The 16th Amendment Explained: The Constitution for Dummies Series
Vložit
- čas přidán 14. 12. 2013
- How much do you know about income tax, the Constitution and the 16th amendment? In this video lecture we hit the big ideas surrounding income tax prior to the 16th amendment as well as the causes for the amendment. Did you know income tax was allowable before the 16th amendment? Learn the history of the 16th amendment in an engaging video lecture by Social Studies teacher Keith Hughes aka HipHughes. Be sure to check out the complete Constitution for Dummies Series • The Constitution Expla...
Subscribe to my fellow EDU Gurus!!
AMOR SCIENDI
/ amorsciendi
ASAP SCIENCE
/ asapscience
BOZEMAN BIOLOGY
/ bozemanbiology
KUMESHI CHAN
/ kemushichan
BITE-SCIZED SCIENCE
/ lexie527
MATH APPITICIAN
/ mathapptician
MYLES POWER
/ powerm1985
PROFS POP
/ profspop
SPANISH IS YOUR AMIGO
/ spanishisyoura. .
Subscribe to these geniuses!
Smarter Every Day / destinws2
History for Music Lovers / historyte. .
Crash Course w/ the Green Brothers / crashcourse
Steve Spangler Science: / stevespanglers. .
Minute Physics: / minutephysics
PBSIdeaChannel: / pbsideachannel
Numberphile: / numberphile
Deep Sky Videos: / deepskyvideos
Veritasium: / 1veritasium
ViHart: / vihart
CGP Grey: / cgpgrey
VSauce: / vsauce
TedEd: / tededucation
First they tax your income, then they tax the already taxed income of whatever you buy with it.
se7ensnakes hmm ok lets see if the cunts(IRS) will come
@@se7ensnakes wut?
Be a happy camper, move to a state with no sales tax.
I love that I pay an occupational privilege tax, another tax for a license to sell(that includes no test. Just a money grab), and an income tax
If I cut your grass and you give me a chicken what part of that chicken do I send to the Internal Revenue Service? I think I will send them the pooper.
16 wasn't fully ratified and it was rushed through passage during christmas break. It gives the federal government power to tax you into poverty if it chooses to.
The 16th Amendment was fully ratified. As noted at 7:15 on this video it got ratified by 42 states. More than enough.
Legal and illegal is not equal to right and wrong.
@@rashomon662 states not 42
@@JamesJones-sw6qt Only 36 states were needed for ratification. The ratification stage reached 36 states in February of 1913. So, that is what I meant by fully ratified. Six states ratified it within days to make it 42 states. There were six states that did not ratify the Amendment. Two of those states never considered the Amendment but it didn't matter since it had become law.
@rashomon66 incorrect. It was certified, but only two states ratified it. So, it is essentially unconstitutional. Unless I'm mistaken on the amount of states.
So, my social studies teacher has us watch your videos in class whenever she isn't reciting the textbook. Now I'm watching these videos alone on Friday nights! Great job on making history a bit more interesting.
Thanks for the non creepy warm fuzzy! I hope you'll get a chance to create some stuff in class and not just consume it. But if you are consuming it, I am glad I can add a little spice to the food learning. Thanks for watching! You best be subbed or I retract all of my previous kind words.
Keith Hughes Do you know the TRUE Trivium method???? The Prussian education aka indoctrination we received here in the states (brought over in the mid 1800's) DID NOT teach us this method. We learned to OBEY! Respect and fear authority, do what you are told, etc, etc, etc. Teach yourself while the internet is still open...it's value is endless!
The 16th amendment needs to be repealed IMMEDIATELY!
TAXATION IS THEFT!
Good luck they killed jfk for trying to get rid of the federal reserve and the irs
I haven't filed since 2002 and will not ever file again without being shown a law that requires me to. I informed the IRS way back then that I learned there was no Law and I couldn't find one. I told them to please show me the law and I would file. They responded with threats and lower court cases, No laws! Why is that? There is no law.
I have a good friend that has a letter from 1994 from the IRS that states that the IRS agreed with him and that he no longer was required to file and pay a tax on his income. Good luck getting an IRS agent to give you one of those letters today. They lose and they still come after you again and again and again and they never show a law that you are violating. They sit there like robots behind the 16th Amendment as if that is the end of the argument. WHERE IS THE LAW DIRECTLY REQUIRING ME TO FILE AND PAY A TAX ON MY INCOME?
There isn't one I've done tons of research on this
Does that mean you stop paying in from your checks that with hold state and federal tax?
@@lagomyeggo There is a legitimate way to get your employer to stop taking anything away from your earnings.
