End To The Irs?

[Sojourner]

[quote name='SarahB' post='1394308' date='Sep 27 2007, 04:14 PM']Actually, the Supreme Court ruled that the 16th Amendment gave the government no new power to tax us, especially on what we made for labor. That's a direct tax, and prohibited by the Constitution.

I'll have to search for that case. I thougth I had it saved on my computer, but I can't find it. I'll look for it. I'll have to look for that Supreme Court case, too. I can't remember the name of it right now.

I'm not against taxes, just unconstitutional ones.[/quote]
You need to cite the Supreme Court ruling in which they found that, because I am not aware of it. And neither, apparently, is Congress or the IRS. I reiterate my earlier statement that your beliefs along these lines are a fallacy, and to act on them would be very, very stupid and could land you in jail. Here is part of my tax law reading for tomorrow.

1. Historical background. Congress enacted the first income tax in 1861 as a means of financing the Civil War. See Act of Aug. 5, 1861, sec. 49, 12 Stat. 292, 309. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Civil War income tax in Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1880). After the Civil War, the income tax statute expired in 1871. In 1894, Congress again enacted the personal income tax, which the Supreme Court quickly invalidated as unconstitutional. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895). In 1909, Congress enacted a corporate income tax, which the Supreme Court found was a constitutional exercise of Congress' power to tax. Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911). On February 25, 1913, the requisite number of states ratified the 16th amendment, which permitted Congress to impose an income tax without having to apportion it.

a. In Pollock the Court concluded that the newly enacted income tax violated the requirements in the constitution that all direct taxes be apportioned among the states in accordance with population. U.S. const. art. I, § 2, cl. 3 and § 9, cl. 4. This meant that if Minnesota had 2% of the total population in the United States, then only 2% of the revenue from the tax could come from Minnesota.

This rather odd rule on direct taxation was part of the “Great Compromise” at the Constitutional Convention held in Philadelphia in 1787. The southern states, with much larger populations of slaves, wanted representatives in the House of Representatives to be apportioned based on the number of human inhabitants. The Northern states, which had fewer slaves, did not want slaves counted at all. So the delegates agreed that each slave should be counted as three/fifths of a person. Then the idea arose that federal direct taxes should be apportioned according to the census. The 14th amendment removed the three/fifths rule to reflect the new constitutional regime reflected in the 13th amendment, which eliminated the power of the federal or state governments to permit slavery.

The administrative requirements of apportioning some direct taxes were so burdensome that previously enacted direct taxes were repealed shortly after their enactment. Federal property taxes, which would have been direct taxes, were enacted by Congress to fund the War of 1812 and the Civil War. Congress repealed both of these taxes before they could get started.

The 1894 income tax could have survived the courts' constitutional objections if it were viewed as an indirect tax or if it had been apportioned according to the population of each state. The Pollock court found that the income tax was a direct tax. Because it was not apportioned, it violated the constitution. Because an apportioned income tax was unworkable, the court's decision killed the income tax until the Constitution, or its interpretation, was changed.

The Pollock decision hinged on the distinction between a direct and an indirect tax because direct taxes had to be apportioned and indirect taxes did not. The 16th amendment empowered Congress to impose "taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States."

Most modern economists now view the income tax as a direct tax because the taxpayer is personally liable for the payment of the tax. At the end of the 19th century, this was a contested concept. A property tax is also a direct tax and has always been considered to be a direct tax. A sales tax is an indirect tax because the seller is liable for the tax, but the seller can and usually does pass the tax on to the ultimate consumer.

[Sojourner]

In addition (and this is my own and not my prof's summary) courts have found that the 16th amendment is an [b]exception[/b] to the constitutional prohibition against non-apportioned direct taxes. It is a Constitutional Amendment, and therefore [i]is part of the Constitution[/i]. So your statement, Sarah, that the Constitution prohibits direct taxation of income is factually in error.

I'll also note that the Constitution does not prohibit direct taxation. It simply says that all direct taxes must be apportioned by population.

[url="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34031"]Here is a story about the woman you were referencing. [/url]
She was found not guilty of criminal charges of tax evasion. This means that a jury found that she did not have the intent to break the law, and therefore is not guilty of the criminal penalties.

