A recent report shows that 47 percent of U.S. households pay no federal income taxes. The Tax Policy Center found that the percent of non-paying households had risen from 38 percent in 2007 to 47 percent this year.
Another interesting factoid is that households making more than $366,400 paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.
This is not the image often presented in Washington when legislators complain about tax fairness for the middle class. White House adviser Paul Volcker appeared to call for higher taxes yesterday to deal with the rising deficit and Obama officials have been suggesting that the wealthy should face higher taxes to establish tax equity.
For the full story, click here.
Byron 1, April 10, 2010 at 8:59 pm
Goneville:
having never even known there was any disagreement over the 16th amendment I was curious as to what he was basing his contention.
*********************************
Do you honestly expect me or anyone for that matter, to believe that someone hanging out in a legal blog is not aware of the challenges over income tax and the 16th Amendment that have been promulgated by the right wing over and over in blogs across the web?
You want to tell me you have never heard of the challenges to the 16th Amendment made repeatedly over the last 100 years?
This stuff is all over the internet. In blogs everywhere, but you’ve never heard of it?
So I am to assume you are a new blogger? New to this whole Internet Bloggy thing?
That’s the story you want to run with?
Ok. If you say so.
“Byron 1, April 10, 2010 at 8:59 pm
Goneville:
having never even known there was any disagreement over the 16th amendment I was curious as to what he was basing his contention.
Apparently you have answered the question about errors and typos. Seems pretty flimsy to me to base an argument against the amendment on errors and typos.”
************************************
I answered a little more than that. I posted the actual court cases discrediting his nonsense, along with the states names and dates of ratification in sequential order, and the requirements for ratification of an amendment (which I’d think everyone already knows).
As for the evidence being “flimsy” you once more craftily manage to elevate already repeatedly disproved nonsense to the level of evidence, albeit flimsy.
There is no evidence for anything. It was laughed out of the courts (to the degree a ruling can “laugh) repeatedly. I’ve posted the rulings.
There is no evidence, flimsy or otherwise to support this tin foil wing nut nonsense. Pretending that there is is to be ignorant of the rulings that were just posted a few comments above.
Goneville:
having never even known there was any disagreement over the 16th amendment I was curious as to what he was basing his contention.
Apparently you have answered the question about errors and typos. Seems pretty flimsy to me to base an argument against the amendment on errors and typos.
The entire wing nut loon theory he is selling was dealt with 100 years ago.
The entire position rests on the single notion that because only four of the states that ratified had no grammatical errors or “typos” as we call them today in their return confirmation of ratification, that they were all void.
The theory on the outset ignores the intent of the states and the easily resolved matter before the courts. It was a lame argument in the early 1900’s and its a lame argument now, and the courts have clearly said so, all the way up to the Supreme Court.
The simple truth that any high school student can explain to you is that on Feb 3, 1913 the 36th state required for ratification returned affirmatively and that state was Delaware, thus the Amendment passed.
Following Delaware’s ratification 6 more states joined in, far exceeding the necessary 3 quarters majority required for ratification by Article V of the Constitution.
Thus the Amendment passed. And that’s fact. That’s US History.
And there is no gray area.
To pretend their is, is to lend credence to kooks and anti government anarchists who would disassemble the union and have us all carrying Peacemakers and skinning our own beef. These are the kooks. And the only thing to do with them is to set the records straight.
Byron 1, April 10, 2010 at 7:34 pm
Actually I was asking him politely to put up or shut up
*****************************
Well I must have missed that part. The part I was addressing was where you elevated an already repeatedly disproved Tea Bag talking point to the status of possibility.
This part.
*******************************
Byron 1, April 10, 2010 at 5:47 pm
“It is possible that what you say occurred”
********************************
Sorry but no, its not possible. The wing nut loons he cites are proven tax cheats and frauds several times over, by both federal and SCOTUS cases where their arguments were either levied by them or used by others and the courts exposed them as frauds.
This is a matter of public record and is common knowledge to anyone who knows the difference between wingnut urban legends and fact.