@@lagomyeggo 1132.75 (12-21-87) Criminal Investigation Division The Investigation Division enforces the criminal statute applicable to income, estate, gift, employment, and excise tax laws (other than those excepted in IRM 1112.51) involving United States citizens residing in foreign countries and nonresident aliens subject to Federal income tax filing requirements by developing information concerning alleged criminal violations thereof, evaluating allegations and indications of such violations to determine investigations to be undertaken , investigating suspected criminal violations of such laws, recommending prosecution when warranted, and .....
In speaking to companies about their employees,
in the IRS Publication 515, section titled "Withholding Exemptions and Reductions", paragraph titled "Evidence of residence", this is what you find: If an individual gives you a written statement, stating that he or she is a citizen or resident of the United States, and you do not know otherwise, you do not have to withhold tax. Or, an alien may claim U.S. residence by filing with you, in duplicate, Form 1078, Certificate of Alien Claiming Residence in the United States. Holders of visas that do not permit permanent residence in the United States should write to the Internal Revenue Service, Assistant Commissioner (International), Attention: IN;C;TPS, 950 L'Enfant Plaza South, S.W., Washington, DC 20024, .....
If you are a Citizen of the U. S. and not a non-resident alien or whatever else, then
Go to this link for in-depth research and the legal way to notify your employer to stop deducting from your pay. famguardian.org/Publications/FedStateWHOptions/FedStateWHOptions.pdf
i like how you forgot to mention the federal reserve, established oh, the exact same time lol common man. its why we are taxed and where it goes, if necessary. is war and welfare necessary ? then is half the tax money spent logical. exactly. the legality is set up to benefit the few, but like you said, it can be change ;)
Yup. It all goes to the banks, who work in tandem with government (backed by coercion)
How do you know he forgot ???
All fed taxes go to fed reserve bank which isnt federal and SCOTUS 1913 ruled it unconstitutional to tax our income. czcams.com/video/azynljXxbC0/video.html
Involuntary transactions are theft, Taxation is involuntary (uses the initiation of force). Theft is not preferable to any human. Thus it is unethical, wrong and a violation of humans' universally preferable principles. You need things to live, the things are either yours or they aren't. But who holds the monopoly on the initiation of force which supersedes reason?
Your correct. According to SCOTUS 1913ruling its unconstitutional... More here czcams.com/video/azynljXxbC0/video.html
The constitution strictly forbids any unapportioned tax on LABOR and WAGES.
The Supreme Court has ruled that income is defined by profits and gains of any CORPORATE activity! And has ruled in cases that income is considered your PRIVATE property, therefore the IRS is in strict violation of the 4th amendment.
Also the IRS tax code for income tax filing clearly states "voluntary compliance"
"Your income tax is a 100% voluntary tax & your liquor tax is a enforced tax, the difference between the two are night and day"
Dwight E. Avis- head of the alcohol and tobacco tax division bureau of internal revenue
engineman541 where can I find that? like name the article, section. etc etc nvm
engineman541 at last an educated and enlightened individual!
se7ensnakes
You are the embodiment of propaganda. The Supreme Court specifically stated that the 16th Amendment granted Congress no new power of taxation. The 16th Amendment merely closed a loophole in the Pollock v Farmer's loan and Trust Company decision whereby dividends (not the private property generating them)might otherwise be nontaxable. Private sector earnings have to be derived from a taxable activity in order to be classified as income. If you work for or contract with the federal government within the scope of their jurisdiction including their federal possessions, your earnings are taxable as income. The 16th Amendment allowed for dividends, rents, and other interests from private property to be taxable as income also. So in short, the government can tax the revenue private property generates, just not the private property itself without apportionment. So if you work in the private sector devoid of any connection to the federal government, your earnings are not income. Period.
The idea that the 16th Amendment could be allowed to eviscerate the Constitution by nullifying Article 1 § 2 clause 3, Article 1 § 9, and the entire 9th Amendment is preposterous. Also, the 9th Amendment specifically prevents lawmakers from taking away rights you already possess and the last I checked the Bill of Rights still contains the original ten amendments. The income tax and the 16th Amendment are upheld specifically because of the reasons I have stated. To further clarify, the income tax is it's nature an excise tax and can only be applied as such. The income tax has existed since 1861, the 16th Amendment did not create it, it is a legitimate Constitutional tax when applied correctly. Unfortunately, the IRS is not forthcoming with all of the pertinent information, and some of their practices should be considered downright criminal.
losthorizons.com is a fantastic resource if you want to learn more. It's all up to you.
There is no requirement that income have a federal connection in order to be taxed, and Lost Horizons/Cracking the Code is a scam.
