Was the 16th amendment ever ratified?

[Furious1Auto]

FEDERAL INCOME TAX

QUOTE

I refer of course to the fact that, in Memphis, the federal government tried a lady named Vernice Kuglin on charges of tax evasion - filing false W-4 forms - and lost. Miss Kuglin is a pilot for Federal Express. Some years ago, she began wondering what law required her to pay income tax. She couldn’t find it in the Internal Revenue Code, so, in 1995, she wrote IRS and asked them to tell her.

 

The Internal Revenue Service refused. They did not respond. The more she studied, the more she became convinced that the reason they failed to respond was that the law did not require her to pay. So, she put 99 allowances on her W-4, and took home (almost) all her wages.

 

Our friends at IRS said she had lied, and charged her with six felony counts of tax evasion on $920,000 of income, enough to put Miss Kuglin away for as long as 30 years. She is 58 now, so in effect she faced a life sentence, and could have had to pay $1.5 million in fines. It is important to note that our friends at IRS prepare these cases very carefully. They don’t take one into court unless they know they will win. In a case like this, involving serious money, they do everything they can to incite the jurors’ envy. They constantly refer to the defendant’s "fair share."

 

On August 8, 2003, in Memphis, despite all this, the jury acquitted Miss Kuglin of all charges. They said IRS had not proved the lady was required to pay the tax. After the verdict, frustrated prosecutor Joe Murphy asked the judge to order Miss Kuglin to pay it. The judge replied, "Sir, I don’t work for IRS." By then Murphy may have been too mentally taxed to remember that, after the verdict, there was no legal basis for the judge to issue such an order, even if he does work for IRS.

 

Notice that there are many taxes in the Internal Revenue Code. Our friends at IRS have no trouble citing the Code section - the law - that requires a "taxpayer" to pay each one. Except the income tax. With regard to the income tax alone, they are tongue-tied. Why? Wouldn’t they quash the controversy and kamikaze pilots like Miss Kuglin, simply by stating the Code section that applies?

Yes, they would; they don’t ‘cause there ain’t. There is no such section. That doesn’t mean the income tax is illegal or unconstitutional. It doesn’t mean there is no such tax. There is, and the people it applies to need to pay it, but it applies to very few people, like most of the taxes in the Internal Revenue Code.

Edited July 14, 2007 by Furious1Auto

[Mr.Roboto]

We've illegally invaded and occupied Afghanistan and Iraq and you're worried about income taxes being illegal?

[ehaase]

Don't even waste your time considering these questions. Failure to file and pay your income taxes can ruin you financially for years to come,not to mention the possibility of being the subject of a criminal investigation.

 

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf

[Furious1Auto]

Don't even waste your time considering these questions. Failure to file and pay your income taxes can ruin you financially for years to come,not to mention the possibility of being the subject of a criminal investigation.

 

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf

I created this thread to segregate the argument from National Health care, the lead post is a quote from fmccap!

[Raws41900]

Don't even waste your time considering these questions. Failure to file and pay your income taxes can ruin you financially for years to come,not to mention the possibility of being the subject of a criminal investigation.

 

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf

 

thats what i told my younger brother when he showed me this video online of some dumbshit in mass. or somewhere up there that was in his house with leo's around his house saying that the courts wouldnt show him a document with a law saying he had to pay taxes so he didnt for something like 5yrs.. so they came after his ass.. my brother thought the guy was "awesome" for standing up to the man.. which was funny to me because my brother had done just that his first year of employment at a company by not paying federal taxes, and he owed 5k in back taxes at the end of the year, after he didnt get that paid on time they started hitting him with penalties and other shit, being that he didnt have a great job and couldnt pull 5k+ out of his ass he got booted out of the place he was renting lost pretty much everything he had and is still struggling 3yrs later mostly due to that one stupid mistake.

 

moral of the story is, uncle sam gets his money, may not be that week you decide to change your dependants to 99, but he'll get it back sooner or later.

[ehaase]

moral of the story is, uncle sam gets his money, may not be that week you decide to change your dependants to 99, but he'll get it back sooner or later.

 

The big problem is with independent contractors, especially construction contractors, who are not subject to income tax withholding. They decide to go years without filing returns, then by the time the IRS gets to them, there is no way they can pay the outstanding liabilities. I have worked for the IRS in the small business examination area for 21 years and deal with these people almost every day.

