Perfect example of what happens when people try to use bogus sources, like wikipedia, to support their arguments.
[and]
Whether you like it or not there is an income tax as established by the 16th Amendment, and Title 26 of the US Code. The IRS was created by the Department of the Treasury, under the statutory authority given to the Sec. of the Treasury by Congress. All of which I clearly posted.
Finding sources much better than wikipedia, where any nutjob can create, add, or delete information on any topic, will serve you well.
DMF, I know this was not between you and I, but after reading a few more
pages of this thread where people argue about the legality of taxes (yes, they
are), I would
really still like someone to address this from the original intent
perspective:
http://thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=3444419&postcount=18
So as DMF and others argue that the tax is legal, I would argue that the rates
constantly and consistently being raised over the last 4-5 generations have
far exceeded the original intent of the lawmakers and
citizens who voted for
it at the time. Furthermore, I would have to wonder about the "representation"
I have today that derives its income from my tax money and votes itself pay
raises in the middle of the night (most of you are probably too young to remember
these things). Everything seems a little bit too "back room" for a Constitutional
Republic to be functioning properly --wouldn't you say?
Come on, guys, can we at least look back at a 1% federal tax on incomes
over
$62K (adjusted for inflation) compared to what we have now? Might there
be a reason why people today are fed up and want a modern Boston Tea Party?
Anybody care to work the numbers on the tea tax and what percentage of
income it was back at that time?
If you're going to cite the law that supports what the IRS does, let's go back
to
original intent and spirit of the law.
Without making the feds stick to original intent, you will lose not only money
in your dealings with them, but other rights like the
Second Amendment. This
is what they have been hitting us with for years --saying something does not
mean what it says and
distorting original intent over time. This is how you've
lost your 2A, 4A, had your taxes raised
at all levels of government, etc over
time.
BTW, here's video on Gonzalez:
http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/us/2007/06/21/tx.tax.revolt.kiii
Again, I disagree with where this escalation has gone. Personally, I'd have
weighed the options differently and paid the tax knowing that its enforcement
was backed up by armed force more than true legality under spirit of the law
and its original intent (BTW, we could also bring up discussions back during my
great grandparents' time about how this was to be a
temporary tax as well).
Yes, temporary and it's almost 100 years old now.
In any case we now have two sides that seem to be itching for a shootout.
The main goal of both seems to be to "make a point" to the public.
Oh, brilliant.....