A Little Bit of History about Our Two Major Parties

[w8tlftr]

The 16th Amendment was not properly ratified.
Although the Constitution describes how to ratify amendments, it doesn’t say who is supposed to keep track of the ratification process and let us know when the required three-fourths of the states have ratified an amendment. After some confusion about the status of some amendments (including the infamous “Titles of Nobility” amendment that fell at least one state short of ratification, but appeared in numerous copies of the Constitution in the early and middle 1800s), Congress decided that the Secretary of State should certify what amendments have been ratified. Congress proposed the 16th Amendment on July 12, 1909, and, on February 3, 1913, Secretary of State Philander Knox certified that it had been ratified.

The argument that the 16th Amendment was not ratified is best explained (and refuted) by this quotation from U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986):

“Thomas is a tax protester, and one of his arguments is that he did not need to file tax returns because the sixteenth amendment is not part of the constitution. It was not properly ratified, Thomas insists, repeating the argument of W. Benson & M. Beckman, The Law That Never Was (1985). Benson and Beckman review the documents concerning the states’ ratification of the sixteenth amendment and conclude that only four states ratified the sixteenth amendment; they insist that the official promulgation of that amendment by Secretary of State Knox in 1913 is therefore void.

“Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913. Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal instruments of ratification to the Secretary of State. (Minnesota notified the Secretary orally, and additional states ratified later; we consider only those Secretary Knox considered.) Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. The text Congress transmitted to the states was: “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.” Many of the instruments neglected to capitalize “States,” and some capitalized other words instead. The instrument from Illinois had “remuneration” in place of “enumeration”; the instrument from Missouri substituted “levy” for “lay”; the instrument from Washington had “income” not “incomes”; others made similar blunders.

“Thomas insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and--taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems--advised the Secretary that he was authorized to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so.

“Although Thomas urges us to take the view of several state courts that only agreement on the literal text may make a legal document effective, the Supreme Court follows the “enrolled bill rule.” If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted. Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 36 L.Ed. 294, 12 S.Ct. 495 (1892). The principle is equally applicable to constitutional amendments. See Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 66 L.Ed. 505, 42 S.Ct. 217 (1922), which treats as conclusive the declaration of the Secretary of State that the nineteenth amendment had been adopted. In United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d. 457, 462-463, n.6 (7th Cir. 1986), we relied on Leser, as well as the inconsequential nature of the objections in the face of the 73-year acceptance of the effectiveness of the sixteenth amendment, to reject a claim similar to Thomas’. See also Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 83 L. Ed. 1385, 59 S. Ct. 972 (1939) (questions about ratification of amendments may be nonjusticiable). Secretary Knox declared that enough states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary’ decision is not transparently defective. We need not decide when, if ever, such a decision may be reviewed in order to know that Secretary Knox’ decision is now beyond review.”
U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986).

It has also been claimed that the votes of Georgia legislature were recorded incorrectly and that Georgia actually rejected the amendment, contrary to Knox’ report. However, no Congressman or other official from Georgia has ever complained about the “error” and, even if there was an error and Georgia did not ratify the amendment, there would still have been thirty-seven ratifications, one more than the thirty-six required. (Article V of the Constitution requires that amendments to the Constitution be approved by the legislatures of three fourths of the states, and there were forty-eight states in 1913.)

Another claim is that the ratification of the 16th Amendment by several states was invalid because the constitutions of those states prohibited an income tax. A similar argument as to the 19th Amendment has been flatly rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in connection with a different constitutional amendment:

“The second contention is that in the Constitutions of several of the 36 states named in the proclamation of the Secretary of State there are provisions which render inoperative the alleged ratifications by their Legislatures. The argument is that by reason of these specific provisions the Legislatures were without power to ratify. But the function of a state Legislature in ratifying a proposed amendment to the federal Constitution, like the function of Congress in proposing the amendment, is a federal function derived from the federal Constitution; and it transcends any limitations sought to be imposed by the people of a state.”
Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 136-137 (1922).

These technical arguments against the ratification of the 16th Amendment are troubling because they are so undemocratic (as are many other tax protester arguments). Except for a couple of claims about the votes of two states, there is really no doubt that Congress proposed an amendment that would give it the power to tax incomes, and that three fourths of the states approved the amendment. But tax protesters would like for the courts to nullify the amendment, and so nullify the power of Congress and the states to amend the Constitution, and so deny to the people the power to govern themselves, because of typographical errors.