Yes exactly right
16th amendment has no effect on interstate commerce as congress only has power to tax foreign commerce. The every citizen belonging to a state within the republic of the United States is not subject to direct taxes by the federal government. Taxes are only required from taxpayers, which are people who voluntarily become citizens of UNITED STATES corporation and permit the IRS to tax their fictitious corporate entity. The federal Reserve and IRS are both non-governmental corporations with NO power to enforce any tax laws upon citizens of the 50 states of the Union.
Interesting connections with the temperance movement, too!
Look up THE NEW YORK TIMES Business article published June 24, 2005, by David Cay Johnston and Carolyn Marshall titled: Protesters Win a Case Over I.R.S. The paper did there best to belittle the victory and made sure to slander their names by ensuring the readers that the court verdict didn't really say they didn't have to file. But, that's exactly what the verdict said and they did everything to keep this case as well as any other victories out of the ears and scope of the masses of fearful citizens scared of the IRS. The IRS Investigations Officer that discovered the IRS was enforcing the income tax with no law requiring it, presented his findings to his supervisor and was given the paperwork to tender his resignation. The IRS wouldn't simply answer his questions and give him the law he was enforcing. So he resigned. His name is Joe Banister. He's the one that was charged with helping a client file a fraudulent return and was found not guilty. His client was also charged with filing a fraudulent return as well as refusing to tax his employees. He refused to tax them on the legal grounds that he couldn't find a law requiring them to pay it or for him to withhold it. He was also found not guilty. The reason they were found "NOT GUILTY" was that they couldn't prove him wrong. That is about as clear as putting it in writing that the verdict said there is no law requiring them to file and pay a tax on their personal income. Read for yourself. You'll hear the slanted tone of the writers in the attempt to keep the citizens ignorant of the only conclusion that can be taken from both the "NOT GUILTY" verdicts.
Tax is a Fraud, if not then where is the law that states that Mr. Keith Hughes aka Federal Slave..
+Laila Rodrigues I certainly hope you are not taking advantage of the Master's spending of Federal revenue like highways, airports, defense, etc. Is it a fraud because you said it is? I'm confused, are you sort of universal czar of legality? I'm sorry but I need to excuse myself and go scratch my ankles, these anklecuffs are killing me.
+Keith Hughes (HipHughes) Ugh!!! Ur an idiot!! Im wiping my ass with U.. LOL
+Laila Rodrigues ewe. It's one thing to be devoid of any type of rational factual information but to throw poop poop into your comment? Ur a dirty little troll. Yucky. With that I always wish my trolls well as they find their own way through the internets.
These videos are very helpful!! Thank you for making life easier!
+Dylan Smith maybe I should change my channels tagline with that, making your life easier!
All kidding about Taxes aside, the general public does not know they are being lied to by the IRS about who must pay taxes.
According to Cornell University Law School where I found this: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6331 And according to 26 U.S. Code § 6331 - Levy and distraint, these are the only people who can be levied if they don't pay taxes.
(a) Authority of Secretary If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax (and such further sum as shall be sufficient to cover the expenses of the levy) by levy upon all property and rights to property (except such property as is exempt under section 6334) belonging to such person or on which there is a lien provided in this chapter for the payment of such tax. Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d)) of such officer, employee, or elected official. If the Secretary makes a finding that the collection of such tax is in jeopardy, notice and demand for immediate payment of such tax may be made by the Secretary and, upon failure or refusal to pay such tax, collection thereof by levy shall be lawful without regard to the 10-day period provided in this section.
All you have to do is write the irs and say that there has been a case of mistaken identity in your file. Ask them to please show proof of their claim that you are an officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, Send it to your local irs office as well as the director of the irs in washington and send the same letter to your secretary of state. AND don't forget to send the same letter to the US Treasury department. Make them prove to you that you must pay taxes..... and then start demanding they put the funds back in your account for all the taxes they took from you by misrepresenting and assuming who you are.
you forgot to tell them that in this meaning United states is use in the statutory manor as in the government side or United States inc not ours the Republic or The United States of America. We are a republic our government of instituted amount men or us it is sub-servant to us not the other way around
Excellent as usual.
I wonder how significant the ability to write-off deductions is. In other words I wonder if there's a curve of how much was actually collected rather than what the rate was. Also, since the rich re-invest most of their filthy lucre, what investments were not made during time of high taxes could be important to economic growth a few years later.
America is full of hypocrisy
Can you prove that 3/4 of states ratified this because I cant find this info
It all goes against the 4th and 5th amendments and not only my life, liberty, and , pursuit of happiness!
