Did you know the Federal Income Tax is completely ILLEGAL and their is NO law stating you have to pay it?

I totally agree with you.It is illegal.the government has convinced people otherwise though.Here's the thing.If 10,000 people would man up and stop paying, they'd be forced to at least revise the codes because they wouldn't prosecute that number of people.When one or two people stop paying, the govt. makes examples out of them.I'd stop paying if I could get enough people to stand with me.

Yes, I agree we pay too much in taxes. But think about what wouldn't get paid if there wasn't a standard tax rate: - police, fire, and emergency services - education - the military and defense - scientific advancement and research As soon as there's no money to come in to start paying for these things, people would be complaining that the services aren't provided! The thing to remember is that the federal government is NOT an entity to itself. It is part of America like you and I. It is made up of people that are our fellow citizens and run with money from all of our hard work. This is *not* a situation where the poor peasants are working to support the feudal lord and they're demanding more and more. Every bit that you put in, you will get something back in return.

Just because you refuse to actually look into the matter and do some basic research doesn't mean the laws don't exist. As the poster above correctly points out, the entirety of Volume 26 of the United States Code, which is the compendium of federal laws, deals with taxation and revenue. Try reading it, it's the law.

you aren't the first to try this.

try explaining your stance to the IRS when they're dragging you away to prison for not paying taxes.

try reading all the court decisions & the 16th Amendment, then you'll see how utterly wrong you are.

and, 36 states DID ratify the amendment as of 1913. 42 of the existing 48 states did eventually ratify.

Yep, however people are under the impression that we gave up our rights, because we voted for all of these things and it's not true. The legislature makes and passes bills and they are over a thousand pages long and if a senator or Representative is too lazy to look at the bill which usually they are they end up signing our rights away without our knowledge, because we never have access to see what is really on the bills that they are passing. They stop reading the constitution when they so-called amended it legally.

We are really all just slaves feeding a government machine that really needs to be put out of commission. Because they waste what they are given ignore the people when the people are supposed to be running our government and not the government running the people. Our government is capitalism gone out of control the government is profiting from the people and it should never be that way. To all you people that think it is legal sure it is with the corrupt system we have now. We always should be questioning the validity of what the government does behind our backs because it always comes backs to bite us in the end. Thanks for asking this question because it should be asked over and over again.

I find it difficult to believe that you are more of a legal authority on this subject than the Supreme Court, which has ruled time and again that the income tax is legal. Sorry dude.

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes...

Don't pay it and see where you end up behind bars at.

You are wrong

16th amendment to the U.S.Constitution Internal Revenue Code and 26 U.S.C & 1

This hype has been around a long time and a lot of ppl have went to jail believeing it .

Just pay your fair taxes and enjoy life. You'll be happier

Ahh, so many inaccuracies and so little time.

Re: Income tax is unconstitutional

Nonsense. It is true that there is an apportionment requirement in the Constitution for “direct taxes,” but the 16th Amendment clearly eliminates the apportionment requirement from all taxes on incomes. The 16th amendment states, "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." Also, the courts have NEVER held that a tax on income received as wages was a direct tax. In fact, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that a tax on income received as compensation for labor was an "excise or duty" and therefore INDIRECT.

In 1861, Congress passed the first income tax law in the U.S. It continued until 1872, when Congress allowed it to lapse. In 1880, in Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1880), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of an income tax against an individual, William H. Springer, finding that the income tax was a constitutional “duty or excise” and not a “direct tax.”

In 1894, Congress again passed an income tax law, however, part of that law also included income from personal property (i.e. rental income). The Supreme Court in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, ruled that a tax on income from property was the same as the tax on the property itself and was therefore a direct tax. They also declared that a tax on wages was an indirect tax, but could not separate the two types of taxes in the law and declared the law unconstitutional.

Every court has upheld the Constitutionality of the income tax laws for the past 95 years.

Re: Required number of states did not ratify the amendment

More nonsense. This argument has been tried over and over. It has lost every single time. The following ruling explains it best. In U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986), the court states,

[BEGIN QUOTE]

"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. [citations omitted] 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’. [citations omitted] 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.”

[END QUOTE]

Re: Income tax goes to pay interest to the Federal Reserve

Conspiracy theory nonsense. Let's look at some FACTS. The Federal Reserve does not loan money to the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government borrows money by issuing U.S. Government securities. These are also known as T-Bills, T-Notes, and T-Bonds. These securities are sold at auction and anyone can buy these securities, even you. The Federal Reserve buys the securities it holds on the OPEN MARKET and not from the government directly. These are used as collateral for the printed Federal Reserve Notes. As of 2006, the Federal Reserve only held about $800 billion of the 8.6 trillion U.S. Government debt. This can clearly be seen on the INDEPENDENTLY AUDITED financial statements of the Federal Reserve.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongres...

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongres...

The Federal Reserve collected $36.5 billion in interest on the U.S. Government debt that it holds. AS REQUIRED BY LAW, it returned excess earnings to the U.S. Treasury. In 2006, approximately $29.1 billion was returned.

Secondly, all income tax revenues do not just go to pay the interest on the debt. In 2007, individual income taxes collected were approximately $1.16 trillion. In 2007, the interest on the debt was $430 billion.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafa...

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_e...

Re: No law exist that requires people to pay income taxes.

More nonsense. The internal revenue laws are codified as Title 26 of the U.S. Code. You can read them at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sup_01_26... or at http://uscode.house.gov/download/title_26.shtml

Title 26 is known as prima facie law or evidence of the actual laws passed by Congress. To read the actual laws passed by Congress, you have to look at the U.S. Statutes at Large. For the most part, these are not available online. However, you can read them at most Federal Depository Libraries or most law libraries. You can find a Federal Depository Library in your state at http://catalog.gpo.gov/fdlpdir/FDLPdir.jsp

To read the Internal Revenue Laws, start with Volume 68A, beginning on page 3. This will be the Internal Revenue Act of 1954. Then go to Volume 100, on page 2085 and you will find the Tax Reform Act of 1986. These two laws form the basic structure of our current income tax laws. Various modifications to those laws have been passed through the years and are available in later volumes.

Re: if you examine the 16th amendment, you would find that NO where it allows for a tax such as the income tax.

Have YOU actually read the amendment? I quoted it earlier and you can find it at http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/con...

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect TAXES ON INCOMES,..."

Re: they went to jail because the IRS illegally arrested them.

Baloney. They were arrested because they were accused of breaking a law. They are in jail because a jury of their peers found them guilty of breaking the law. There is a simple truth to our justice system, in order to be accused of breaking a law, THERE HAS TO BE A LAW TO BE BROKEN. Law enforcement cannot arrest a person for murder unless there is a law making murder illegal. Since there is a law against murder as well as laws against tax evasion, someone who commits either crime CAN and WILL be arrested.

You may believe the income tax is robbery, but at this time, the income tax is completely legal. If you don't like it, try and elect people who will change it.

BTW, the IRS is a government agency and setup in accordance to law.

I have heard this before, and although the argument has been made in the past, I don't believe it has ever held up in court. The latest to try using this defense was Wesley Snipes.

Do you know that you are not the first one to say this or the first one who has landed in Federal Prison because you bought off on it?