But can courts even consider attacks on the validity of constitutional amendments? As noted by the 7th Circuit in Thomas, the argument that the 16th Amendment is invalid is not only legally and factually wrong, but it is an argument that federal courts are unable (or at least reluctant) to consider. The federal courts have always recognized limits upon their powers, and one of those limits is that the courts should not get involved in issues that the Constitution has entrusted to other branches of the government. The Constitution says that Congress may propose amendments, and the states may ratify them. Whether an amendment has been properly ratified is considered to be a “political question” to be resolved by Congress and the states, and not in court. In a challenge to the validity of the 19th Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled that official notices of the state legislatures to the Secretary of State were “binding upon him, and, being certified by his proclamation, is conclusive upon the courts.” Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 137 (1922).

Other decisions confirming (or refusing to consider) the validity of the 16th Amendment:

“Despite plaintiff’ and numerous other tax protesters’ contention that the Sixteenth Amendment was never ratified, courts have long recognized the Sixteenth Amendment’ ratification and validity.”
Betz v. United States, 40 Fed.Cl. 286, 295 (1998).

“As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the following arguments alluded to by the Lonsdales are completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous: .. .. (4) the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution is either invalid or applies only to corporations . . . .”
Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).

See also, United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 273; Pollard v. Commissioner, 816 F.2d 603 (11th Cir. 1987); United States v. Benson, 941 F.2d 598 (7th Cir. 1991); Sochia v. Commissioner, 23 F.3d 941 (5th Cir. 1994), reh. den. 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 22014; United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 888; United State v. Sitka, 845 F.2d 43 (2nd Cir. 1988); Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236, 239-41 (7th Cir. 1989); Biermann v. Commissioner, 769 F.2d 707 (11th Cir. 1985); United States v. Buckner, 830 F.2d 102 (1987); United States v. Dube, 820 F.2d 886, 891 (7th Cir. 1986); Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 70-71 (7th Cir. 1986); United States v. Moore, 627 F.2d 830, 833 (7th Cir. 1980); Knoblauch v. Commissioner, 749 F.2d 200, 201 (1984) (“Every court that has considered this argument has rejected it.”), cert. den. 474 U.S. 830 (1985); United States v. Matheson, (9th Cir. 1986); Lysiak v. Commissioner, 816 F.2d 311, 312 (7th Cir. 1987); Quijano v. United States, 93 F.3d 26, 30 (1st Cir. 1996); United States v. Mundt, 29 F.3d 233, 237 (6th Cir. 1994).

In Rev. Rul. 2005-19, 2005-14 I.R.B. 819, the IRS confirmed that the argument that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified is “frivolous” and reliance on it can result in civil and criminal penalties.

The claim that “[t]he Sixteenth Amendment was not ratified, has no effect, contradicts the Constitution as originally ratified, lacks an enabling clause, or does not authorize a non-apportioned, direct income tax” has been identified by the IRS as a “frivolous position” that can result in a penalty of $5,000 when asserted in a tax return or included in certain collection-related submissions. Notice 2007-30, 2007-14 I.R.B. ___.

Tax Protester “Evidence”
A related (and even sillier) claim made by tax protesters is that the ratification of the 16th Amendment by Ohio was invalid because Ohio did not become a state until 1953(!). This strange claim is based on a strange action that Congress took in 1953 to confirm that Ohio was indeed a state. Briefly:

By an act of April 30, 1802 (2 Stat. 173), section 1, Congress provided that “the inhabitants of the eastern division of the territory northwest of the river Ohio, be, and they are hereby authorized to form for themselves a constitution and state government, and to assume such name as they shall deem proper, and the said state, when formed, shall be admitted into the Union, upon the same footing with the original states, in all respects whatsoever.” (This was consistent with the Northwest Territory Ordinance of 1787, which provided that there should be formed from the territory at least three but not more than five states.)

A convention met in Ohio on November 1, 1802, and adopted a constitution on November 29, 1802.

On January 19, 1803, a special committee of Congress reported that “the said Constitution and government so formed is republican, and in conformity to the principles contained in the articles of the ordinance made on the 13th day of July 1787, for the Government of the said Territory: and that it is now necessary to establish a district court within the said State, to carry into complete effect the laws of the United States within the same.” Annals of Congress, 7th Cong., 2d sess., p. 21.

Congress then enacted legislation to declare that all of the laws of the United States shall be in force within the state of Ohio and to establish a federal district court in Ohio, stating in the preamble that “the said state has become one of the United States of America.” Act of February 19, 1803 (2 Stat. 201).

Ohio began sending Representatives and Senators to Congress, began voting in Presidential elections, and has been considered to be a state ever since.