[fmccap]

The big problem is with independent contractors, especially construction contractors, who are not subject to income tax withholding. They decide to go years without filing returns, then by the time the IRS gets to them, there is no way they can pay the outstanding liabilities. I have worked for the IRS in the small business examination area for 21 years and deal with these people almost every day.

Hey since you worked for them, could you show us the law(code or whatever in the tax books) that requires us to pay this?

Here's another one Furious.

No Longer Any Need To Pay Federal Income Taxes

Under cross-examination by nationally prominent tax attorney, Lowell H.

Becraft, Jr., Ms. Jeu (expert IRS witness) conceded that the IRS uses a

secret code to classify people. Mr. Long (the defendant) was classified

by the secret code of the IRS as not liable to file a tax return or pay

income tax. -- Recent landmark tax case lost by IRS

MANY AMERICANS MAY NOT BE LIABLE FOR FEDERAL INCOME TAX!

 

In the above amazing court case the jury agreed with the defendant --

prosecuted for willful failure to file income tax returns for 1989 and

1990 -- that the "income tax" is actually an excise tax and applies only

to certain classes of people.

 

WHAT IF THE IRS RUNS ON 90% BLUFF, 10% TERROR, AND 0% SUBSTANCE?

[fmccap]

I created this thread to segregate the argument from National Health care, the lead post is a quote from fmccap!

This might hepl you understand inflation.

Scenerio 3: Fred Fastbuck

Suppose that after you received the ten dollar bill from Farmer Brown and before you could spend it, Fred Fastbuck, the local counterfeiter, printed up another ten dollar bill. Being observant, he had noticed the need for more tens, so he made one. But his ten dollar bill does not represent real labor and-or natural resources. He simply printed it. Now, there are two ten dollar bills in circulation, totaling twenty dollars. But there is only ten dollars worth of real labor or product in the economy backing those two imaginary ten dollar bills. When you go to buy that pair of shoes, they are gone. Someone else had paid a ten dollar bill for them. Your ten is worthless. Had one person acquired both ten dollar bills, they would have been worth only five dollars each. That one person could have paid both ten dollar bills for the shoes. And there you have it: Money has lost its value. Money has lost half its buying power. Either the ten dollar bill was devalued or the price of shoes increased. Call it what you want, but your money no longer buys as much as it used to. No imaginary money can hold value if it does not represent real labor and-or real natural resources. In actual life, things are much more complicated, but the effect is the same. The absence of real value for imaginary money will cause money value loss. The effect may not be felt immediately in a complex society, but it will be felt eventually. Note that the problem was caused by too much money without real backing by real natural resources and-or real labor and services.

 

Too much money can cause money value loss.

This episode spoke of a counterfeiter. Nonetheless, that is, essentially, what the banklords are doing to us. In effect, when they create checkbook money, they are creating counterfeit money that creates private profit for them and money value loss for us. The bankers’ checkbook money is not backed by real natural resources, labor and-or services, making it dangerously inflationary.

Here is also a good video of the fed.

SECRETS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE

[fmccap]

FEDERAL INCOME TAX

QUOTE

I refer of course to the fact that, in Memphis, the federal government tried a lady named Vernice Kuglin on charges of tax evasion - filing false W-4 forms - and lost. Miss Kuglin is a pilot for Federal Express. Some years ago, she began wondering what law required her to pay income tax. She couldn’t find it in the Internal Revenue Code, so, in 1995, she wrote IRS and asked them to tell her.

 

The Internal Revenue Service refused. They did not respond. The more she studied, the more she became convinced that the reason they failed to respond was that the law did not require her to pay. So, she put 99 allowances on her W-4, and took home (almost) all her wages.

 

Our friends at IRS said she had lied, and charged her with six felony counts of tax evasion on $920,000 of income, enough to put Miss Kuglin away for as long as 30 years. She is 58 now, so in effect she faced a life sentence, and could have had to pay $1.5 million in fines. It is important to note that our friends at IRS prepare these cases very carefully. They don’t take one into court unless they know they will win. In a case like this, involving serious money, they do everything they can to incite the jurors’ envy. They constantly refer to the defendant’s "fair share."

