![“Muh Roads” [828x792 - 138KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/wcxSUn.jpg){kind=link}
Fun fact. Income tax only covers corporate actively and excludes personal income, even when derived from corporate activity. A federal judge and scotus agreed with this. Scotus has in fact ruled personal income tax is unconstitutional and illegal. Never mind the demand to file is also a confirmed constitutional rights violation.
Their solution was to create their own rigged courts with corrupt judges. This is why the IRS has their own unconstitutional courts.
This ignores that the amendment never legally passed and was never legally ratified. A corrupt judge later ruled that since people were forced to illegally comply with the state, under threat of death, and was therefore treated as if it was the law and had been ratified, it is therefore defacto ratified. Blatantly unconstitutional and illegal.
Literally there is no legal basis to ever pay federal income tax. Of course they will kill or imprison you just the same.
This is all complete garbage except for the first line.
Income previous to 1913 was defined as corporate gains or gains from corporate investment and activities. It was a tax on investment. The exact same tax that wall street still has on investment to this day. However, on wall street, the state of NY waived that tax. So the only people who would normally be required to pay that tax are exempted from that tax.
The non-ratification arguments are sus and irrelevant. SCOTUS clearly said the 16th did not create a new tax. The 16th only removed the apportionment requirement for federal taxes, which means the federal government doesn't have to allocate revenues from specific tax sources to specific expenditures. This meant that the federal government could create a general fund which all tax revenues came into, and spend from that fund as they passed laws to allow for such spending.
The federal income tax is a voluntary tax that is improperly enforced and the improper enforcement begins with the average citizen labeling his own wages, paid in exchange for labor, as "income". When you call your own paycheck "income", don't be surprised when the federal government expects you to pay taxes on it. And when you send your money to the government to pay taxes on your own wages, that you called "income", don't be pissed when they accept the payment. You called it income, and the income tax is there to legitimately tax income.
There is absolutely a legal basis for the income tax and people were paying the income tax from the day our government began regulating corporate activities. Congress has the power to tax and they can tax anything and everything that they can and do regulate.
There is huge disinformation on this subject. This is intentional so that people don't realize the simple truth. Wages, paid in exchange for labor or services provided, are not income, but if you declare your wages as income, you're going to be held liable for the taxes on that declared income.
The 16th only removed the apportionment requirement for federal taxes, which means the federal government doesn't have to allocate revenues from specific tax sources to specific expenditures.
Not really. The apportionment clause in the Constitution comes from Article I, section 2:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Yes. And the 16th amendment amended that so apportionment is no longer required.
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
(post is archived)