Ron Paul on CNBC 2004 - UnConstitutional Income Tax

show me proof that that the income tax we pay IS GOING to schools, military, police, fire, hospitals, roads to begin with. Once you do then i'll rethink about it

show me proof that that the income tax we pay IS GOING to schools, military, police, fire, hospitals, roads to begin with. Once you do then i'll rethink about it

Tell me about these indirect taxes?

u pay it through indirect taxes not direct tax like on your income this coutnry was meant for thepeople to be rich and not the government or 1 CEO torake in 100 million dollarsa every 6 months fuckin ridiculious

1. How do you pay for schools, military, police, fire, hospitals, roads without taxes?

If anyone can answer me that then we will be fine.

I just read subchapter A part 1 and, all of its section's and nowhere does it way what is or is not taxable income all it say's is "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of suchandsuch" So we need to look elsewhere to find that.

The reason the court will not let people use section 861 in their defense is because it has nothing to do with domestic income tax. Domestic income tax is explained under TITLE 26, Subtitle A, CHAPTER 1, Subchapter A, PART I, section 1.
I have said it before, Tell me you don't like it, tell me you what to change it, but don't tell me that it dosen't exist.
If you want to change it, campaign to amend the constitution. It has been done before.

They are not interpreting the income tax in those cases, thus it has no holding on the income tax. In other words it tells us nothing about how the law of the tax works or should be applied. I think it more telling that the court has not addressed the issue directly. Lots of people appeal their cases and the supreme court could hear those cases if they so wished. That they do not tells us that they feel the law was applied correctly or that they feel that they have nothing to add.

Also I don't like arguing this by taking a standpoint from title 26 because in Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter N, Section 1, you will find section 861 section 861 is the section you use to determine taxable income yet this section only tells you you have to pay for certain foreign and international things, yet many times courts will not let people use this section for their defenses.

So as I said I don't like arguing it from that point cause I'll just get cited that the courts don't let you.

I brought this up before but I thought I would just clarify. In the case of Stanton v. Baltic Mining you brushed it off cause they did end up being taxed but they where not tax via the income tax cause the court found that it violated the 16 amendment, they where instead taxed on the property itself.

Plus do you think that these quotes from the supreme court and such just don't matter if they weren't brought up in a case, I'm pretty sure they are not lying to us.

What you or I or the Treasury has to say about it has no effect on the law. Convictions based on the law are interpretations that it is good law. To be unconstitutional as an indirect tax the Supreme court (as they alone interpret the law) needs to find it as such. They haven't. If they felt that an egregious breach of law was being perpetrated they have the authority to intervene, as they did in 2000 Bush V Gore. They haven't. Until they so act, or congress repeals the law it, it is the law.

I feel that your argument ignores the legal process. Congress has passed an income tax. It's modern incarnation is title 26 of the US Code. Title 26 spells it out in all its complexity. People who have failed to pay the tax (Irwin Schiff, Kent Hovind, Wesley Snipes, et al) have been arrested, pleaded their cases, and jailed. The court, in these cases, interpreted title 26 as good law. Nobody so arrested has ever been released on the basis that title 26 is unconstitutional. Out of space. see next

The problem I have with these two quotes is that they are not good law. The treasury does not make law regarding the income tax and thus has nothing of value to say on the matter. Peck V Lowe was not a decision on the income tax and thus cannot be used to interpret that law.
see my above post.

Oh one last quote I guess, Research by the Congressional research service in 1980 found that

The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White, first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution... Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes were still subject to the rule of uniformity.

No, I'm not offended at all but I've given two quotes that say the 16th just restricted income tax to indirect tax;

Treasury decision 2303
And the quote from the supreme court in Peck v. Lowe.

Then I tried to break it down for you to show you how it says that, and you just stick to what you think and I just don't know where else I can take this to try to show you.