The I.R.S. is owned by entities outside our country, and by its operation is a collection agency for the Federal Reserve and the C.I.A. As you may know, the Federal Reserve is not a governmental agency, but it is a private bank that lends our government money.
Great video Thanks
I like this guy. "You can think what you want. I don't care." Just the facts, man
We went to war over "taxation without consent"
jack jones that was before mass media
NOBODY IS AYING THIS AND IT IS FUCKING PISSING ME OFFFFFDFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
No, it was taxation without representation
The amendment was ratified through consent and representation
@@denverlilly3669 if you think you're being represented i got a bridge for sale
Did he define what exactly is a "direct tax?" I didn't quite understand what he meant about taxes being apportioned by the census either.
Hes further misconstruing this, SCOTUS 1913 ruled it unconstitutional fed taxes are unconstitutional heres better info czcams.com/video/azynljXxbC0/video.html
I just need to know what the 16th amendment says in simple terms this is so complicated
yeah what the fuck i just want to pass US history bro
How does this affect Article V: "Provided that no Amendment... shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article." Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4: "No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken." Please explain. Thank You for the knowledge transfer. :-)
IT Does NOT!!
Read the following Supreme Court Rulings
Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co .. 240 U.S. 1 (1916)STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO , 240 U.S. 103 (1916)
CHAS. C. STEWARD MACH. CO. v. DAVIS. No. 837. Argued April 8-9, 1937.
Supreme Court Decided May 24, 1937.
Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 40 S. Ct. 189, 193, 64 L. Ed. 521,
9 A.L.R. 1570
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)” CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT,
“Staples v. United States, 21 F. Supp. 737 (E.D. Pa. 1937)
AND
“Conner v. United States, 303 F. Supp. 1187 (S.D. Tex. 1969)
The "...." part you cut out says before the year 1808. It expired,l Jan 1 1808; along with the slave importation clause.
@Keith Hughes can you answer this for me today please, i got my final tomorrow --> why do you think that congressional polarization correlates so high with income inequality?
That's a tough one. My instinct says that when there is a large gap between the rich and poor there may be a perception that the levers of power are being controlled by the elite. The other side, the right, probably gets defensive of capitalism being unfairly targeted. So during the industrial age, during the 1932 election and currently, the two camps retreat to their bases. When parties are appealing to their bases rather than the middle you get polarization. I also think Gerrymandering is a huge facilitator of polarization. Hope this helps, I am just shooting from the Hip. Get it? I made a funny.... the hip, cause Im HipHughes. OK its not that funny.
Keith Hughes thank you very much
Perhaps the extra money the rich are being given is used to by ever more amounts of influence. Government and civil society - starved for resources - can't track and control the bribes nor offer an alternative means of financing.
If civil rights groups controlled trillions of dollars the way banks do we would have a very different world.
Dan Morgan " the rich are being given"? What are you referring to? (note, I am not trying to be hostile, just asking for clarification)
Richard Blackmore Ultra low interest rates, government bailouts and the good old fashioned military industrial complex represent huge giveaways to the rich. Also timber, grazing and mining concessions on government land are sold for pennies an acre and net huge profits. You'd really have to look that up yourself because their is a lot of it going on. To much to cover in a few comments.
The title of this video should be "The 16th Amendment from a dummy".
The legislative intent of the 16th Amendment is a matter of Congressional Record. Pages 3344, 3345 of the First session of the Senate of the Sixty First Congress in 1909. In it W. H. Taft proposed a tax on the National Government and the several States (not admitted into the union) without apportionment because of the 1895 Pollock decision which declared an income tax unconstitutional in the 50 states of the union
The Internal Revenue Code at 26 USC § 3121(e) defines State, United States, and citizen. it is here we see that "State" means Washington DC, and "United States" means Guam, American Samoa, US Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. This affirms my previous statements.
The Supreme court case "Hooven and Allison Co. V Evatt" acknowledges the fact that the "United States" has 3 meanings:
The term "United States" may be used in any one of several senses. [1] It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. [2] It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, or [3] it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution. [Hooven & Allison Co. vs Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)]
The whole scheme is to get you to declare yourself as a US citizen in the statutory sense, that is one as defined in 26 USC § 3121(e) and under the jurisdiction of Congress. The Constitution has no force of law in these areas. The Constitution grants Congress the power of exclusive legislation within these areas and as a US citizen as described in the IRC, you are required to have 30% withheld. So know who you are. If you were born in the 50 union States the Constitution stands/rule of apportionment is valid.
You're welcome.
If I cut your grass and you give me a chicken what part of that chicken do I send to the Internal Revenue Service? I think I will send them the pooper.