 

On August 8, 2003, in Memphis, despite all this, the jury acquitted Miss Kuglin of all charges. They said IRS had not proved the lady was required to pay the tax. After the verdict, frustrated prosecutor Joe Murphy asked the judge to order Miss Kuglin to pay it. The judge replied, "Sir, I don’t work for IRS." By then Murphy may have been too mentally taxed to remember that, after the verdict, there was no legal basis for the judge to issue such an order, even if he does work for IRS.

 

Notice that there are many taxes in the Internal Revenue Code. Our friends at IRS have no trouble citing the Code section - the law - that requires a "taxpayer" to pay each one. Except the income tax. With regard to the income tax alone, they are tongue-tied. Why? Wouldn’t they quash the controversy and kamikaze pilots like Miss Kuglin, simply by stating the Code section that applies?

Yes, they would; they don’t ‘cause there ain’t. There is no such section. That doesn’t mean the income tax is illegal or unconstitutional. It doesn’t mean there is no such tax. There is, and the people it applies to need to pay it, but it applies to very few people, like most of the taxes in the Internal Revenue Code.

also google the original 13th amendment. I first got wind of this while in springfield, our state capital.

[Furious1Auto]

This might hepl you understand inflation.

Scenerio 3: Fred Fastbuck

 

Here is also a good video of the fed.

SECRETS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE

There you go mixing issues again, I can see if it is needed to prove another point, so I'll ignore that part. As far as the IRS I can't remember what the title and code is although I once knew it, but I can tell you this. The tax code is the bible for the IRS and is the complete Tax law. The tax code states that you have to file an income tax return or an income tax statement. What is an income tax statement did you ask? It is a document that keeps you in compliance without disclosing the dollar amount you earned! When the IRS peruses you being that there is no language that names you specifically liable to pay income tax, The IRS prosecutes under the same laws that apply to retailers of Alcohol, tobacco and, firearms. Well I don't sell alcohol ,tobacco or firearms how can they legally hold me liable? The answer is implied adhesion contracts attached to every government privilege document. Your drivers license, birth certificate, car titles, boat titles, home deeds. By accepting these documents without nullifying these implied adhesion contracts you are assuming the responsibility that you will file income tax. Now there are savvy lawyers that can file the proper documentation to eliminate your tax liability and file income statements for you, which will save you federal and state tax. My experience is that once these lawyers have you on the hook then their your new Uncle Sam. I know a couple that stopped paying taxes for two years this way, They received corrospondence from the IRS stating that they could come back in to the system without penalty! What they didn't know when they signed on was that this paperwork had to be filed every year, and being their are few in tax law that know what papers to file. This meant that out of fear of prosecution people would have to pay this attorney what he demanded! Fuck that pay your tax be a productive member of society and don't try to meddle in things you have no knowledge of. It's what you don't know that can hurt you!

Oh Yeh it was never legally ratified and the original results are a matter of public record Here's a link to a sight that summarizes what transpired in 1913. This can be sourced at many sights by typing in 16th amendment or follow this link!

16th amendment!

Edited July 15, 2007 by Furious1Auto

[sept68]

Pay your taxes. Congress and President can always close any tax loop hole and make it retroactive. Use the law to get out of your responsibilities and they will use the law against you. Guess who's side the American people are going to be on.

[CD4EMAN]

DEATH and TAXES is not just a saying!

[fmccap]

Fuck that pay your tax be a productive member of society and don't try to meddle in things you have no knowledge of. It's what you don't know that can hurt you!

Oh Yeh it was never legally ratified and the original results are a matter of public record Here's a link to a sight that summarizes what transpired in 1913. This can be sourced at many sights by typing in 16th amendment or follow this link!

16th amendment!

Pay my taxes to be a prodictive member of society???? Are you sick????

 

Then you tell me it's a law(but can't find the title and code) then give me a link that it was not legally done.

 

Maybe what we don't know is what's hurting us.

[fmccap]

Pay your taxes. Congress and President can always close any tax loop hole and make it retroactive. Use the law to get out of your responsibilities and they will use the law against you. Guess who's side the American people are going to be on.

My responsibilities??? If you knew how things worked you would also know that it is Congress who can change things, not the president.

[fmccap]

There you go mixing issues again, I can see if it is needed to prove another point, so I'll ignore that part.

I was trying to teach you what inflation is. Also inflation is directly caused by the FED.

[sept68]

My responsibilities??? If you knew how things worked you would also know that it is Congress who can change things, not the president.

 

I said the President because he can suggest legislation to Congress and sign bills into law after they have ratified by both houses. Come on didn't you ever watch School House Rock?

