just a side note, the federal income tax is written in the constitution.

The first Federal income tax was imposed (under Article I, section 8, clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution) during the Civil War, then again in the 1890s, and again after the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified in 1913.

Look again!!

Ram - sorry, I'm confused,,, write my name on a piece of paper and then see what the difference is on my driver license? please explain.

Personal income taxes were started by the Confederate States of America. The south did not have the industrial power of the Union (Northern States), and were having a hard time funding their war efforts.
The North was having a hard time getting conscripts and started the same. They used it to entice people to fight by paying bonuses. (something like that) I'm working off memory here.
After the civil war ended the United States maintain the personal income tax. It was used for reconstruction efforts, but was never ratified by the constitution.
In 1895, problems arose, because people didn't want to pay. Then, somewhere around WWI, it was ratified by the constitution.
An amendment was added, and it has been constitutionally legal ever since.
I once believed someone that it wasn't legal, or constitutional too. Then my father who knows the constitution forwards and backwards told me I was wrong. I still argued with him until he proved it, which didn't take long. I was young and naive back then, but he set me straight, as Dads tend to do.
Sorry, but it is covered by the constitution, and the proof is in the above named amendment. You may not be paying it, but that doesn't mean your not breaking the law.
Good luck with your efforts Redy, as your employer is required by law to match the taxes removed from your income. If they don't take it from you then they will still be required to pay, and it might mean that they will have to pay your share and theirs.
Some people get away with it for awhile, because the Fed's do not think it is worth their time, or the funds required to chase after everyone.
They would have to hire 2 or 3 times as many agents and auditors to do this. Therefore they reserve their efforts to chase after the big boy's. People who might owe them 100,000 dollars or more in taxes. You can be guaranteed, however that if you open a bank account they will get taxes from that. They also have other ways of trapping, or should I say letting you trap your self. (Home Loans, business loans, etc.) If you want to live like a hermit you could possibly get away with it forever, but who wants that? Not ME!

Thank you Fanta. And the rest of you remember that just because a jury acquitted O.J. that did not legalize murder and just because a jury acquitted this guy don't make it legal to quit paying taxes.

Fanta, if the answer were as easy as your couple paragraphs, why did it ever get to court in the first place?

Why have there been so many who have fought this issue, who have not been supplied with the laws that make it constitutionally correct?

Because an amendment was radified, does not make it constitutionally sound.

In researching this issue on the internet one finds a very large number of people from all walks of this life, supporting it's illegal nature. they ask only one question, show me the law that substantiates the IRS tax. It has not yet been done.

The development of so many taking part in these adverse groups makes me wonder, just how long it will be, before some new change or law is backed in congress, to justify the tax. When they do this, we will all see, clearly, that they are attempting to create a bridge to continue the false propagation of an illegal action.

Redy ratification means that 3/4 of all States have to vote yea!
That happened on Feb 25, 1913 when 36 States ratified the sixteenth amendment to the constitution of the US. Then on Feb. 3 of the same year 6 more agreed. That made a total of 42, of the then 48 states.
People (a minority) still think it is not law, but I cant help that. It really is that easy, sorry!
I could tell you that they probably get it from the case that caused the amendment to be added to the Constitution, but I doubt they ever read that much!
There was a trial in the 1890's, two actually. 1 said it was legal, and in the 2nd one (same case) the ist judgement was overturned by the Supreme Court. This brought about the amendment. Before that it never was actually part of the constitution. Not a permanant part anyway, just an article added during the civil war! The constitution is available for anyone to read, and Im sure I have given enough info for you to find the case your self.
Look it up, if you dont believe me, or just dont pay. Doesnt matter to me either way. I dont work for the IRS, I just thought everyone wanted the truth, not hear say Rumour!

Here Redy. The law:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendments.html#f8

Amendment XVI
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.

Once Prohibition was law, and an amendment too!
It was overturned, but until the xvi amendment is overturned, it is law!
Good luck, getting our government with their debt to overturn the income tax!
If they did, they would just find another means to get the money, whether from sales taxes or whatever. They would get it, Im sure.
I myself dont mind paying the tax, I just hate the corruption. We would be better off fighting that than to fight the tax itself.
Thats my thought anyway!

You tell me why people doubt it, when there it is. Plain English!!!

I dont pay, they pay me..

Actually, the deal with Native Americans depends on how the money was made as to whether or not they have to pay taxes on their income. As far as treaties being enforced, that's a whole new thread.

Most people think it's the rich that get audited all the time. It's not. According to official I.R.S. records(and if you know one, ask an I.R.S agent), the vast majority of audits happen to those in the $20,000 yearly range. I guess the I.R.S. figures someone in that range won't put up much of a fight and just pay up.

Has anyone read the book by Neal Boortz (think it's called The Fair Tax Book)? I love the concept-under his plan, you won't be taxed on what you make. You'll be taxed on what you SPEND! I like this plan. Think about how much unreported income(i.e. "under the table") there is each year. This would encourage people to save more, as they wouldn't be taxed on money they didn't spend. The system doesn't play favorites. You spend, you pay tax.

there is some debate over the legality of the ratification process of 16th amendment...

"The ratification required by at least 36 states -- three-fourths of the 48 states then in existence -- has to be identical to the amendment passed by Congress. Benson cites federal documents affirming that for state approval to be acceptable, neither words nor punctuation can be changed. And the states may not violate their own state constitutions in ratifying the amendment.

