Comments on: Is the income tax unconstitutional?

By: Raymund.

Raymund. — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 01:19:07 +0000

Not one cent of your income tax is spent on infrastructure. None is spent on roads, education, the war on this that or the other.

It is funny to note that Corporate tax is exactly the same amount of money spent on Defense.

Your tax dollars pay for the ‘Federal’ Reserve to print money which they sell to the US government at face value and charge interest on money loaned to the US government.

The ‘Federal’ Reserve is in fact a private banking institute with many members headed by Rothchilds which are closely affiliated with the Bank of England and the Bilderberg Corporation.

In the Constitution this is classed as illegal and the US government should only be allowed to print it’s own money for free.

Also, in the Constitution, Income Tax is due only from ‘Corporate activity’ and from nowhere else.

Any one who tells you otherwise is either uneducated, in denial or a liar.

Peace.

DJRay.

By: willbwright

willbwright — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:20:34 +0000

All I want is for the government to say: “Yes, it is a law.” I’ve researched articles and videos but haven’t seen it yet.

By: Bill

Bill — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 18:01:07 +0000

by the way. search Attorney Tom Cryer on youtube. Made a good case on income tax being unconstitutional and guess what::: he won his case. Read his memorandum

By: Bill

Bill — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 17:59:05 +0000

good documentary to watch. Aaron Russo America Fredom to fascism. WAKE UP AMERICA… we are becoming a police state, in exchange for some dollars.. The question is how much is our freedom worth, if we have not had to defend it..

By: Tim-kun

Tim-kun — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 01:41:57 +0000

Indeed. Zeitgeist is correct.

16th Amendment never Ratified. Thus, we get taxed, but the money goes back to the central debt bankers anyway, eh?

By: ASP

ASP — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 07:26:07 +0000

Please see this video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173

It’s true, the 16th Amendment was never ratified.

By: tom

tom — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 02:51:44 +0000

Forget what is law, it doesn’t matter. If enough people refuse to pay (several hundred thousand people) then the government can’t retaliate. Don’t believe it? Look at how the illegal immigrants in this country are thumbing their noses at our immigration laws and are getting away with it because there are too many to even begin to start enforcement!

By: Zach

Zach — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:06:43 +0000

the 16th Amendmant WAS NEVER RATTIFIED!!! Thats why its NOT constituional!!! They just passed it along, and no one challenged it, thus leaving it to be just “accepted” as true!!

-Z-

ps… if u want an interesting documentary check this out…
http://zeitgeistmovie.com/
that should answer some of ur questions!!

By: Jack

Jack — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 17:05:43 +0000

How bizarre. I would expect that, logically, the only ones NOT required to pay tax would be federal employees. After all, they are paid out of tax money! Taxing that income just makes the money go around in circles.

By: Reggie

Reggie — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:02:17 +0000

There’s nothing unconstitutional about “income taxes”, the problem is the law is not being applied correctly. Forget about the 14th or 16th amendments as I can see most of you don’t understand it anyways.
The only people required by law to pay tax on their earnings are “federal employees”. There are plenty of websites out there that explain this in detail. The reason people lose in court is because the jury believes there is a law and anyone not obeying this “law” is automatically guilty. It’s time for people to educate themselves and bring this government we have back in line.

By: Citizen Tom

Citizen Tom — Sun, 17 Dec 2006 02:21:43 +0000

What I find interesting is that he couple did not pay any taxes for seven years. I wonder how many of the people in the civil lawsuit accusing the government of abusing its powers are doing the same thing. After a couple years, not paying taxes must have started looking like a good racket

In any event, Jack has a point. The income tax is too complicated. Is anybody really surprised by the fact the IRS cannot get its computers to work properly?

If the Federal Government would just do its job and protect our rights, our economy could be much more efficient. One of these reasons we have as much pollution as much as we do, for example, is that we involve our government in so many extraneous things, it cannot do the things we actually need it to do well.

Instead of income taxes, we should have sales taxes and user fees. Sales taxes discourage consumption and encourage investment. User fees, such as tolls and park entrance fees, require government to give us something in return for getting our money from us.

By: Jack

Jack — Sun, 17 Dec 2006 01:27:41 +0000

I think the argument may be made on the 14th Amendment, under the equal protection clause.

In any event, the income tax is insanely complicated, and should be replaced with a sales tax.

By: vjp

vjp — Sun, 17 Dec 2006 01:27:36 +0000

OK, so I perhaps misquoted the article. It actually says:

More than 150 plaintiffs joined the suit, filed by We The People Congress and We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education, both of which argue that the federal government is abusing its powers under the Constitution.

So the argument is abuse of powers. I still don't see it winning. Many of the arguments against the income tax have been made on constitutional grounds, though. Check out this list for a compilation of arguments and rebuttals. Interesting read.

By: JPTERP

JPTERP — Sun, 17 Dec 2006 01:18:46 +0000

I think the couple is going to have some problems. How would they reconcile their stance with the 16th ammendment?

Amendment XVI – Status of Income Tax Clarified. Ratified 2/3/1913.

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.

By: doog

doog — Sun, 17 Dec 2006 01:18:02 +0000

Isn’t that actually *in* the Constitution?

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am16.html

How can something in the Constitution be unconstitutional?