Elevating such incredulous nonsense to the level of a possibility shows either an incredible lack of knowledge of a very well known legal urban legend, (which is odd being as you’re hanging out in a legal blog) or another purposeful attempt to shore up the wing nut, Tin Foil hat rhetoric employed by the Tea Baggers by lending it degree of credibility.
All the Kings Horses:
It is possible that what you say occurred did but I would like to see the sources and the actual documents themselves. Otherwise I think this all speculative theory.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
Actually I was asking him politely to put up or shut up. I certainly would like to be taxed less but I understand that some taxes are necessary to run federal, state and local governments. I think there is legitimate ground for debate about the amount.
obviously 0% is not good and 100% is not good. Personally I would like to see an across the board tax on all income from business and individuals of no more than about 15-20% with no deductions and anyone making under about $40,000 per year pay no tax at all.
The savings in accounting and lawyer fees would be huge.
from the Tax Foundation:
“The full cost a tax system is more than the amount of tax paid. It also includes the cost of tax planning and paperwork. Economists call these “tax compliance” costs, and the IRS estimates Americans spend 6.6 billion hours per year filling out tax forms—including 1.6 billion hours on the 1040 form alone. In 2002 Americans spent roughly $194 billion dollars on tax compliance. That amounts to 20 cents of compliance cost for every dollar collected by the tax system.”
Well BVM, so glad that you consider the folks on here that contribute idiots. Exactly why are you here if, people contributing here are idiots? Does that mean that you are an idiot as well?
And here’s a tip Byron\Byron’s Partner.
Supreme Court rulings are easy to find.
When they exist.
lol, I thought as much.
When you can actually produce these non existent rulings, you let me know.
They talk about the Supreme Court rulings in the video and how Irwin Schiff was denied a fair trial by a corrupt judge.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173#
BuenaVistaMall 1, April 10, 2010 at 6:16 pm
What about all the Supreme Court rulings that the 16th amendment hadn’t given the federal government the authority to tax our labor – which haven’t been overturned?
************************************
Well Byron, or Byrons partner, don’t talk about them.
Show them.
Show the rulings rather than cutting and pasting from a discredited right wing looney bin book.
Show me the rulings.
While you’re busy looking for the rulings that don’t exist, check out Cheek v. United States, (498 U.S. 192 1991), where the Supreme Court ruled the opposite.
I’ll be waiting for your “rulings” showing that the Congress cannot Tax income.
What about all the Supreme Court rulings that the 16th amendment hadn’t given the federal government the authority to tax our labor – which haven’t been overturned?
Byron 1, April 10, 2010 at 5:47 pm
All the Kings Horses:
It is possible that what you say occurred did but I would like to see the sources and the actual documents themselves. Otherwise I think this all speculative theory.
**********************************************
I see Byron is back to sell more Tin Foil hat theories by placating to them and pretending their is some credence to them. Acting as if this information is new, or in some way credible is how Byron rolls. He pretends to be “interested” in something that has been relegated to the looney bin years before, in order to regurgitate it to give it a voice.
The fact is the theories Byron’s friends here are selling were long since dismissed.
Which is why instead of actually addressing the facts I present, they simply post more right wingnut anti government quotes from convicted criminals, frauds and loons.
Observe;
From the 1986 Ruling.
********************************
“1. Thomas is a tax protester, and one of his arguments is that he did not [**3] 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 [**4] 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, HN1the Supreme Court follows the “enrolled bill rule.” If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form [**5] 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’s. 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’s decision is [*1254] not transparently defective.
We need not decide when, if ever, such a decision may be reviewed in order to know that Secretary Knox’s decision is now beyond review.”
United States v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250, 1253-1254 (7th Cir. Ill.
1986)
Here as with Obama’s mass criminality and ineligibility I would like to find 1 honest federal judge.
All the Kings Horses:
that was interesting, where did you get that information. In doing a little reading I noticed that congress had, in 1894, passed an income tax bill and Pollock was a response to that legislation.
Personally I find it hard to believe that in the span of less than a generation the countries mood on taxation had changed as dramatically as that. What was the mood of the country in regards to the 1894 legislation?
