FORM 1040 (1913) - 1913.pdf
The Federal banded income tax (redistribution of wealth) is 100. This is what the illegal document (until the 16th amendment in 1913) looked like back then. To bad we cant abolish that amendment and make it illegal again.
SOURCE URL: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/1913.pdf
I do not agree, but do agree. I think what your saying is true, but your saying slightly off.
It is currently legal to do income tax, and our neighbors have gotten together and voted that its OK to steal our lawn furniture and a whole lot more. This does make it legal.
It does not make it moral.
Legal by US law, is not the same as legal by moral or natural law. It is not moral and is against natural law. Since we have made theft legal is it any wonder that so much larger percentage of our citizens consider theft lawful today than did in 1913?
I have always wondered when people muse about why the morals of people have dropped so much over the last 100 years, why the connection cannot be made between immoral law such as this one, and the growth of immoral nature of people.
Ultimately there are three things I am getting at with this post.
* It is legal to charge us Income tax based on US law. It should not be.
* It was immoral to make that legal because it contradicts the natural law that "by the sweat of thy brow you will eat all the days of thy life." which is a great way of saying, you keep what you earn and do what you want with it.
* When a societies highest law becomes immoral the society will follow. IE when societies highest law says its legal to steal that society to a larger and larger percentage will become thieves.
Sir William Blackstone said it perhaps best (which I will paraphrase as the 1750 English is a bit rough). If the king says the world is flat does that make it so? Our Kings have said its legal so it is by our law, but does it really make it so by natural law?
So while I agree with you in premise the reality is that until the 16th amendment is gone the US Law allows income tax, and whatever other tax they want to charge. The king has said the world is flat and it is so, until some one or some group proves otherwise.
PS. I also think that if I shot my neighbors who were stealing my long chairs I would go to jail and they would not. I think that very wrong, and once again making evil good and good evil but that is the upside down world we live in.
There was a constitution amendment passed by the constitutional method that allows federal income tax. How is using the process that our republic allowed not legal? Are you saying that a constitutional amendment done in the way the constitution outlines is not legal?
So the short answer is yes, you think the lawful process that was set up and followed is not lawful if it infringes on the rights of the people. Then you best go back and tell Washington, Adams and Hamilton all that they invalidated the country when they passed the whiskey tax and then again with the sedition act. By your logic the people failed to follow the constitution with only a few years of its ratification.
The issue is the guiding principle of the constitution is not in it. It should have been. Two of the men who lead its creation and ratification very quickly discarded it, a third did the same but later realized the error of it.
The best way we could do it again today would require about 30% of the productive population. This happens to also be about what they had when the declaration was signed. Majority were Tories.
If 30% of all productive people, business owners and individual would simply stop paying any state or federal taxes at the same time, it would all end. No violence needed, though I am sure it would be used against us. The feds would be bankrupt in a quarter and most states would be the quarter after that. Because of a handful of people 30% were willing to risk everything for a chance for freedom, and it would take it again, not just a handful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_and_...