I think it should be pointed out that the era this country, and many of the more right and conservative leaning types lament- the 40's and 50's and into the 60's when they harken to a better society than today, is quite apparent on that chart you show.
The top marginal tax rates when low for the wealthy and corporate interests, directly coincide with unstable financial markets and bad times for us- the middle and working class. Alternatively, when top marginal tax rates are high, the economy, and the people do well- like in the 40's, 50's, and 60's. (all racism and oppression aside for the sake of argument mind you- as if you were black, then this is all moot)
Even today with modern banking tricks, the top marginal tax rate is not representative of the actual rate paid by those who have the most money- in essence, the effective top marginal tax rate is probably around 15% and that is hopeful thinking. Compare that to the average effective tax rate of you and me which is around 24% and the wars and the financial bailouts and the austerity is being done on the backs of the very people who did not cause it, while those who created the mess, pay very little on the upkeep of the country and the people.
I believe in having more if you earn it... but the fact remains, you should also pay at the very least, your fair share.
A good point. I think the marginal tax rate is more an indicator. When the affluent are being disciplined properly they have to pay more in taxes but when our government and society deteriorate they pay less. A weak civil society gives way to their predatory greed which manifests in insultingly low taxes along with massive giveaways in money and resources.
did it ever get the ratification it needed from all of the states ?
And then some. It needed 35 it got 43.
@@hiphughes You are funny.
you need to do a video on the 21th Amendment..im to lazy to read
Just watch the 18th amendment backwards.
All government should be funded by voluntary donations. If they don’t want to go out of business, they’ll do a good job.
This is why we so desperately need the FairTax.
Was the 16th ratified? Isn't that the question?
so if we go back far enough and do are home work we dont have to pay taxes
As a parent, I like these. There is no big political agenda in Hip Hughes' videos. Good thing!
How Does This Affect Private Non-Profit?
That where All The Money Goes And Made.
Does the 16th amendment come under new federalism?
So if the government could tax income before the 16th amendment, and the 16th gives congress the right to tax income, does the government have the right to tax WEALTH? I hope not.
A wealth tax would have to be apportioned.
so i could employ my brother for my business and i wouldn't have to pay tax but my brother would have to?
Nice Goonies song in there
Thank you for noticing, I thought the choice was particularly awesome.
So if income tax is a delegated power of the federal government then how do states also have income tax? Federal doesn't have sales or property tax so it makes sense that states have those but the federal govt has the specific delegated power to tax income so the state shouldn't have that power
Mr. Hughes, you "failed" on the POLLOCK subject. Mr. Pollock was 'joined' in the lawsuit by others who held Stock in the NJ bank. 'At Issue' was the Bank paying Their 'income taxes' (because it was heavily invested in railroads (U.S. gov't-controlled entities = Privileged Activity = Statutory Income = taxable activity),) THEN paid its Investors a percentage out of that lower dollar-amount (after taxes.) -- Pollock, et al., argued that They should be paid Their Percentage on the Total Revenue collected by the Bank.
There were Actually Two Rulings by the USSC on that One Case: POLLOCK v. Farmers' Loan, 157 U.S. 429 (APR 8, 1895) ...and... POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO. 158 U.S. 601 (May 20, 1895). Pollock, et al., petitioned the Court to address issues that weren't addressed in the First Ruling. (I refer them as POLLOCK I and POLLOCK II.) POLLOCK II clarified the Issue that The Investors were engaged in Private Activity (NOT U.S. taxable,) while the Bank engaged in Privileged Activity (U.S. taxable activity.)
-- THIS CASE is ACTUALLY what drove the 16th Amd: for the U.S. Gov't to 'get at' the Dividends paid to the Investors. The 16th DID NOT change the Definition of "income" (derived from some form of Privileged Activity) to allow an all-inclusive tax. There is STILL a delineation between Private-Activity and Privileged-Activity. -- Do some reading on LostHorizons (dot) com... to get a more broad perspective on what IS and what ISN'T.
Great job explaining what we do. Terrible job covering why we really shouldn’t be.
Exactly, 1913 scotus ruled it unconstitutional and its clarified here czcams.com/video/azynljXxbC0/video.html
try adding annotations
Until Corporations pay as individuals do, = interest on the corporate Enities just as they do for you and me, based on the net or gross of that corporation, BUT EXCLUSION of payroll paid to over paid CEO's salaries, which should be set at minimum wage for a 40 hour week, not the pay scale CEOs are over paid at now, Once the tax based on that net or gross THEN the corporations can give the CEO's bonuses based on Corporations then, gross, net. profit.
Yes, but wages and tips are not taxable income. Only the profit derived from such sources is income taxable. If you buy a product then sell it for a higher price, one owes income tax. And still the avg. American is not required to participate. "Voluntary Compliance".
