Since apparently it was established to pay for WWII, and thats been over for some 50 years now, what was their excuse for not getting rid of it? How long was it officialy supposed to last? And who was in office at the time it should have went away?
Allthough I’m really not surprised…they just phased out a tax on my phone bill to pay for the F’n Spanish-American war.:mad:
The Sixteenth Amendment, which gave Congress the power to tax income, was ratified in 1913.
That was some pretty good long range forecasting, seeing the World War II financing needs that far ahead.
Probably the OP is referring to how the fedgov said they would only take 1% of the common working person’s income to help pay for the war effort, and then stop after the war. Problem is, they sorta forgot to. Prior to that time, the only people who were supposed to pay the tax were officers of the court, government employees and others who lived outside the continental US.
The debate still smolders on about whether the 16th Amendment was ever properly and legally ratified or not, as it flies in the face of what the framers of the Constitution had in mind. Also there are niggling little details like the IRS allegedly operating illegally anywhere outside the District of Columbia, the requirement to sign the return amounting to waiving your 4th and 5th Amendment rights, etc. The hardcore frontline tax protesters report some success at opting out of the income tax and social “security” systems, having their SSNs changed to 999-99-9999, recieving 3 years refund of back taxes collected unlawfully, etc. But it’s really really hard to do, dangerous and time consuming. All the little guy knows is, if he pays it they leave him alone, and if he doesn’t they can come and steal his house, car, bank accounts and all worldly goods, and throw him in the hoosegow.
Until cooler heads can prevail in Washington and abolish the IRS and income tax, passing a sales tax instead (such as HR 2001), it seems we have to live with the graduated income tax as the worst system in the world, except for all the others. I’ve tricked myself into regarding payment of a fourth to a third of all I earn (they really think I believe that much is needed to run the govt.–ha) as the necessary fee for living in the greatest country on earth.
Also, since the income tax required a constitutional amendment in order to enact, it was clear it was not supposed to be a temporary measure. It was enacted because it was considered a fairer system of taxation, and since the amendment was enacted, it’s clear it was popular.
The Sixteenth amendment is irrelevant to the question. It was passed because SCOTUS had rendered a decision which stated that rental income did not count as income. Prior to that there had been income taxes as provided for in the constitution without any problem, going back to the Civil War.
The reason they did not abolish the tax was so that the Government could continue to govern in the fashion to which the electorate had become accustomed (as well as to pay off past debt I imagine).
Just because people are still complaining that doesn’t mean there is a debate going on. The 16th Amendment was enacted in accordance with the Constitution and is completely legal; there’s nothing that says the framers would have to agree with a new amendment. The text of the amendment (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 very broad and doesn’t seem to be affected by any of the limitations people have listed.
So there can be a debate on whether the income tax is a good idea, but there’s no doubt it’s a legal one.
This is General Questions, in which factual answers are offered.
Almost everything you’ve said above is a lie.
The IRS acts legally in the states. Signing and submitting a tax return does not implicate your rights under either the Fourth or Fifht Amendment. The “hardcore” tax protestors who report some success by the methods you describe are in fact tax evaders, and are in violation of the law. I agree it’s dangerous, in the same way that, say, bank robbery is dangerous, because by doing so you risk arrest, prosecution, and imprisonment for your illegal actions.
To the extent that someone may read your message as standing for the proposition that it is possible to employ these tactics to legally pay no income tax, it just isn’t the truth.
From the article Income tax records of the Civil War years, in the National Archives magazine Prologue:
I’m wondering if perhaps the OP isn’t referring to the telephone excise tax, which is often targeted by anti-war protestors since it supposedly directly funds the Department of Defense. There are dozens of cites found by searching “telephone excise tax history” in Google but the first few I looked at have the smell of the crank about them. I’m actually rather surprised that this tax hasn’t been repealed by the current Congress, as it would be an undoubtedly popular tax cut which would affect everyone who has a telephone.
Cite, please, along with an exact explanation of how the 16th amendment was improperly ratified. Note that the ‘Ohio was not a state’ bit has been debunked over and over again on these boards, and that “hyjyljyj believes the framers wouldn’t have liked this amendment” is not one of the criteria for whether a constitutional amendment was properly ratified.
Idiots can allege anything. Since this is GQ, can you provide any factual evidence for the assertion that the IRS is acting illegally outside of DC or the ‘waiving your rights’ bit? Or is the factual information limited to ‘some yahoos claim this stuff, but it’s not really backed up by anything’.
I don’t really expect that you will provide cites for any of this, but I feel that someone needs to point out that all of the tax protestor nonsense about the 16th amendment not being ratified and the IRS actually being voluntary is, well, nonsense.
Do you have a cite for any tax protestor ‘opting out’ of the income tax while still making money, or is this just wishful thinking?
Do you have a cite for anyone actually opting out of SS or having their SSN actually (as in, recognized by the courts and IRS) changed to 999-99-9999? Any information on what a SSN of 999-99-9999 does for the person?
I’m sure that there are people who have had taxes collected illegally. Can you provide court cases for anyone getting all of their taxes refunded by using any sort of tax protestor argument?
It may be, also, that the OP is thinking of income tax withholding, which was in fact introduced during World War II.
Mandatory link when nutbar tax theories pop up:
Another mandatory link: Bernard Sussman’s “Idiot Legal Arguments,” a subpage of the ADL, http://www.militia-watchdog.org/suss1.htm. You can also find the same text at http://www.fortunefinder.org/idiotlegal.htm.
AFAIK you can’t opt for any SS number other than the one assigned to you. -
I also recommend Bernard J. Sussman, Idiot Legal Arguments: A Casebook for Dealing with Extremist Legal Arguments. Sections Five and Six dispose of arguments of the kind that hyjyljyj offers.
Wrong war for this OP, though. That one was originated in 1898 to help finance the Spanish-American war.
It is possible to have your SSN changed, but generally under circumstances like being in the Witness Protection Program or the victim of severe identity theft. link
Well yeah, but considering the other factual errors in the OP I figured it was a possibility.
And, of course, there’s this guy, who’s rumored to know a thing or two.
The tax was revoked, at least half of it, by that multi-millionaire president JFK.
Under Ike the top bracket paid 90%, but when Kennedy came in his first order of business was to reward his own. The tax went to 50% tops, and then 40% before he died.