Of the 48 states, here's the story:

Eight states (Rhode Island, Utah, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Kentucky, Florida, Virginia and Pennsylvania) did not approve or ratify the amendment.
Texas and Louisiana were forbidden by their own state constitutions to empower the federal government to tax.
Vermont and Massachusetts rejected the amendment with a recorded vote count, and only later declared it passed without a recorded vote after the amendment was declared ratified by Knox.
Tennessee, Ohio, Mississippi, California and Washington violated their state constitutions in their ratification procedures.
Minnesota did not send any copy of its resolution to Knox, let alone a signed and sealed one, as required.
And Oklahoma, Georgia and Illinois made unacceptable changes in wording. (Some of the above states also made such changes, in addition to their other unacceptable procedures.)
Take 48 states, deduct these 21, and you have proper ratification by only 27 states -- far less than the required 36."

http://www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/19990709_xcdfr_is_income.htm

yeeeeeeeeee haaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!


indeed if they want to litigate to the letter of the law when it suits them, then why not take them to the letter of the law as well????

what i expect is that someone will dig up some trailer on some bill somewhere , or series of them, scattered thru so no one would put them into context for the agenda they were designed for....

try to feebly substantiate their position.... but then again if they find them it could be another mire to wade thru of litigation and corruption for all concerned...dammed if you do and dammed if you dont

it will be interesting to see how it all plays out

Of the 48 States, heres the story:

According to the United States Government Printing Office, the following states ratified the amendment:[8]

1. Alabama (August 10, 1909)
2. Kentucky (February 8, 1910)
3. South Carolina (February 19, 1910)
4. Illinois (March 1, 1910)
5. Mississippi (March 7, 1910)
6. Oklahoma (March 10, 1910)
7. Maryland (April 8, 1910)
8. Georgia (August 3, 1910)
9. Texas (August 16, 1910)
10. Ohio (January 19, 1911)
11. Idaho (January 20, 1911)
12. Oregon (January 23, 1911)
13. Washington (January 26, 1911)
14. Montana (January 27, 1911)
15. Indiana (January 30, 1911)
16. California (January 31, 1911)
17. Nevada (January 31, 1911)
18. South Dakota (February 1, 1911)
19. Nebraska (February 9, 1911)
20. North Carolina (February 11, 1911)
21. Colorado (February 15, 1911)
22. North Dakota (February 17, 1911)
23. Michigan (February 23, 1911)
24. Iowa (February 24, 1911)
25. Kansas (March 2, 1911)
26. Missouri (March 16, 1911)
27. Maine (March 31, 1911)
28. Tennessee (April 7, 1911)
29. Arkansas (April 22, 1911, after having previously rejected the amendment)
30. Wisconsin (May 16, 1911)
31. New York (July 12, 1911)
32. Arizona (April 3, 1912)
33. Minnesota (June 11, 1912)
34. Louisiana (June 28, 1912)
35. West Virginia (January 31, 1913)
36. New Mexico (February 3, 1913)
Ratification (by the requisite thirty-six states) was completed on February 3, 1913 with the ratification by New Mexico (but see Delaware and Wyoming below). The amendment was subsequently ratified by the following states, bringing the total number of ratifying states to forty-two:

37. Delaware (February 3, 1913)
38. Wyoming (February 3, 1913)
39. New Jersey (February 4, 1913)
40. Vermont (February 19, 1913)
41. Massachusetts (March 4, 1913)
42. New Hampshire (March 7, 1913, after rejecting the amendment on March 2, 1911)
The following states rejected the amendment without ever subsequently ratifying it:

43. Connecticut
44. Florida, which rejected the amendment after it had already been ratified by three-fourths of the states
45. Rhode Island
46. Utah
The following states never took up the proposed amendment:

47. Pennsylvania
48. Virginia

yup. that there is the party line.. the problem is that no one has ever been able to find the minutes to the meetings for any of these states when they supposedly ratified the andmendment.

Actually funny folks.
Its amazing how once you have your view set in your mind as to whay it should be not even something in writting can change it. Thats a classic example of "interpretation". Which is why some get away with it and some dont. You find a lawyer who knows how to interpret a certain law and convince the jury its wrong and sure enough they do. I've read quite a bit of the tax law and I am willing to bet I have not read a fraction of it. Yet the portion that says we must pay will refer you to another paragraph and so on and so forth/ yet the part that says "gains" as I interpret it means just that gains. not salary,not wages but gains. You exchange something like work for salary doesnt make sense for it to be a gain. A gain would be hitting the lotto :-) surely one dollar ticket isnt of equal value to 100 million prize. 8 hours work sure is worth 10-20 bucks an hour but one dollar for millions is a bit different. So " as I interpret" what ive read income is not a gain and the day I can afford a lawyer and time I will certainly make my case. Everyone else can interpret as they please. However dont think for a minute the government will go broke if they stop collecting our "income tax" The special interest groups might not get their billion dollar contracts but the population will not suffer. think of it this way. If giving a tax break is always advertise as the trickle down effect and will help so many people and the economy then why not do away with it all together. If passing a multi-billion dollar cut helps so much then cut all of it and help that much more. MMMM I wonder!!!!

someone once said,"there is no justice in law." if you get the right attorney you can get anything done.

i think when you make the phone call you are basically asking to give the pizza man tips it's just how it is