[Raws41900]

I said the President because he can suggest legislation to Congress and sign bills into law after they have ratified by both houses. Come on didn't you ever watch School House Rock?

 

+1 on school house rock! :happy feet:

[mettech]

I'm sure everyone that doesn't pay taxes has never used any utilities, assists or protection the U.S. Government provides.

 

Don't pay any taxes.... but keep your cheap ass from using any of my country's benefits. Go somewhere else for a free ride. :shades:

Edited July 16, 2007 by mettech

[Furious1Auto]

Pay my taxes to be a prodictive member of society???? Are you sick????

 

Then you tell me it's a law(but can't find the title and code) then give me a link that it was not legally done.

 

Maybe what we don't know is what's hurting us.

I already posted a link it's in your post of my quote. But since you didn't find it here's the explanation.

I still would not quit paying taxes, like mettech said your still given the services and protections like police and fire. You not paying taxes and using our services would be the equivalent to a non-union worker at a right to work union shop that refuses to pay dues!

 

HOW SOME STATES DID NOT LEGALLY

RATIFY THE 16TH AMENDMENT

 

Bill Benson's findings, published in "The Law That Never Was," make a convincing case that the 16th amendment was not legally ratified and that Secretary of State Philander Knox was not merely in error, but committed fraud when he declared it ratified in February 1913. What follows is a summary of some of the major findings for many of the states, showing that their ratifications were not legal and should not have been counted.

 

The 16th amendment had been sent out in 1909 to the state governors for ratification by the state legislatures after having been passed by Congress. There were 48 states at that time, and three-fourths, or 36, of them were required to give their approval in order for it to be ratified. The process took almost the whole term of the Taft administration, from 1909 to 1913.

 

Knox had received responses from 42 states when he declared the 16th amendment ratified on February 25, 1913, just a few days before leaving office to make way for the administration of Woodrow Wilson. Knox acknowledged that four of those states (Utah, Conn, R.I. and N.H.) had rejected it, and he counted 38 states as having approved it. We will now examine some of the key evidence Bill Benson found regarding the approval of the amendment in many of those states.

 

In Kentucky, the legislature acted on the amendment without even having received it from the governor (the governor of each state was to transmit the proposed amendment to the state legislature). The version of the amendment that the Kentucky legislature made up and acted upon omitted the words "on income" from the text, so they weren't even voting on an income tax! When they straightened that out (with the help of the governor), the Kentucky senate rejected the amendment. Yet Philander Knox counted Kentucky as approving it!

 

In Oklahoma, the legislature changed the wording of the amendment so that its meaning was virtually the opposite of what was intended by Congress, and this was the version they sent back to Knox. Yet Knox counted Oklahoma as approving it, despite a memo from his chief legal counsel, Reuben Clark, that states were not allowed to change it in any way.

 

Attorneys who have studied the subject have agreed that Kentucky and Oklahoma should not have been counted as approvals by Philander Knox, and, moreover, if any state could be shown to have violated its own state constitution or laws in its approval process, then that state's approval would have to be thrown out. That gets us past the "presumptive conclusion" argument, which says that the actions of an executive official cannot be judged by a court, and admits that Knox could be wrong.

 

If we subtract Kentucky and Oklahoma from the 38 approvals above, the count of valid approvals falls to 36, the exact number needed for ratification. If any more states can be shown to have had invalid approvals, the 16th amendment must be regarded as null and void.

 

The state constitution of Tennessee prohibited the state legislature from acting on any proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution sent by Congress until after the next election of state legislators. The intent, of course, is to give the proposed amendment a chance to become an issue in the state legislative elections so that the people can have a voice in determining the outcome. It also provides a cooling off period to reduce the tendency to approve an idea just because it happens to be the moment's trend. You've probably already guessed that the Tennessee legislature did not hold off on voting for the amendment until after the next election, and you'd be right - they didn't; hence, they acted upon it illegally before they were authorized to do so. They also violated their own state constitution by failing to read the resolution on three different days as prescribed by Article II, Section 18. These state constitutional violations make their approval of the amendment null and void. Their approval is and was invalid, and it brings the number of approving states down to 35, one less than required for ratification.

 

Texas and Louisiana violated provisions in their state constitutions prohibiting the legislatures from empowering the federal government with any additional taxing authority. Now the number is down to 33.