So what’ the problem? When Ohio was preparing for the 150th anniversary of its statehood, researchers discovered that they couldn’t establish the exact date that Ohio became a state, and that there was some confusion on the issue. For example, the Senate Manual (S. Doc. 5, 82d Cong., p. 570) gave the date as March 3, 1803, while the Congressional Biographical Directory (H. Doc. 607, 81st Cong., p. 76, note 9) gave the date as November 29, 1802. Further research showed that Ohio was unique because Congress declared that Ohio would become a state upon fulfilling certain conditions but had never formally declared that the conditions had been met. In admitting other states, Congress either declared that the state would be admitted as of a certain date, or passed an enabling act and then later declared that the state was admitted. In the case of Ohio, Congress passed an enabling act but never formally declared that the conditions of the enabling act had been met, either due to an oversight or due to a belief that a formal declaration was not intended and not needed.

In a 1953 report to Congress, the Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress stated that the lack of a formal resolution “may be considered unessential.” (1953 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2126, 2128.) However, Ohio asked for a formal declaration, sending a new petition for statehood to Washington by horseback (yes, in 1953), and Congress complied (with a certain number of snide jokes), passing a joint resolution that declared Ohio to be one of the United States of America as of March 1, 1803. P.L. 82-204, 67 Stat. 407. The Senate Report to the resolution states that the purpose was “to make formal, legal declaration of the de facto situation with respect to the admission of Ohio as a State of the United States.” Senate Report No. 720, 1953 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2124.

So the fact of the matter was that Ohio was accepted as a state of the United States sometime in 1802 or 1803 and Congress declared the admission to be as of a certain date in 1803, but the declaration was not made until 1953.

LOL... whoa slow down, cowboy. I'm not a lawyer like you. Just a simple database administrator. I'll read it all but it's gonna take me some time.

[Decker]

Geeze man.  A 70 percent tax rate?  Sounds like socialism to me.  I think even Canada is "only" at about 50 percent for higher income earners.    

And the vast majority of the "rich" (those with a high net worth) in this country did not inherit their wealth, etc.  They earned it through hard work, saving, conservative investing, and living below their means.  You should read "The Millionaire Next Door" and "The Millionaire Mind."  Clearly shows most American millionaires did not inherit their money and worked very hard to obtain what they have.  

I did not say that the vast majority of people inherit their wealth.  The annual rate for new millionaires from inheritance is Little less than 50% of all new millionaires.

I'm saying that rich people get most of their money from capital gains and not income.  That is undeniable.

[Decker]

LOL... whoa slow down, cowboy. I'm not a lawyer like you. Just a simple database administrator. I'll read it all but it's gonna take me some time.

I am sorry about the length of that post.  I generally try to paraphrase.  It's a bad habit to cut and paste like I did.

[w8tlftr]

I did not say that the vast majority of people inherit their wealth.  The annual rate for new millionaires from inheritance is Little less than 50% of all new millionaires.

I'm saying that rich people get most of their money from capital gains and not income.  That is undeniable.

So tax capital gains. Leave income alone.

I'm sure you're better educated on this than I am. How did the United States government run prior to the taxation of income?

[Camel Jockey]

So tax capital gains. Leave income alone.

I'm sure you're better educated on this than I am. How did the United States government run prior to the taxation of income?

Nah.. Taxing dividens, interest from bonds and other investments would be like double taxation.. I assume that's what capital gains are? And besides doesn't the US tax capital gains anyways?

Income tax is a necessary evil..

[Dos Equis]

I did not say that the vast majority of people inherit their wealth.  The annual rate for new millionaires from inheritance is Little less than 50% of all new millionaires.

I'm saying that rich people get most of their money from capital gains and not income.  That is undeniable.

The "etc." in my post includes capital gains:  "Anyway, the as we've noted, the rich make most of their wealth through either inheritance or capital gains--selling stocks, selling businesses, etc."  

I disagree with this.  The majority of American millionaires made their money through savings, smart conservative investing, investing in real estate, living below their means, and owning their own businesses.  This is undeniable.  There is a myth that "wealthy" Americans inherited their money.  That is by and large not true.  

And yes capital gains constitutes a large part of the income for wealthy people, but that's not necessarily how they made their money.  One of the most important factors is establishing a comfortable lifestyle, maintaining that lifestyle as income increases, and investing the difference.  American millionaires clip coupons, shop at thrift stores, buy used cars, etc.  These people worked hard for their money.    

[Decker]

So tax capital gains. Leave income alone.

I'm sure you're better educated on this than I am. How did the United States government run prior to the taxation of income?

I'm not a big tax historian but here's how I remember it.  Prior to the constitution, the states were taxed by Britain as part of a royal/corporate venture.  During the revolution, the states levied taxes as they saw fit.  After the constitution, a federal government was established.  The framers knew that money was needed for the government to effectuate national purposes.  The Congress has the power to levy taxes and such.  B/c that power was attached to an apportionment context, the 16th amendment removed that provision.  So Income taxes became constitutional.

