I like your position, it's based on the Constitution. The 16th should have never been Ratified and it's illegal yet unchallenged?I don't feel like I am expressing my thoughts but I understand yours.edit - are we entitled to a refund on income tax and can I get it in gold
When I read the below on the archives.gov site, then yes it is beyond illegal, beyond unconstitutional (and to my knowledge unchallenged from the basis of my argument that I've researched), and having been presented to us as legal and constitutional for 104 years is sham of the ages with the color of law, or as I've heard it put, the largest financial heist in the history of the world. What we have now is something like reverse stockholm syndrome where the public / society doesn't exactly side with the IRS, however chastises those who don''t fall in line to the 1040.
Gold and money is a whole separate can of worms...As far as refund, I can't imagine how we could afford it for everybody, other than sell some federal property excluding naval bases, Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, Dock Yards, post roads and offices, and the 10 square miles allocated for DC and the like constitutional provisions. Fortunately those kinds of problems are what we pay congress for...
Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.
Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.
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.https://www.archives...dments-11-27#16
Digital Pheonix, are you arguing for a return to the requirement of apportionment? The Sixteenth Amendment is not about the ability of the federal government to tax income--which it did well before 1913--but only the manner in which it is done.
And it is the states themselves that ratified the Sixteenth Amendment. So even if the Tenth Amendment did permanently delegate the power to lay capitation or direct taxes to the states, the states (through their legislatures) turned around and handed it back.
Disclaimer: I'm not saying I like paying taxes, or that the current setup is what the founders envisioned.
A return to apportionment is a return to equality, and even if the income tax was an apportioned tax it would be constitutional, however the point of different tax brackets illustrates that it currently is not. If we do go to an apportioned tax based off the population / census (I hope we don't get equally taxed on incomes to begin with, because I don't think congress intended upon it), then we will have been constitutionally taxed on incomes. It makes me ponder if it was ever intended to be apportioned (Equal) and in reading the 16th, Equality was never part of the plan.
With respect to the States giving power...the 10th Amendment states..."nor prohibited by it to the states..."
This means to me that congress is saying that the future powers/amendments being granted by the 10th are those that are not written down (delegated) or already prohibited (Using an amendment (the 10th) made before 1808 to effect clause 4) by the constitution to the States.
To say it another way, congress is saying, that States (or people) have the powers that don't exist after the 10th AND THE ONLY POWERS GRANTED by the 10th are those that do not violate what is already prohibited (effecting clause 4) by the constitution as a whole. The 10th doesn't grant what they're already not allowed to do...Does this bring the crux of the argument into perspective?
Disclaimer : I have not found this argument anywhere online, many others yes, however this one has a ring of truth with me though. I bring my case here expecting a more honest discourse of ideas than any circus court of anything. So while I will defend what I believe as Truth, please understand my fervor is in revealing Truth and not necessarily my argument. I think deep down, we know we're getting scammed, this argument illustrates the finer points of the scam...there's more points, however the deeper the hole gets, the more removed from the foundation the argument becomes.
b. Brilliant men (men only)
c. Pretty good on average
d. Regular guys (who sometimes listened to their wives)
e. Products of their time and situation