Great; more people talking about undefined "they" parties.
It seemed we really started fucking up starting in the 1900s
Trys to justify income tax to stop tariffs, has both now anyway lol
Interesting! ...alright :) thumb up & sub.
whos here in 2021
here is a simple concept,
NO tax can be a tax onwhich there is NO tax ;-) ie: LABOR !!!
graduated income tar 16th amendment
end income tax!!!👏👏👏
Im already gonna say this guy won't explain why the the taxes not being reapportioned back to the states is the violation. And they instead send it overseas.
He's right on many things but completely misunderstands the income tax. It is an excise (as stated by the Supreme Court) on certain privileged activities. It does not apply to a vast majority of Americans and none of it applies to any American's labor. It is a tax on foreigner's US sourced income or those employing them. Check out Dave Champion's videos on YT or read his excellent book on the subject, Income Tax; Shattering the Myths for a complete understanding of the applicability of the income tax.
THE 16 AMENDMENT might be ill-eagle
or IS
Only if you file then that means you choose to pay tax
what is "income"? when did the lower courts Trump the supreme Court?
Define income
Blatantly implying labor has no value.
A good book to read is Income Tax: Shattering the Myths by Dave Champion.
and if we do have a currency like gold with no paper dollars to go with it as our general currency and the government doesn't take anything other than some excise tax and some import tax and the rest of the people have successfully thriving businesses and own their own house I think this country would be doing phenomenally well but we don't have that we have the 1% in charge we don't have the people in charge there is an old saying he who has the gold makes the rules but when the people have the gold the people make the rules do you want to be taxed at 100% of everything that you make will that slavery do you want to keep everything that you worked your ass off for well that's called freedom do you think people should own their own businesses free and clear do you think people should own their own homes free and clear and not be subjugated to a bank that in debts them for the near rest of their life personal taxation is a slippery slope to slavery
You never give the definition of Income . Also it says " Among the several states " It never says the people of the Several states. Among the Sev. states is a LEGAL term regarding COMMERCE between the states and within the states . The case law on the subject says that the 16th amendment created NO new subjects of taxation.
this guy is way wrong the 16th changed NOTHING
Springer v. U. S., 102 U.S. 586 , it was held that a tax upon gains, profits, and income was an excise or duty, and not a direct tax, within the meaning of the constitution, and that its imposition was not, therefore, unconstitutional."
"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, quoted above. Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still
subject to the rule of apportionment…"
"The Sixteenth Amendment,
although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects..." U.S. Supreme Court,
Peck v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1918)
"[T]he settled doctrine
is that the Sixteenth Amendment confers no power upon Congress to define and tax as income without apportionment something which theretofore could not have been properly regarded as income." U.S. Supreme Court,
Taft v. Bowers, 278 US 470, 481 (1929)
Libertytree Tv .. How delusional you are!! You are like a crazy liberal denying the 2nd Amendment to individuals. Grow up and file your taxes. Sometimes you need to adapt with reality. It's what it is, not what you wanted to be.
atletico ATM
I posted this earlier but I felt you should update your mind.
The Supreme Court specifically stated that the 16th Amendment granted Congress no new power of taxation. The 16th Amendment merely closed a loophole in the Pollock v Farmer's loan and Trust Company decision whereby dividends (not the private property generating them)might otherwise be nontaxable. Private sector earnings have to be derived from a taxable activity in order to be classified as income. If you work for or contract with the federal government within the scope of their jurisdiction including their federal possessions, your earnings are taxable as income. The 16th Amendment allowed for dividends, rents, and other interests from private property to be taxable as income also. So in short, the government can tax the revenue private property generates, just not the private property itself without apportionment. So if you work in the private sector devoid of any connection to the federal government, your earnings are not income. Period.
The idea that the 16th Amendment could be allowed to eviscerate the Constitution by nullifying Article 1 § 2 clause 3, Article 1 § 9, and the entire 9th Amendment is preposterous. Also, the 9th Amendment specifically prevents lawmakers from taking away rights you already possess and the last I checked the Bill of Rights still contains the original ten amendments. The income tax and the 16th Amendment are upheld specifically because of the reasons I have stated. To further clarify, the income tax is it's nature an excise tax and can only be applied as such. The income tax has existed since 1861, the 16th Amendment did not create it, it is a legitimate Constitutional tax when applied correctly. Unfortunately, the IRS is not forthcoming with all of the pertinent information, and some of their practices should be considered downright criminal. losthorizons.com is a fantastic resource if you want to learn more. It's all up to you.
incidentally, you can apply the 9th amendment to the liberal 2nd Amendment agenda and just shut them down altogether.
who would pay 95% in taxes? ehy would you even work at that point?