Boy, I just realized how little I remember about fundamental history.  I think Colossus would find that funny.

Have a great day w8lftr, I'm off to the docs w/ my wife.

[w8tlftr]

I'm not a big tax historian but here's how I remember it.  Prior to the constitution, the states were taxed by Britain as part of a royal/corporate venture.  During the revolution, the states levied taxes as they saw fit.  After the constitution, a federal government was established.  The framers knew that money was needed for the government to effectuate national purposes.  The Congress has the power to levy taxes and such.  B/c that power was attached to an apportionment context, the 16th amendment removed that provision.  So Income taxes became constitutional.

Boy, I just realized how little I remember about fundamental history.  I think Colossus would find that funny.

Have a great day w8lftr, I'm off to the docs w/ my wife.

Enjoy your time with your wife.

Let me know when you've read Banister's report. I'm curious what you think of it from a lawyer's point of view.

[Decker]

The "etc." in my post includes capital gains:  "Anyway, the as we've noted, the rich make most of their wealth through either inheritance or capital gains--selling stocks, selling businesses, etc."  

I disagree with this.  The majority of American millionaires made their money through savings, smart conservative investing, investing in real estate, living below their means, and owning their own businesses.  This is undeniable.  There is a myth that "wealthy" Americans inherited their money.  That is by and large not true.  

And yes capital gains constitutes a large part of the income for wealthy people, but that's not necessarily how they made their money.  One of the most important factors is establishing a comfortable lifestyle, maintaining that lifestyle as income increases, and investing the difference.  American millionaires clip coupons, shop at thrift stores, buy used cars, etc.  These people worked hard for their money.    

Selling property or a business is a capital gain.

New millionaires from inheritance number between 10-40% depending on how you define inheritance--amounts subject to probate or living trusts, etc.  There is no doubt that most new millionaires are self-made.  I'm not talking about the creation of new millionaires.  That's a poor benchmark for analyzing wealth in this country.  Earned Income is not a great indicator of wealth or who is truly rich. 

I am talking about the top 5% of our population which owns more than the other 95%--true bluebloods. 

The rich own more wealth and make almost all of that wealth through capital gains: the sale of stocks, bonds, properties, businesses etc.  They are of immense assets and have strong political influence.  Taxable earned income just does not figure into this definition of rich/wealthy.

[Decker]

Enjoy your time with your wife.

Let me know when you've read Banister's report. I'm curious what you think of it from a lawyer's point of view.

My wife's been cancer free for a year and half and we'd like to keep it that way.  I go along with her to the doctor's so we have another set of ears and eyes paying attention to her case.

I've read portions of his report 'Investigating the Federal Income Tax'.  His allegations are matters that are well-settled in tax court law.  The legal Q & A that I posted http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html addresses his assertions and debunks them.  While I admire his enthusiasm and sense of justice, he does not do adequate research to support his contentions in the framework of constitutional law, case law, statutory law, and tax policy.

[w8tlftr]

My wife's been cancer free for a year and half and we'd like to keep it that way.  I go along with her to the doctor's so we have another set of ears and eyes paying attention to her case.

I've read portions of his report 'Investigating the Federal Income Tax'.  His allegations are matters that are well-settled in tax court law.  The legal Q & A that I posted http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html addresses his assertions and debunks them.  While I admire his enthusiasm and sense of justice, he does not do adequate research to support his contentions in the framework of constitutional law, case law, statutory law, and tax policy.

Are you going to submit yourself for the reward?

Based on what you're telling me it should be easy money for you.

[Dos Equis]

Selling property or a business is a capital gain.

New millionaires from inheritance number between 10-40% depending on how you define inheritance--amounts subject to probate or living trusts, etc.  There is no doubt that most new millionaires are self-made.  I'm not talking about the creation of new millionaires.  That's a poor benchmark for analyzing wealth in this country.  Earned Income is not a great indicator of wealth or who is truly rich. 

I am talking about the top 5% of our population which owns more than the other 95%--true bluebloods. 

The rich own more wealth and make almost all of that wealth through capital gains: the sale of stocks, bonds, properties, businesses etc.  They are of immense assets and have strong political influence.  Taxable earned income just does not figure into this definition of rich/wealthy.

I was taking issue with this:

Quote from: Decker on April 23, 2007, 12:27:28 PM
That tax rate applies to each dollar earned over $400,000.  In the 1950s, that's a hell of a lot of money.  94% is pretty high but that is a graded scale where for each bracket, that wealthy person pays that bracket's tax percent.  I would have no problem with a top marginal rate of 70% for money earned in excess of million.

But that's me.