 

Twelve other states, besides Tennessee, violated provisions in their constitutions requiring that a bill be read on three different days before voting on it. This is not a trivial requirement. It allows for a cooling off period; it enables members who may be absent one day to be present on another; it allows for a better familiarity with, and understanding of, the measure under consideration, since some members may not always read a bill or resolution before voting on it (believe it or not!). States violating this procedure were: Mississippi, Ohio, Arkansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, West Virginia, Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Colorado, and Illinois. Now the number is reduced to 21 states legally ratifying the amendment.

 

When Secretary Knox transmitted the proposed amendment to the states, official certified and sealed copies were sent. Likewise, when state results were returned to Knox, it was required that the documents, including the resolution that was actually approved, be properly certified, signed, and sealed by the appropriate official(s). This is no more than any ordinary citizen has to do in filing any legal document, so that it's authenticity is assured; otherwise it is not acceptable and is meaningless. How much more important it is to authenticate a constitutional amendment! Yet a number of states did not do this, returning uncertified, unsigned, and/or unsealed copies, and did not rectify their negligence even after being reminded and warned by Knox. The most egregious offenders were Ohio, California, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Minnesota - which did not send any copy at all, so Knox could not have known what they even voted on! Since four of these states were already disqualified above, California is now subtracted from the list of valid approvals, reducing it to 20.

 

These last five states, along with Kentucky and Oklahoma, have particularly strong implications with regard to the fraud charge against Knox, in that he cannot be excused for not knowing they shouldn't have been counted. Why was he in such a hurry? Why did he not demand that they send proper documentation? They never did.

 

Further review would make the list dwindle down much more, but with the number down to 20, sixteen fewer than required, this is a suitable place to rest, without getting into the matter of several states whose constitutions limited the taxing authority of their legislatures, which could not give to the federal govern authority they did not have.

 

The results from the six states Knox had not heard from at the time he made his proclamation do not affect the conclusion that the amendment was not legally ratified. Of those six: two (Virginia and Pennsylvania) he never did hear from, because they ignored the proposed amendment; Florida rejected it; two others (Vermont and Massachusetts) had rejected it much earlier by recorded votes, but, strangely, submitted to the Secretary within a few days of his ratification proclamation that they had passed it (without recorded votes); West Virginia had purportedly approved it at the end of January 1913, but its notification had not yet been received (remember that West Virginia had violated its own constitution, as noted above).

Edited July 16, 2007 by Furious1Auto

[taxman100]

Just because she found a jury that sided with her doesn't mean squat - the IRS will get their money eventually - they will just appeal the ruling through federal courts. Trust me, she will end up paying. A jury even aquitted O.J. Simpson of murder, so take their decision with a grain of salt.

 

These sorts of things have been going around for decades - ask Wesley Snipes about it.

 

But here is a link to the IRS publication about frivolous tax arguments that site code and regs inadfinitum about your tax filing requirements. I could find 3rd party sources as well, but

 

Linky to IRS Publication

 

The real scam in the IRS tax code is how over 50% of U.S. taxpayers pay no federal income taxes - The top 10% of all households pay 70% of the income taxes in the United States, and the top 25% pay 85% of the income taxes.

 

In 2004 32% of all tax returns filed showed a federal income tax of ZERO. Another 15% of all tax returns showed a small enough income to not be required to pay taxes. In total, 40% of all Americans pay no income tax in the United States.

 

That is one reason you have uncontrolled government spending - a huge minority doesn't have to pay for it.

[fmccap]

I still would not quit paying taxes, like mettech said your still given the services and protections like police and fire. You not paying taxes and using our services would be the equivalent to a non-union worker at a right to work union shop that refuses to pay dues!

Here is something interesting. Income tax witholding just started in 1942??? How did this country run for 150+ years?????

The "Victory Tax Act of 1942" was quietly repealed on May 29, 1944; however, the government continues to collect withholding taxes

During the early part of World War II, Congress enacted the first

withholding tax law entitled the "Victory Tax Act of 1942" (56 Stat.

884).

For the first time in our history, the government taxed citizens in the

private sector at the source on wages. This temporary tax was put into

effect

on January 1, 1943. The rate of this emergency tax was 5% of annual net

income for those individuals subject to the tax. This new tax, which was

supposedly enacted for the purpose of helping to finance the war effort,

was

intended to automatically end at the end of World War II, as is described

in

Sections 475 and 476 of the 1942 Revenue Act.