The government dosen't make money by taxes they m make money by loans
Yeah but who owns the FED?
numbers don't lie, if u buy a a new product, it was tax 3 times already, from China to the wharehose to the store, then u buy it then tax again, so that 4 times, so that about 30% tax on 1 item that the government make, sometime more ,like cailfornia where taxes are higher!
The Federal Mafia is a book written in prison by Irwin Schiff. In the book, Schiff contended that the income tax system and Internal Revenue Service were illegal. On August 9, 2004, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an injunction issued by a U.S. District Court in Nevada under 26 U.S.C. § 7408 against Irwin Schiff and associates Cynthia Neun and Lawrence Cohen, against the sale of this book by those persons. This prohibition does not extend to other sellers of the book. The court rejected Schiff's contention on appeal that the First Amendment protects sales of the book, as the court found that the information it contains is fraudulent, inasmuch as it advertised that it would teach buyers how to legally cease paying federal income taxes.
Schiff, Neun and Cohen are barred under the injunction from selling or advertising material advocating nonpayment of tax, preparing a tax return for others, and from otherwise providing assistance or encouragement to others in violating tax law. Schiff and his associates are additionally required to provide a copy of the injunction to each of their customers, to post it on their website, and to provide the government with a customer list.
Schiff and his associates responded by giving the book for free on their website.
Political prisoners do exist in America who knew. Schiff has already served his time for tax evasion in the 70's now he's dying of cancer in a Texas jail. Schiff ran for President in 1996 as Libertarian.
Ilikemrealbig Schiff died like an old rat in prison thanks to his delusion. Government is not afraid of you advocating delusion, they just want their back taxes. Again Schiff even was abounded by his son. Again, he died like a rat. Don't be like him.
if you're working and you're get paid but you are text rate is at 100% you are a slave to that government fact but if you get to keep a hundred percent of everything that you earn you are free from taxation
*dons HAZMAT suit and enters comment section*
Repeal the 16th amendment!! Where in the constitution does the government
get the right to confiscate ANY of the income you worked so hard to get???
Start with Article I, Section 8, Clause 1. That was the basis for the Supreme Court's upholding the Civil War income tax 32 years before the 16th Amendment.
All taxes will create higher prices.
Wow someone needs to do a case law study. 3 supreme Court decisions decided the 16TH amendment gave the Fed NO NEW POWER of taxation. Income in the Constitution is defined as CAPITAL GAINS and CORPORATE. Your paid $ for your labor it's an exchange. Business pays taxes because they MAKE MONEY BY YOUR LABOR NOT THEIR OWN. Additionally there is NO LAW requiring u to file a 1040. The IRS is a CORPORATION and the enforcement arm of the Federal Reserve Bank! This guy has no idea about the subject.
Nice to see a sensible comment here.
Wrong! FAIL
Income was profits off buisness..
Living wages were unconstitutional to tax..Congress may tax but cannot be unconstitutional nor the IRS in its labeling of what is
It doesn't matter, if there was or not an income tax before or after the amendment. It is still unconstitutional. The argument against current form of income tax is not based on direct and indirect taxes. It is based on the fact, when money is earned in exchange of labor, constitutionally, it cannot be taxed. Tariff argument is lame, as well. Do you really think that businesses pay sales, corporate or any other taxes? You must have never read your receipt for the purchase of a gum. It says 25c + tax. Doesn't matter which tax we are talking about, it is the consumer (you and me) who ends up paying it. Customs, Tariffs and excise were, by any means, not worse than current sales and corporate taxes. I find it as an intentional twist on story to try to prove that somehow current taxes hurt average people less than the previous ones. How can any tax may hurt you less than the one which comes out of your paycheck, even before you see that money and it can be as high as 35%.
prof5string - This is meant to respond to something you said down in the comments section.
You posted:
1. Taxation isn’t slavery. I noticed from an earlier post of yours the following “The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that a tax on a person's labor would be unconstitutional because "that would constitute involuntary servitude which is slavery and slavery is illegal in the US." The Court has never made any such statement. If you think it did, cite the decisions that said so. Your failure to do so will simply demonstrate that you a liar and not a very good one at that. Put up or shut up.
1st, I have posted that the Supreme Court ruled, not the Supreme Court has consistently ruled. If I did post that then it was an oversite on my part. I'm normally more careful than that because I do want to be factual and not misleading
2nd, You are correct. That's how it should work. Why doesn't that same logic apply to the IRS concerning the law making us liable for the income tax? Put up or shut up should also apply or they are liars and frauds. Their failure to do so will simply demonstrate that they liars.