Anyway, the as we've noted, the rich make most of their wealth through either inheritance or capital gains--selling stocks, selling businesses, etc. 

You've just said "New millionaires from inheritance number between 10-40% depending on how you define inheritance," which means between 60 and 90 percent of new millionaires do not inherit their wealth.  And I believe capital gains help increase wealth, they don't generally create it.  Perhaps wer're talking about two different issues (wealth creation versus wealth maintenance/increase)? 

But I think the larger point you're trying to make is a disproportionate taxing of people with high net worth?  If so, sounds like class warfare to me, and the redistribution of wealth.     

[Decker]

Are you going to submit yourself for the reward?

Based on what you're telling me it should be easy money for you.

No.  He engages in semantic games.  Here are the answers to his questions.

Q.  What statute in the Code makes me liable to pay income taxes?

A.  The law does not require "liability".  section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code says that

“There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every [married individual, surviving spouse, head of a household, unmarried individual, or married individual filing a separate return] a tax determined in accordance with the following table.. ..”
“Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States ....” Treas. Reg. § 1.1-1(a)(1).

The word “impose” means “to establish or apply as compulsory; levy.” So how can a tax be “imposed” if no one is compelled to pay it? The answer is that it can’t. If a tax is imposed on a person’s income, then that person is liable for the tax as a matter of law.  The imposition of a tax is certainly a function of government and creates an obligation to pay.

His contention is semantic sophistry.

Q. 2.  How can I file a 1040 tax return without waiving my 5th Am. rights?

A.  I assume this is his argument (there are several 5th A arguments):
You cannot be required to file an income tax return because a tax return is a form of testimony and the 5th Amendment guarantees that you cannot be compelled to testify against yourself.

The 5th Amendment applies to criminal proceedings, not civil proceedings, and collecting taxes is a civil proceeding, not a criminal proceeding. You cannot refuse to file an income tax return because of the 5th Amendment.

source:  http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#5th

You have my permission to use those answers to collect the reward.

Due to the intricacies of contract law, you would lose b/c of the way that Bannister frames the questions.

[Decker]

I was taking issue with this:

You've just said "New millionaires from inheritance number between 10-40% depending on how you define inheritance," which means between 60 and 90 percent of new millionaires do not inherit their wealth.  And I believe capital gains help increase wealth, they don't generally create it.  Perhaps wer're talking about two different issues (wealth creation versus wealth maintenance/increase)? 

But I think the larger point you're trying to make is a disproportionate taxing of people with high net worth?  If so, sounds like class warfare to me, and the redistribution of wealth. 

You are correct.  My casual reference was intended to show how the rich make ends meet annually instead of how they became rich.  It's like the guy who parlays a hotdog cart into 20 hotdog carts.  He takes that earned income and starts playing the market, buying other business ventures etc.

Adam Smith, the creator of the 'invisible hand' of capitalism believed in progressive tax rates.  Progressive income taxation puts more of the burden to pay on those able to pay.  We are not asking those americans floating at the poverty level to kick in to the national pot when they can't even make ends meet.

Redistribution of wealth is biconditional.  It goes both ways.  Gov. subsidies, tax breaks, tax abatements, etc.  The role of government is to act in the national interest:  that includes the poor as well as the wealthy.

Class warfare is over.  The rich have won decisively.  We now have inequality of wealth in this country that is surpassing that of the 1920s pre-crash society.     

[Dos Equis]

You are correct.  My casual reference was intended to show how the rich make ends meet annually instead of how they became rich.  It's like the guy who parlays a hotdog cart into 20 hotdog carts.  He takes that earned income and starts playing the market, buying other business ventures etc.

Adam Smith, the creator of the 'invisible hand' of capitalism believed in progressive tax rates.  Progressive income taxation puts more of the burden to pay on those able to pay.  We are not asking those americans floating at the poverty level to kick in to the national pot when they can't even make ends meet.

Redistribution of wealth is biconditional.  It goes both ways.  Gov. subsidies, tax breaks, tax abatements, etc.  The role of government is to act in the national interest:  that includes the poor as well as the wealthy.

Class warfare is over.  The rich have won decisively.  We now have inequality of wealth in this country that is surpassing that of the 1920s pre-crash society.     

I see this quite differently Decker.  "The rich" have been demonized just like "corporations."  In reality, these are by and large hard working people who paid their dues, made good decisions, and are living the American dream.  The government shouldn't be attacking "the rich" solely because they are successful.  Many of these "rich" are small business owners.  They employ a number of people.  Help the support the economy.  They contribute in a large way to the greatness of our country. 