 

It is the understanding of many citizens that this new and temporary

Victory Tax was granted under Article I, Section 8, Clause 12 of the U.

S.

Constitution, which reads as follows:

 

"The Congress shall have power: To raise and support armies,

but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer

term than two years ...

 

Clause 12 does not, however, suspend the taxing power of Article I,

Sections 2 and 9 of the Constitution. Direct taxes on private individual

citizens have to be apportioned, whether in times of war or peace. The

"Victory Tax" was a DIRECT UNconstitutional tax thrust upon the American

people in time of war, under the guise of patriotism. To assist in the

prompt

collection of this new and temporary tax, the process of "withholding"

was

started, which deducted amounts from workers paychecks.

 

The Public Laws to carry out the Victory Tax can be found in the

Statutes at Large (56), October 21, 1942, Pages 884-894, Subchapter D,

Sections 450-476, Parts I, II and III.

 

One can learn the true intent and limit of the Victory Tax by

reading

Part II - Collection of Tax at Source on Wages. At 465(d) is the

following

definition for the term "EMPLOYEE":

 

"The term 'employee' includes an officer, employee, or elected

official of the United States, A State, Territory, or any

political

subdivision thereof, or the district of Columbia, or any agency

or

instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term

'employee' also includes an officer of a corporation."

 

The above specification is essentially a duplication of an earlier

federal tax law enacted in 1939. That tax is the "Public Salary Tax

Act"'

which is codified in Title 4 USC at Section 111. The 1939 tax law is

expanded and enlarged in the 1943 law by the addition of the phrase -

"The term 'employee' also includes an officer of a corporation". Such

liability was omitted in the "Public Salary Tax Act of 1939".

 

It should be noted that in both of these specifications for tax on

wages, any reference is limited to Federal government workers. Totally

absent in the specifications is any reference to PRIVATE CITIZENS that

are

not Federal government workers.

Edited July 16, 2007 by fmccap

[fmccap]

One more.

DONALD DUCK PAYS HIS TAXES

When you pay your taxes this year, give thanks to Walt Disney and Donald Duck. Once upon a time, there was no income tax. However, in 1942, things changed.

A year after the United States joined the Second World War, Uncle Sam was strapped for cash to pay for the war effort. The voluntary income tax had been in place for 29 years, but for Constitutional reasons, fewer than 11 percent of Americans had to pay the income tax at that time. As a result, Congress enacted into law the Victory Tax Act of 1942, which included concurrent law for automatic wage withholding. The government attempted to legitimize these new laws by citing Article 1, Section 5, Clause 2 of the Constitution: "To support Armies but no apportionment for money to that useshall be a longer term then 2 years."

 

This new income tax, like the Federal income tax already in existence, was delegated to the Department of Treasury. Hence, it violated the Constitution by ignoring the "separation of powers" clause by giving a Congressional power to an Executive delegate. This specific transfer of power was determined as unconstitutional by Congress on September 14th, 1787, when a motion was proposed to transfer the power of tax collection from Congress to the Treasury Department. That motion was declined.

[fmccap]

I still would not quit paying taxes, like mettech said your still given the services and protections like police and fire. You not paying taxes and using our services would be the equivalent to a non-union worker at a right to work union shop that refuses to pay dues!

"You know that road in front of your house? The pipes bringing water to your house? The guy that picks up your garbage? The policeman who serves you? The teacher teaching your kids? ...umm, you wouldn't get that if no one paid income taxes." You are mistaken — all those things are paid for from other tax revenue. For example, the roads are paid for with the gas tax. The schools are paid for with property taxes and taxes charged when getting building permits.

[mettech]

"You know that road in front of your house? The pipes bringing water to your house? The guy that picks up your garbage? The policeman who serves you? The teacher teaching your kids? ...umm, you wouldn't get that if no one paid income taxes." You are mistaken — all those things are paid for from other tax revenue. For example, the roads are paid for with the gas tax. The schools are paid for with property taxes and taxes charged when getting building permits.

 

Are you saying that no Fed money is used for the roads, schools or any local enhancements????

[Jimmy G]

http://irwinschiff.blogspot.com/

 

http://paynoincometax.com/

 

http://irwinschiffbs.blogspot.com/

 

Enjoy..............