HOWEVER that does not mean she is not liable for taxes. And frankly, her understanding that the IRS Code would contain the support for Congress to tax her is a misunderstanding of how the system works. The Code is merely the instructions for HOW taxation works, not WHY it is allowable. It is allowable because of the 16th amendment, not because of the IRS Code. This is the distinction between the legislative and executive branch. Legislators develop policy, and the executive branch carries out this policy. "Why should I have to pay taxes?" is inherently a legislative and not executive question.

Edited September 27, 2007 by Terra Firma

[dairygirl4u2c]

sales instead of income is interesting. i remember i used to embrace that view and is till might but haven't given it much thought for a long time. i guess i still would. but im not sure it'd negate all the problems that are natural to tax for income.
eg peole would still pay with goods instead of money and fair market values would need calculated and basis in the property etc. and barter goods would still gbe masquarading as gifts, and gift issues in general.
so a complicated system is unavoidable. i'm not sure it's making things much more simpler. i'd have to think about that more i guess.

[SarahB]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1394339' date='Sep 27 2007, 06:09 PM'][url="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34031"]Here is a story about the woman you were referencing. [/url]
She was found not guilty of criminal charges of tax evasion. This means that a jury found that she did not have the intent to break the law, and therefore is not guilty of the criminal penalties.[/quote]

No, that wasn't it. It was a man and the jury ruled that the IRS didn't have the capacity to tax us based on income. I'm still looking.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='SarahB' post='1394368' date='Sep 27 2007, 05:38 PM']No, that wasn't it. It was a man and the jury ruled that the IRS didn't have the capacity to tax us based on income. I'm still looking.[/quote]
Well, I don't think hell is getting any colder. But hey, maybe so.

[chelsea]

My uncle works for the IRS.

I think people just dont like them because people dont like paying taxes. I dont like paying taxes either, but seriously, they're important for the functioning of our country. They may not be used in the right ways, but without taxes we would collapse.

[Anomaly]

My bro works for the IRS. W/O the IRS, he'd have to get a new job and my mom would make me hire him.

Yeah taxes!
Yeah IRS!

[Socrates]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1394264' date='Sep 27 2007, 03:19 PM']haha, you can teach an "archaic history of american taxation systems" one day... explaining the significance of the date "April 15" in historical media to the generations who will grow up without that burden :

one can dream...

anyway, I think it's a terrible injustice that we have a taxation system that has to be negotiated by people with expensive degrees on the subject. It makes us dependent upon the system and cuts down our ability to have independence and freedom the way the Founding Fathers intended it.[/quote]


[quote name='adt6247' post='1394269' date='Sep 27 2007, 03:27 PM']The federal government could actually have significantly more tax income if it switched to a flat tax model without a refund system, or a consumption tax model, or better yet, abolished all taxes other than tariffs and excise taxes, the IRS would no longer be necessary.[/quote]


[quote name='SarahB' post='1394308' date='Sep 27 2007, 04:14 PM']Actually, the Supreme Court ruled that the 16th Amendment gave the government no new power to tax us, especially on what we made for labor. That's a direct tax, and prohibited by the Constitution.

I'll have to search for that case. I thougth I had it saved on my computer, but I can't find it. I'll look for it. I'll have to look for that Supreme Court case, too. I can't remember the name of it right now.

I'm not against taxes, just unconstitutional ones.[/quote]
I agree with all the above.

[quote name='chelsea' post='1394435' date='Sep 27 2007, 08:19 PM']My uncle works for the IRS.

I think people just dont like them because people dont like paying taxes. I dont like paying taxes either, but seriously, they're important for the functioning of our country. They may not be used in the right ways, but without taxes we would collapse.[/quote]
Government has gotten much too big and taxes have gotten much too high.
A national income tax is unconstitutional and punishes Americans for their work. Our country got by fine for 137 years until the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913. (A national income tax had previously been ruled unconstitutional).

Of course that was back when America was still the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, rather than a nation of spineless government-dependent socialists.

Edited September 28, 2007 by Socrates

[SarahB]

The 16th Amdenment says that 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.

Article 1 Section 9 says that no direct tax shall be laid unless it is in porportion to the census or enumeration.

Hence, the 16th Amendment is completly unconstitutional because it allows for what is specifically denied in the 1st Article. I still have to look for the name of the Supreme Court ruling that said that. I'm lazy, I can't help it.

[Aloysius]

An ammendment cannot be deemed "unconstitutional"; an ammendment is, by definition, part of the constitution. The reason they added the 16th Ammendment was because when they had tried to institute a federal income tax previously, the Supreme Court shot it down as unconstitutional. So they were smart the next time, first they changed the constitution with an ammendment, and then they instituted the federal income tax. ergo, the tax is technically constitutional.