I am adamantly opposed to the government attacking "the rich" as a means to support the rest of the country.  They already pay disproportionate shares of taxes to help run the country.  The state and federal governments should be finding ways to let everyone keep more of their own money.  The government shouldn't be looking for ways to penalize success.  It's just wrong. 

[Decker]

I see this quite differently Decker.  "The rich" have been demonized just like "corporations."  In reality, these are by and large hard working people who paid their dues, made good decisions, and are living the American dream.  The government shouldn't be attacking "the rich" solely because they are successful.  Many of these "rich" are small business owners.  They employ a number of people.  Help the support the economy.  They contribute in a large way to the greatness of our country. 

I am adamantly opposed to the government attacking "the rich" as a means to support the rest of the country.  They already pay disproportionate shares of taxes to help run the country.  The state and federal governments should be finding ways to let everyone keep more of their own money.  The government shouldn't be looking for ways to penalize success.  It's just wrong.

We americans are in this together.  We are the government.  Our government is by and for the people.

As a matter of principle you have those with the strongest arms do the heaviest lifting.  You don't have your grandmother move your barbells from the basement to the attic and you don't have the poor pay the same income tax rate as the affluent. 

Progressive graded tax rates are fair and in the best interest of our country.  A man is entitled to the fruits of his labor but no man is an island nor should he want to be.  His successes are built on the shoulders of those that came before him.  These things were developed by his citizen predecessors:  roads, phones, internet, justice system, defense, currency, moderated market place all depend on tax dollars for maintenance.

Further, the rich people/employers that create jobs are only part of the equation.  The worker that fills those positions should be just as revered.  Let's see the wealthy operate their factories and service industries without workers.  See that type of contention just shows that both employer/leader and employee/follower are necessary pieces to the labor puzzle:  We are in this together.

Out of that arrangement, the employer takes a larger share of the workproduct's reward. 

He pays more in taxes because he earns more money.  The country needs all the leaders it can get.  These people shouldn't be complaining and crying about the tax burden.  They should be proud that they are major contributors to our society.  That doesn't mean don't be vigilant in reassessing what is the proper tax rate though.

[Dos Equis]

We americans are in this together.  We are the government.  Our government is by and for the people.

As a matter of principle you have those with the strongest arms do the heaviest lifting.  You don't have your grandmother move your barbells from the basement to the attic and you don't have the poor pay the same income tax rate as the affluent. 

Progressive graded tax rates are fair and in the best interest of our country.  A man is entitled to the fruits of his labor but no man is an island nor should he want to be.  His successes are built on the shoulders of those that came before him.  These things were developed by his citizen predecessors:  roads, phones, internet, justice system, defense, currency, moderated market place all depend on tax dollars for maintenance.

Further, the rich people/employers that create jobs are only part of the equation.  The worker that fills those positions should be just as revered.  Let's see the wealthy operate their factories and service industries without workers.  See that type of contention just shows that both employer/leader and employee/follower are necessary pieces to the labor puzzle:  We are in this together.

Out of that arrangement, the employer takes a larger share of the workproduct's reward. 

He pays more in taxes because he earns more money.  The country needs all the leaders it can get.  These people shouldn't be complaining and crying about the tax burden.  They should be proud that they are major contributors to our society.  That doesn't mean don't be vigilant in reassessing what is the proper tax rate though.

You're not talking about togetherness.  You're talking about punishing success.  What I hear you saying is go get an education, work, save, invest, etc., but if you make too much money, we (the government) will take it from you and decide how best to spend it.  You're advocating a 70 percent tax rate for income over a million.  That's almost like stealing in my book.  It's punitive.  It's telling Americans you can be successful, but not too successful, or we'll grab what you earn and spend it elsewhere.  That isn't togetherness.  It's socialism. 

[w8tlftr]

No.  He engages in semantic games.  Here are the answers to his questions.

Q.  What statute in the Code makes me liable to pay income taxes?

A.  The law does not require "liability".  section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code says that

“There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every [married individual, surviving spouse, head of a household, unmarried individual, or married individual filing a separate return] a tax determined in accordance with the following table.. ..”
“Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States ....” Treas. Reg. § 1.1-1(a)(1).

The word “impose” means “to establish or apply as compulsory; levy.” So how can a tax be “imposed” if no one is compelled to pay it? The answer is that it can’t. If a tax is imposed on a person’s income, then that person is liable for the tax as a matter of law.  The imposition of a tax is certainly a function of government and creates an obligation to pay.

His contention is semantic sophistry.

Q. 2.  How can I file a 1040 tax return without waiving my 5th Am. rights?

A.  I assume this is his argument (there are several 5th A arguments):
You cannot be required to file an income tax return because a tax return is a form of testimony and the 5th Amendment guarantees that you cannot be compelled to testify against yourself.