Simple we should have a tax of 50% for everyone making over 1M-10M and an 80% tax for everyone making over 10M then no tax on anyone else.
You do realize that would hurt you the most instead of the corporations and big businesses because they could just write it off but the employed can’t
thank you socialist who failed econ101, very cool!
Except, of course, it was never properly ratified.
no it wasn't , i disagree on this one with you. and i have proof. see title 26, thats only if you fall under those persons see carl miller knowing your constitution on taxes
Only applies to Federal Government and NOT the 50 states of the union. dig deeper
We must have abolish all income and property taxes
Oh no.... 666 likes! Eeekkk!
So here's one thing I didn't tell you the reason the states passed so quickly is because it gave states the ability to tax you as well that's why you pay property taxes and state income taxes in the sales tax which are all for bidden under the cup US Constitution but allowable under the 16th amendment
We end up paying all taxes, from whom ever taxed, as all the taxes collected are added on to the cost of what ever we buy. When you buy a car , that manufacturer has added on the cost of their income taxes. From the manufacturer of the Iron, the paint the tires, all taxes paid add to the cost of that car, however there is still the fact that filing a 1040 is still "Voluntary" Google my name and select "for President"
These comments are WILD lmao
The biggest theft ever
This guy never read the book, The Law that Never Was by Benson and Beckman. It clearly shows that 16th Amendment was not properly ratified. The Courts ruled against those that have challenged it, indicating that, yes the Judges are cheaper than high priced whores. Benson and Beckman went and obtained notarized documents from all the States involved at the time, so the evidence is indisputable and I personally have the two books that show it. If you have ever read any of the concurring and dissenting opinions coming from our illustrious Judiciary, you know how they twist and turn even the most basic ethical and legal terms and phrases. Like Clinton stated; it depends on what the definition of is is. It is the Judicial system that is allowing the enforcement of all these unconstitutional laws. Hasn't the Judiciary always been a rubber stamp for the ruling class. There is a solution but it will not be easy.
Thank you. I'll be checking out that book. I need to get to the bottom of this. I'm waiting for the Creature from Jekyll Island to come in (library). This video is apparently propping up the government/ IRS agenda and not sure why.
16th amendment was never fully ratified
ok
The 16th amendment is void.
What a joke this guy is. He's such a shill for a tax law that doesn't exist. He sounds like he gets excited about spreading misinformation for the IRS.
"Background" music should not compete with a Host/Narrator. Why does this guy vomit on camera? Bending out of camaera vomit?
I hate Income Tax !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You are totally lost bro. Get your facts stfaight before shooting a video. Do you have a law degree? Historian? Investigate some more.
Sure Ryan, Ill get right on it. I just made it all up. Is that the white light from a conspiracy theory I see in the background or are you just upset with the 16th amendment. I didn't ratify it, I just explained it. But I am sure you know the truth. Which is awesome, I look forward to your non existent video.
You're right, I do believe in a conspiracy theory and yes, there will be no video. Fudge, you wit has beaten me...guess it back to work where I can make some legal bank tender. Anyways, check out this link. There are some odd coincidence in the year 1913. www.historyorb.com/events/date/1913
You see what you want to see I guess.
Keith Hughes Keith, I'm right there with you...but I will go further to give my opinion that the Federal Reserve is a cartel that is controlled by the elitists who want nothing more than to see World Domination
Ryan - This subject did cause me to secure a law degree as well as degrees in political science and history. The FACTS are the 16th Amendment does NOT apply to anyone who receives no government privilege such as incorporation or income derived from corporate profits, government employment, etc. and I've proven this many times in court by my winning arguments.
Sorry Sorry it is a shame that you are completely wrong!!!
The Court (supreme) clarify that in the Sixteenth Amendment- "incomes, from whatever source derived''- is the essential thought being expressed with a conciseness and lucidity entirely in harmony with the form and style of the Constitution and NOT obliterating it. Confirming the fact that all “direct taxes” are subject to “apportionment”.
Read the following Supreme Court Rulings
Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co .. 240 U.S. 1 (1916)STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO , 240 U.S. 103 (1916)
CHAS. C. STEWARD MACH. CO. v. DAVIS. No. 837. Argued April 8-9, 1937.
Supreme Court Decided May 24, 1937.
Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 40 S. Ct. 189, 193, 64 L. Ed. 521,
9 A.L.R. 1570
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)” CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT,
“Staples v. United States, 21 F. Supp. 737 (E.D. Pa. 1937)
AND
“Conner v. United States, 303 F. Supp. 1187 (S.D. Tex. 1969)