It actually might have changed as Teddy Roosevelt was one of the first “progressives” and apparently WH Taft was in that mold as well. Taft worked for ratification of the amendment and Woodrow Wilson had just been elected president just before final ratification.
It is possible that what you say occurred did but I would like to see the sources and the actual documents themselves. Otherwise I think this all speculative theory.
There were many programs going on at that time to modernize the country and it would probably have been an easy sell to the population, who would be against paying 1 or 2% of their income to improve roads and expand postal service and give some aid to developing countries.
“More importantly the Supreme Court ruled on 8 separate occasions between 1918 and 1932 that the 16th amendment hadn’t given the federal government the authority to tax our labor, and these decisions have never been overturned. The term “income” has had an established definition in legal terms since the early 19th century. In our constitution it refers to “gain”, otherwise known as profit. The Supreme court has, furthermore, held throughout its history that there is no profit in the equal trade of labor for money. For some reason the government has ignored the Supreme Court on this issue.”
All the King’s Horses 1, April 10, 2010 at 5:08 pm
goneville-n-keys,
Repeating the names of the states that allegedly ratified the Sixteenth Amendment without first addressing the claims of fatal error provides for repetition while disregarding analysis.
*******************************
The ratification by the states is a matter of record. Its not open for debate.
In addition, these states are not challenging their own ratification of the amendment, a prerequisite for your tin foil hat theory to be even considered.
Secondly, your partner in Tin Foil, BVM is quoting from William Benson who is a convicted Tax cheat, criminal and nutjob.
He failed repeatedly to sell this nonsense in US Courts, including in 2007 in United States v. House, (617 F. Supp. 237, 87-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9562 (W.D. Mich. 1985) and again in Miller v. United States (868 F.2d 236 89-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9184 (7th Cir. 1989) (per curiam).
In 2007 the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled Benson’s 16th Amendment arguments “fraudulent”.
The court said his claims were a “fraud perpetrated by Benson” that had “caused needless confusion and a waste of the customers’ and the IRS’ time and resources” (Memorandum Opinion, p. 14, Dec. 17, 2007, docket entry 106, United States v. Benson, case no. 1:04-cv-07403, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.), and that “”Benson’s position has no merit and he has used his fraudulent tax advice to deceive other citizens and profit from it””
The court granted an injunction under title 26 prohibiting Benson from promoting his theories in his “reliance package” he was selling online.
Benson appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit who ruled that while he could sell his book, the one you’re quoting from, they also ruled that the previous decision was to be upheld and that his 16th Amendment theories “constituted “false commercial speech” (Entry 58, p. 14, April 6, 2009, case no. 08-1312 and case no. 08-1586, United States v. Benson, 561 F.3d 718 (7th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, no. 09-464 (Nov. 30, 2009).
So no, there is no reason for me to do anything other than post the historical FACT that 36 states ratified the Amendment by Feb 1913, which made the 16th Amendment Constitutional law.
Defending your tin foil hat friend here in your current disguise doesn’t help his standing in quoting a proven liar, fraud and criminal which is what William J Benson is.
Tin foil hat theories do not improve your standing. If you could make the case, you’d make it. But you can’t, which is why you need videos to try and do it for you.
Again, watch the following video with Constitutional scholars, tax experts and former IRS agents.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173#
Prof. Turley, how did you get so many fools here? They are like flies that bring their own manure.
Vince Treacy 1, April 10, 2010 at 5:05 pm
One question was “How can a sitting US District Judge get to be a US District Judge without knowing how many states it requires to ratify an Amendment to the Constitution?”
Judge Fox of the Eastern District of North Carolina was appointed by Reagan in 1982.
*************************************************
He was appointed by Reagan?
Well, that explains it then.
He’s a Jelly Bean Judge.
goneville-n-keys,
Repeating the names of the states that allegedly ratified the Sixteenth Amendment without first addressing the claims of fatal error provides for repetition while disregarding analysis. Instead of repeating yourself you might try getting louder. That’s what I do when an adequate retort is not available.