The 5th Amendment applies to criminal proceedings, not civil proceedings, and collecting taxes is a civil proceeding, not a criminal proceeding. You cannot refuse to file an income tax return because of the 5th Amendment.

source:  http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#5th

You have my permission to use those answers to collect the reward.

Due to the intricacies of contract law, you would lose b/c of the way that Bannister frames the questions.

First off thanks for taking the time to post this and educate me on tax law.

But.... this also shows that the U.S. tax code is very complicated and confusing for the majority of Americans. No offense but the law should not be complex that it requires a lawyer to pick it apart and explain it to the common man.

[w8tlftr]

We americans are in this together.  We are the government.  Our government is by and for the people.

As a matter of principle you have those with the strongest arms do the heaviest lifting.  You don't have your grandmother move your barbells from the basement to the attic and you don't have the poor pay the same income tax rate as the affluent. 

Progressive graded tax rates are fair and in the best interest of our country.  A man is entitled to the fruits of his labor but no man is an island nor should he want to be.  His successes are built on the shoulders of those that came before him.  These things were developed by his citizen predecessors:  roads, phones, internet, justice system, defense, currency, moderated market place all depend on tax dollars for maintenance.

Further, the rich people/employers that create jobs are only part of the equation.  The worker that fills those positions should be just as revered.  Let's see the wealthy operate their factories and service industries without workers.  See that type of contention just shows that both employer/leader and employee/follower are necessary pieces to the labor puzzle:  We are in this together.

Out of that arrangement, the employer takes a larger share of the workproduct's reward. 

He pays more in taxes because he earns more money.  The country needs all the leaders it can get.  These people shouldn't be complaining and crying about the tax burden.  They should be proud that they are major contributors to our society.  That doesn't mean don't be vigilant in reassessing what is the proper tax rate though.

Nicely written, Decker, and you make valid points but I still think the "you make more money so can afford to pay more taxes" is morally wrong. When those with the strong arms do ALL the lifting you can't be surprised when they get pissed about it.

I look at it like this. I have $100.00 and you have $25.00. We both have access to a public service but I have to give up 40 percent of my money to use that same service you get to use and you pay a smaller percentage.

In my opinion that is theft and does nothing but create resentment.

If we're truly all in this together and (God help us all) direct income of our taxes never goes away then make it EQUAL. By that I mean a flat tax across the board. Everyone plays an equal percentage. At least that pill isn't as bitter to swallow.

[Decker]

You're not talking about togetherness.  You're talking about punishing success.  What I hear you saying is go get an education, work, save, invest, etc., but if you make too much money, we (the government) will take it from you and decide how best to spend it.  You're advocating a 70 percent tax rate for income over a million.  That's almost like stealing in my book.  It's punitive.  It's telling Americans you can be successful, but not too successful, or we'll grab what you earn and spend it elsewhere.  That isn't togetherness.  It's socialism.

In my world, Socialism is where the workers own the means of production--like an ESOP (employee stock ownership plan--Microsoft had one and all the participants-janitors to managers-retired millionaires).

Progressive taxation is not Socialism.  Our government is special.  It is not the oppressive Soviet Style big government nor is it an arbitrarily run dictatorship--We are the government and we are governed only by our consent. 

Government by its nature is a redistributive force:  subsidizing the creation/maintenance of the Internet, encouraging people to start businesses through loan programs, bailing out major industries like the auto industry when it fails in the free market and helping the poor stay viable members of society through assistance programs etc.

We may argue about what constitutes the proper highest marginal rate--you say 70% is confiscatory--and that's good.  It is what we should be doing.  Remember, the highest marginal rate is paid only on dollars earned in that bracket.  In the 1950s, only dollars earned over $400,000 were subject this robust tax rate.  Back then that was a lot of money. 

Why do we tax that way?  The rationale reverberates through many many US laws:  The US has an interest in keeping money flowing, properties moving and citizens productive.  We don't want an aristocratic or leisure class of society.  Taxes keep individuals from making a mint and resting on their laurels.  We don't want whole class of Paris Hiltons.  We want productive citizens.

There's a certain amount of sense in that.

[Decker]

Nicely written, Decker, and you make valid points but I still think the "you make more money so can afford to pay more taxes" is morally wrong. When those with the strong arms do ALL the lifting you can't be surprised when they get pissed about it.

I look at it like this. I have $100.00 and you have $25.00. We both have access to a public service but I have to give up 40 percent of my money to use that same service you get to use and you pay a smaller percentage.

In my opinion that is theft and does nothing but create resentment.

If we're truly all in this together and (God help us all) direct income of our taxes never goes away then make it EQUAL. By that I mean a flat tax across the board. Everyone plays an equal percentage. At least that pill isn't as bitter to swallow.

