A libertarian friend of mine (he insists on the small “l”) tells me that we really don’t have to pay income taxes. Way he says it, when the Sixteenth Amendment was first brought, the then-Secretary of State used some shady shenanigans to get it through the proper channels and, thus, it isn’t legally binding. My friends says all one has to do is tell the IRS “I’m not paying taxes” (in so many words) and you’re home free. Frankly, it sounds to me as the standard line of Libertarian horse feathers (which generally boils down to “the government is trying to take away my guns” and “I pay too much in taxes”).
My own research says that despite the questionable nature of the Sixteenth Amendment’s origins, the law of the land still says you gotta pay taxes or they’ll bust your butt. Also, a lot of the “anti-Sixteenth” websites I went through have ties to some unsettling anti-government, anti-Semitic and racist organizations. Plus, they all seem to be trying to sell me something.
So, does any one have the straight dope on this particular bugaboo?
Thanks,
Matt
The Master speaks: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_127.html
Haven`t had one of these in a while, should be good times!!
Ahhh…thank you brianjedi. I must’ve glossed over it whilst persuing the archives. Truely, the Force is strong with you.
And, for the record, I do not wish to start a political fracas with my inagural post. My deeply held feelings that libertarians are generally boobs is entirely inconsequential to my question.
Thank you and good night,
Matt
Your friend is indeed a boob, but I have it on good authority that not all libertarians are. 
Hey! I’m not a boob… well, not usually… okay, carry on…
Remember, friends and neighbors, I said “generally”. My progressive heart pumps loudly, but not so loudly that it drowns out the words of logical men and women from all ideologies.
And I KNOW my friend’s a boob, this just struck me as particularly silly. One would think if it were truly the case, the U.S. Government (or, as he calls them, “the federal overlords”) would’ve nipped it squarely in the bud by now.
Still, I must admit Cecil’s answer doesn’t satisfy my curiosity completely. It covers Ohio’s particular situation and points of law, but what about a more general overview?
I shall investigate further and, of course, all input is much obliged. As for now, though, I am unable; I have been partaking of the noble weed and watching “Monty Python” and, thus, my facilities aren’t exactly firing on all pistons.
Thanks,
Matt
Cool, I get to be the first one to link to The Tax Protesters FAQ.
Rest assured that every argument and thought your idiot friend has is something that other idiots have already had, taken to court, and been slapped down hard for.
Much obliged for the wonderful FAQ. I shall pass it along to my friend, though I’ll doubt he’ll be swayed much. He considers me a “socialist” because I’m a tad uneasy at the concept of corporations being allowed to police themselves on piddling matters like customer safety or environmental impact without any sort of governmental oversight whatsoever. Silly Marxist me, I guess. Still, it takes all kinds to make a world, as Roger Miller so sagely said.
For my money, the question isn’t how much one pays in taxes; it’s just exactly where that money goes that often gives me fits.
Again, thanks to all for your help.
As an attorney who has a CPA certificate and who used to work for the IRS, I’d like to make a general observation:
All or nearly all of the theories which hold that people in the U. S. don’t “really” have to pay income taxes are based on what I think of as “playground” law. When schoolchildren play games they often invent arbitrary, inflexible rules which grant total immunity to the user, often based on some weird exception sthey can invoke, such as using a “magic word”, etc. For example, a child might say he wasn’t “really” lying, because he had his fingers crossed, or someone else isn’t “really” the first in line because he “called it”.
What all of these theories overlook is that while the taxpayer using them may want to act like a kid in a school yard, the government doesn’t.
I recall a discussion with an addled taxpayer once who was convinced that he could claim Head of Household status because he lived alone, so he must be the head of his household. The point that the regulations define what “Head of Household” means, and what he meant by “Head of Household” doesn’t matter in the slightest, was something he honestly appeared unable to comprehend.
Kids also fall into thinking they can define words however they want, and so determine what the rules imposed on them mean; there’s always that one passive-aggressive little snot who stands thirty yards from the other kids and says he’s “really” “in line” because he’s directly behind the last kid in line.
I’ve had many such arguments with people who say they don’t have to pay income taxes because the law says they are “voluntary”. What they don’t understand is that the law defines what it means by “voluntary”, and all they are really arguing about is whether the word that is used is a good one or not, and not whether the law compels them to pay taxes.
Chairman Mao observed that all law comes from the barrel of a gun. He’s been denounced innumerable times for this observation, but he nonetheless had a point.
To sum up:
Libertarian: “aww, why do I hafta pay taxes?”
Government: “Because I say so.”
slipster, that may be the finest summing up of why these guys are talking crap that I’ve ever seen. Of course, it won’t make any impression on them, but so be it.
Slipster- very well said.
slipster, nice analogy, you’re absolutely right.
Somehow the dirty-dealing-by-secretary-of-state theory of invalidity of the Income Tax Amendment to the Constitution is a lot more appealing than the Ohio-was-never-admitted-to -the-Union theory. I do have a little trouble understanding what the guy in charge of the nation’s foreign affairs has to do with Congressional passage of the Amendment and its ratification by the legislatures of the appropriate number of states. Maybe it was the Ohio Secretary of State who did the democratic process dirt.
My personal favorite “playground law” theory involves the presence of yellow fringe on the national colors. Somehow that deprives the nation and state governments of authority to act (including the political subdivisions and agencies thereof). No flag = nullity; flag with yellow fringe = nullity; flag with no fringe = everything is hunky-dory, except in Ohio since it was never properly admitted to the Union.
Thanks to all you kind people for the info, especially slipster. I have forwarded such to my one libertarian friend (who’s less boobish) to tell the main libertarian boob. Again, it’s nothing to do with one’s political stripe so much and more with how much horseshit they shovel on me.
And like I said, what worries me more anyway isn’t how much I pay in taxes, it’s where that money goes. Even on a local level, a little digging into how public finances are spent will curl your hair.
Again, mucus garcias.