with 40% of the federal budget coming from income taxes, abolishing the IRS w/o shrinking the SIZE of federal goverment would really lead us into a depression. This must be done in steps starting with getting rid of unconstitutional goverment agencies, and then end the irs. Just because we would end the IRS doen not mean the federal government would stop their spending.

16th Amendment improperly ratified.‏

This is my absolute favorite anti-income-tax argument. Most claims that Americans aren't required to pay income tax rely on legal interpretations so tortured only a tax resister could possibly believe them. But the Ohio thing has just enough plausibility to give even sane people pause.
It all started when Ohio was preparing to celebrate the 150th anniversary of its admission to the Union in 1953. Researchers looking for the original statehood documents discovered there'd been a little oversight. While Congress had approved Ohio's boundaries and constitution, it had never passed a resolution formally admitting the future land of the Buckeyes. Technically, therefore, Ohio was not a state.
Predictably, when this came to light it was the subject of much merriment. One senator joshingly suggested that his colleagues from Ohio were drawing federal paychecks under false pretenses.
But Ohio congressman George Bender thought it was no laughing matter. He introduced a bill in Congress to admit Ohio to the Union retroactive to March 1, 1803. At a special session at the old state capital in Chillicothe the Ohio state legislature approved a new petition for statehood that was delivered to Washington on horseback. Congress subsequently passed a joint resolution, and President Eisenhower, after a few more jokes, signed it on August 7, 1953.
But then the tax resisters got to work. They argued that since Ohio wasn't officially a state until 1953, its ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1911 was invalid, and thus Congress had no authority to enact an income tax.
Baloney, argued rational folk. A sufficient number of states voted for ratification even if you don't count Ohio.
OK, said the resisters, but the proposed amendment had been introduced to Congress by the administration of William H. Taft. Taft had been born in Cincinnati, Ohio, in 1857. The Constitution requires that presidents be natural-born citizens of the United States. Since Ohio was not a state in 1857, Taft was not a natural-born citizen, could not legally be president, and could not legally introduce the 16th Amendment. (Presumably one would also have problems with anything done by presidents Grant, Hayes, Garfield, B. Harrison, McKinley, and Harding, who were also born in Ohio.)
Get off it, the rationalists replied. The 1953 resolution retroactively admitted Ohio as of 1803, thereby rendering all subsequent events copacetic.
Uh-uh, said the resisters. The constitution says the Congress shall make no ex post facto law. That means no retroactive admissions to statehood.
Uh, we'll get back to you on that, said the rationalists.
A call to the IRS elicited the following official statement: "The courts have . . . rejected claims that the Sixteenth Amendment . . . was not properly ratified. . . . In Porth v. Brodrick, 214 F.2d 925 (10th Circuit 1954), the court dismissed an attack on the Sixteenth Amendment as being 'clearly unsubstantial and without merit,' as well as 'far fetched and frivolous.'"
Just one problem. The Porth decision didn't specifically address the Ohio argument. It just sort of spluttered that attacks on the 16th Amendment were stupid.
OK, they're stupid. But great matters have turned on seemingly sillier points of law. It's not like the Ohio argument couldn't have been defeated on the merits. One suspects that from a legal standpoint "ex post facto" doesn't mean exactly the same thing as "retroactive." And of course the weight of 150 years of history, during which time everyone thought Ohio had been properly admitted, ought to count for something.
I'm not defending the crackpots. But if you're a parent you recognize that "because I said so" isn't much of an argument. Guess it's different if you're a judge.


Use this for dissemination of information regarding the IRS and the 16th Amendment.

i have a question. i understand the tax system and the way its supposed to work. my question is not for arguing but for info. what i dont understand is how does it pay down the national debt. i see that states would contribute to balance the deficit if tariffs and excise tax fall short, but nothing about the debt. enlighten me please.

dave

anyone?

There are lots of places to go to get information about this but most are very difficult to read and boring. (Cato Institute is one of the better ones.) One suggestion I have seen over the years as to how the U.S. government could pay off the national debt and fully fund social security obligations in the absence of the income tax would be to sell off the vast majority of the property they own. If you take a look at a map showing public ownership of the USA you will find that 98% of Alaska is owned by the U.S. government as is over 95% of Nevada and so forth. As a matter of fact west of the Mississippi the vast majority of land is owned by the U.S. government. These lands include national parks, national forests, military bases/posts, Indian reservations and so forth. While not all this land is readily available for sale (Indian reservations for example) much of it is. There are many arguments against this because it is a "once and done". Once the property is sold to pay off debt it cannot be done again so there had better not be another "unpayable" debt accumulated. One argument in favor of an idea like this is this land currently pays no property taxes to the states or counties in which it is located. Collecting local taxes will be enable government closer to the people to spend on projects desired locally. Mineral rights alone on some of this property are very valuable. I have not seen any numbers on this plan in many years so I have no idea with the incredible debt level we have now accumulated if it can be offset by such land sales. At least this will hopefully give you a starting point.

I think you could try to find stuff by Darrell Castle (the CP VP-candidate). On the CP of West Virginia website, they have some videos on several subjects (including monetary policy):
http://www.cpwv.org/

Look on YouTube and stuff like that - he has a lot of opinions on the deficit, bankruptcy, and the like.

The idea is that if we abolish the IRS, we would also have to abolish several other unconstitutional Federal departments as well as other unconstitutional spending such as foreign aid and the like. In fact the abolishing of the income tax would necessitate this because there would not be the money available to afford them.

Once the government was shrunk back to constitutional levels, then you would have a surplus of money to pay down the debt and take care of business here at home.

Ray

(04-27-2009 04:47 PM)stoney2677 Wrote:  i have a question. i understand the tax system and the way its supposed to work. my question is not for arguing but for info. what i dont understand is how does it pay down the national debt. i see that states would contribute to balance the deficit if tariffs and excise tax fall short, but nothing about the debt. enlighten me please.

dave

That's the problem with fractional-reserve banking is that more money is owed than is actually printed and in circulation.

There's like $18 Trillion in circulation just imagine what the Federal-Reserve is going to want back with the base amount and interest ??

Watch this film...

The Money Masters.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...qAKQtJmzBA

(11-17-2008 06:52 PM)ChrisAR Wrote:  I would be very interested on knowing more about this. For example, is the platform of the CST compatible with the Fair Tax initiative (sales taxes + excise taxes + tariffs)?

Good question. I support the Fair Tax because it would repeal the 16th amendment which untaxes incomes.

(07-06-2009 12:44 AM)Freepatriot Wrote:  

(11-17-2008 06:52 PM)ChrisAR Wrote:  I would be very interested on knowing more about this. For example, is the platform of the CST compatible with the Fair Tax initiative (sales taxes + excise taxes + tariffs)?

Good question. I support the Fair Tax because it would repeal the 16th amendment which untaxes incomes.

Here is an article written by the Constitution Party Vice Chairman and former Vice Presidential candidate Darrel Castle.
http://www.constitutionpartymo.org/2009/...is-unfair/