is there.

I’m only asking questions about the validity of this man and his report. You seem to be giving him the benefit of the doubt based on the premise that only an idiot would do what he’s done if his assertions are wrong. There’s your explanation. His assertions are demonstrably wrong. You can draw the obvious conclusion.

38

Remember, when it comes to any conspiracy theory, it’s not necessary for us to prove them wrong. They have to prove themselves right. That’s an enormous difference.

In Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991)

In other words, if you are so stupid that you can study the history of taxation in this country and still make a claim that it is invalid, then you deserve whatever punishment is coming.

If only this were true about the moon hoaxers or the 9/11 was done by the government nuts or any of the other conspiracy theorists, what a wonderful world this would be. :slight_smile:

39

This whole thing reminds of another thread currently running, Beating a prostitution rap. There used to be people who believed that by reciting the proper magic words one could control natural phenomena. Now there are people who think that by reciting the proper magic words they can control the bureauocracy.

One need only point and recite the words “I do not recognize the authority of the admirality flag” and the villains will fall back, like vampires confronted by the cross. Ollie-Ollie-Oxen-Free works for children, but not when playing with the grown-ups.

I guess there’s a reason for it, both natural phenomena and the bureaucracy are essentially uncontrollable, but it gets pretty tiresome when someone claims that a law that has been in existence for nearly 100 years, and has been tested time and again in court cases, can be ignored because someone didn’t say "Mother, may I? back in 1912.

40

diggleblop, your post is out of line for GQ. Please do not repeat this.

-xash
General Questions Moderator