The only way an ammendment can be made unconstitutional is if another ammendment passes nullifying that ammendment. Otherwise, it is by defintion "constitutional".

Ron Paul talks about the history of the Income Tax a little bit on the page I posted.

[adt6247]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1394291' date='Sep 27 2007, 05:56 PM']well bottomline, IRS is needed for the enforcement of taxes not paid.

but beyond that, even the models posed adt would require someone to ensure it's done proper and right. even with tariffs etc, it's too simplistic to think, gee all tarifss are such that i get money for goods. it could be good for goods. it could be good for a release of debt. it could be all kinds of things. someone has to look at this to be fair.
i kinda wonder if adt read my initial post.

i know it's complicated, and too bad an ordinary person cna'lttt understand it, but that's life. we don't want to have simplicity at the sake of fairness and other justice.
so we can either not have fairness or justice, or we can have it where everyone has to learn tehse rules, or we can have where gov people tell the people the rules when they need them which is essentially what we do now but more efficient, or we cna do what we do now.

the bottom line. no one likes that it's complicated. and every system starts with the idea of a simple tax. but realities set in and people want thins fair. i recommend the book, taxes in paradise, to illustrate that point.[/quote]
The IRS is an incredibly complicated and large organization. It doesn't deal with tariffs or any form of consumption tax, to the best of my knowledge. If the government were to shrink to the size where only tariffs were necessary, the IRS could be replaced with a very, VERY small organization, not one with its current structure. In this case, all it would do would be cash checks for the fed, and perform audits -- nothing more. Not the huge bureaucracy it is today. In fact, it would be easier to dismantle the IRS and replace it in such a case than to refactor it.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='adt6247' post='1394658' date='Sep 28 2007, 06:01 AM']The IRS is an incredibly complicated and large organization. It doesn't deal with tariffs or any form of consumption tax, to the best of my knowledge. If the government were to shrink to the size where only tariffs were necessary, the IRS could be replaced with a very, VERY small organization, not one with its current structure. In this case, all it would do would be cash checks for the fed, and perform audits -- nothing more. Not the huge bureaucracy it is today. In fact, it would be easier to dismantle the IRS and replace it in such a case than to refactor it.[/quote]

this is true. it'd be smaller. and for the average joe six pack, they woldn't have to worry about anything as not tariffs. so for most it'd be a good thing.


also, i echo al's comments. an amendment is by definition constituitonal. not sure what soc is saying by saying it's not. and not sure what sarah is saying saying it's not. if they provided support other than speculatuion what what they might have heard, as opposed to the clear reading on the amendment and terra's info and such, i might agree.

[Anomaly]

Actually, the vast bulk of what IRS Agents do is watch businesses and business owners to make sure they pay the payroll and corporate taxes. The actual percentage of regualar individuals who get audited is very small and doesn't take up much of their manpower at all. Processing income taxes of individuals is done in bulk, and they maintain a certain amount of people who go after blatant fraud. And of course, tax laws are used to go after criminals, drug dealers, etc. The IRS works intimately with the DEA and ATF.

[SarahB]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1394656' date='Sep 28 2007, 04:06 AM']An ammendment cannot be deemed "unconstitutional"; an ammendment is, by definition, part of the constitution. The reason they added the 16th Ammendment was because when they had tried to institute a federal income tax previously, the Supreme Court shot it down as unconstitutional. So they were smart the next time, first they changed the constitution with an ammendment, and then they instituted the federal income tax. ergo, the tax is technically constitutional.

The only way an ammendment can be made unconstitutional is if another ammendment passes nullifying that ammendment. Otherwise, it is by defintion "constitutional".

Ron Paul talks about the history of the Income Tax a little bit on the page I posted.[/quote]


The Constitution is supposed to be the Supreme Law of the land. If a power was already denied by the founders, then there's no basis for instating it. Just because they managed to pass it doesn't make it any less wrong. Please, the government passes bogus laws all the time. *coughPatrtiotActcough*

Yeah, I know, that's not an amendment to the Constitution. Just an example of how our wonderful "representatives" in Washinton take the Constitution and tell us to shove it where the sun doesn't shine.

[dairygirl4u2c]

you can say a amendment to const shouldn't be constituional as per your opinion. but, saying it is not constitiuonal as per the actual reading of it, (and arguably the justices reading of it) is flawed.