Thanks.  I really appreciate you taking the time to discuss this stuff.  I understand your point.  It makes sense that at its core fairness means everyone is treated in the same manner.  The flat tax is easy to understand from that point.

Your analogy comparing $100 guy to a $25 guy and the taxes they pay is good but it's not enough.  There is a cost to maintaing our civilization--tax dollars.  The $100 guy can pay a larger share and still have enough left over to live a life.  If the $25 guy pays the same rate, it's likely he won't have enough left over to make ends meet.  Then he falls through the cracks and contributes little or nothing to our society and in fact becomes a drag.  But we are talking dollar amounts that are miles away from the $100 to $25 ratio.  It's hard not see a difference btn a guy earning $20 million and another earning $40,000 w/ a family to support.

The middle class and lower middle class are able to pay income tax so that the high-end earners do not have to carry the load alone tax-wise.

To me, with these attendant considerations, progressive rates are fairer and more sensible than a flat rate.

[w8tlftr]

Thanks.  I really appreciate you taking the time to discuss this stuff.  I understand your point.  It makes sense that at its core fairness means everyone is treated in the same manner.  The flat tax is easy to understand from that point.

Your analogy comparing $100 guy to a $25 guy and the taxes they pay is good but it's not enough.  There is a cost to maintaing our civilization--tax dollars.  The $100 guy can pay a larger share and still have enough left over to live a life.  If the $25 guy pays the same rate, it's likely he won't have enough left over to make ends meet.  Then he falls through the cracks and contributes little or nothing to our society and in fact becomes a drag.  But we are talking dollar amounts that are miles away from the $100 to $25 ratio.  It's hard not see a difference btn a guy earning $20 million and another earning $40,000 w/ a family to support.

The middle class and lower middle class are able to pay income tax so that the high-end earners do not have to carry the load alone tax-wise.

To me, with these attendant considerations, progressive rates are fairer and more sensible than a flat rate.

In all fairness to the $25.00 guy I would exclude him from paying any taxes at all. However, the government better do it's damnest to teach that guy to fish so he can contribute to society.

[Decker]

In all fairness to the $25.00 guy I would exclude him from paying any taxes at all. However, the government better do it's damnest to teach that guy to fish so he can contribute to society.

hahaha.  I like that.  I have to tell that one to my brother.

[Dos Equis]

In my world, Socialism is where the workers own the means of production--like an ESOP (employee stock ownership plan--Microsoft had one and all the participants-janitors to managers-retired millionaires).

Progressive taxation is not Socialism.  Our government is special.  It is not the oppressive Soviet Style big government nor is it an arbitrarily run dictatorship--We are the government and we are governed only by our consent. 

Government by its nature is a redistributive force:  subsidizing the creation/maintenance of the Internet, encouraging people to start businesses through loan programs, bailing out major industries like the auto industry when it fails in the free market and helping the poor stay viable members of society through assistance programs etc.

We may argue about what constitutes the proper highest marginal rate--you say 70% is confiscatory--and that's good.  It is what we should be doing.  Remember, the highest marginal rate is paid only on dollars earned in that bracket.  In the 1950s, only dollars earned over $400,000 were subject this robust tax rate.  Back then that was a lot of money. 

Why do we tax that way?  The rationale reverberates through many many US laws:  The US has an interest in keeping money flowing, properties moving and citizens productive.  We don't want an aristocratic or leisure class of society.  Taxes keep individuals from making a mint and resting on their laurels.  We don't want whole class of Paris Hiltons.  We want productive citizens.

There's a certain amount of sense in that.

One of the problems is the system is unfair in its current state and you're advocating making it even worse.  Taking 70 percent of a person's income will discourage them from trying to be successful.  And we don't need progressive taxation to begin with.  Several states have no income tax.  That's about as fair as you can get. 

And what is wrong with people "making a mint and resting on their laurels"?  What business does the government have dictating (pun intended) what a person does with whatever that person has legally earned? 

[Old_Rooster]

My wife's been cancer free for a year and half and we'd like to keep it that way.  I go along with her to the doctor's so we have another set of ears and eyes paying attention to her case.

I've read portions of his report 'Investigating the Federal Income Tax'.  His allegations are matters that are well-settled in tax court law.  The legal Q & A that I posted http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html addresses his assertions and debunks them.  While I admire his enthusiasm and sense of justice, he does not do adequate research to support his contentions in the framework of constitutional law, case law, statutory law, and tax policy.

I hope your wife remains cancer free, may god bless her.
And i'll pray for her.  I hate cancer.  I've lost many good friends to that god awful disease.
Cherish each day with her.