pull down to refresh
100 sats \ 20 replies \ @Enemy_of_the_state 11 Apr \ parent \ on: History of Federal Tax Rates charts_and_numbers
You are incorrect.
The 16th amendment allows the federal government to impose an income tax, without apportionment among the states. It does not authorize a direct tax (Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad).
The "income tax" must be an excise, aka privilege tax. It applies to foreigners (individuals, companies) earning income in the USA, not US citizens earning income in the USA (which is a right, not a privilege subject to an excise tax.)
How about posting the actual law that says US citizens working for themselves or private companies, are required to pay a tax on income earned in the United States. I'll wait.
Again, this is really a legal debate and interpretation. Yours might be correct I'm not arguing that. I didn't see anywhere that "income tax must be an excise" I only saw "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived". (Income include wages apparently).
Forget the appropriation to the states for a second, all I see that they can tax your wages legally, that's my interpretation and I see everyone around me doing the same so my I guess is I'm doing this right. I also see people being locked up and property being seized for NOT paying it. So, forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical about your interpretation. Let me ask you this: Did you pay your personal taxes for 2023? If not, can you share how did you accomplish this? Asking for a friend :-)
reply
there are two types of tax laid out in the constitution, direct taxes which REQUIRE apportionment (equal tax per person across all states) and excise taxes which are taxes on a privilege (right to property is not a privilege)
The 16th amendment simply overturned the problematic Pollock decision (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/157/429/)
but very clearly (according to Supreme Court Chief Justice White) did NOT introduce any new taxes. He reaffirmed that it is an excise tax NOT a direct tax without apportionment (which would be unlawful). Half of the circuit court judges to this day affirm the excise tax status. Once you understand what the privilege being taxed is, you can understand who it applies to and who it doesn't.
you are right to be skeptical as it is one of the largest financial frauds ever perpetrated against normal US citizens by the IRS through slight of hand and omission of facts and then through businesses forcing employees and customers to complete tax forms that dont apply to them.
The income tax CERTAINLY exists--it just simply does not apply to the VAST majority of american citizens.
people get into trouble by identifying themselves to the IRS as taxpayers (through W9's W4's and 1099's) and THEN not paying the taxes that such a taxpayer would owe.
its definitely a rabbithole but we're no stranger to those around here.
reply
Thanks. That is the most digestible explanation I heard in a long time. I think you are right on the money by saying that this is so deeply perpetuated into business practices that we are consider this "normal" (myself included). I guess I have more learning to do as this topic is an interest of mine.
reply
you can check out Dave Champion on Twitter/Rumble for more details. Don't let his appearance deceive you, he has the most level-headed and source-backed info that I've found to date on this very touchy subject.
He pitches his book at the end of every video which is a bit annoying BUT it is a fantastic book that lays everything out perfectly and saves a lot of arduous legal reading bc he's been down this rabbithole for 40 years. Can get the majority of it from watching a bunch of his vids for free though.
reply
reply
UPDATE: I'm working on a detailed outline to accompany a "book report" on this topic. Since it's a detailed topic a simple book report would likely miss a lot of the most convincing arguments and be seen as BS. the outline includes specific case law to back up the claims.
Then if people still have questions or want to go deeper they can download the book.
I've even toyed with the idea of crowdsourcing everyone's feedback and questions and then booking a call with the author to clear up more details afterwards.
reply
Are you a lawyer or have a legal background?
reply
will consider it. also working on "open sourcing" the book because its currently self-published, pricey and one really needs to take a leap of faith to get their hands on it.
I second this
reply
Now, I wonder when did this start? Social Security number is the first introduction into this web and perhaps our first declaration as taxpayer. Was it not? I would gladly get rid of one since by the time I'm ready to retire (whatever that means) there will be no money left in the system anyway. I just can imagine how "easy" the life would be without one (e.g. get a job, driver license, a passport or god forbid a bank account :-)) </sarcasm> Silly me, and I thought Bitcoin was a "tulip-mania" or "ponzi-scheme" . It was SSA from the day one.
reply
it's unrelated to social security. it's all tied into the W9's and W4's (and embedded W9's in bank account /investment account opening docs).
you can keep your social just dont tell every company you do business with that you are a taxpayer when you are not (under the definitions clearly defined in the tax code, NOT the common laymans definitions)
reply
He is citing case law from 1895
Weak argument
reply
Can you provide recent case law about income taxes?
reply
people get into trouble by identifying themselves to the IRS as taxpayers (through W9's W4's and 1099's) and THEN not paying the taxes that such a taxpayer would owe.
accepting the terms and then not honoring it is what gets people into trouble, and almost nobody compreheds that
reply
exactly
reply
No company will hire you if you don’t fill out a W form
reply
Income tax is not an excise tax
You are changing the definition of excise
reply
What was the year of the court case you cited?
Have you ever been audited?
reply