I'm going to also point out that the US income tax on SALARIES AND WAGES is not a legal tax under our constitution. Its only enforced (by jail time and other penalties). Again. . . the federal income tax that the average US citizen pays is ILLEGAL under our constitution. We pay that particular tax to pay penny per penny the interest rate the Federal reserve charges the US government. This should be mind blowing to all of us!!!!! The US government can print it's own money BUT DOESN'T and has to pay TRILLIONS of dollars to a Federal reserve bank that charges the government in it's tax paying citizen interest on currency that never existed until they printed it. MIND EFFING BLOWING!!!! Let me explain it this way. If I made a legal printing press and printed say $1000 (with the permission of the US gov.) and lent it to you. You would have to pay that $1000 dollars to me in return with interest of say like $50. Now I made $50 (not $1050) out of NOTHING. The $1000 can now be shredded and the net effect of this is a deficit in the system thus our out of control federal debt. Think about that $1000 out into the system, $1050 taken out of the system. . . this can ONLY lead to consumer and government DEBT. The central banking systems of all the developed nations need to be removed or we will all face the loss of sovereignty of our nations.
So seeing as Obama wasn't president at the time all of this went down, would you say the Bush administration reminds you of Al Capone in some ways? Or is that a one way street?
The Fed is, by design, not supposed to be dependent on the Executive Branch. So I don't think it's really fair to use the Fed's actions as a cudgel with which to beat either the Bush or Obama administrations. That said, I find the Fed's actions through this whole sequence of events to be quite concerning. Between Bernanke/Paulson/Geithner (both Treasury Secretaries seemingly following the Fed rather than leading), spanning both presidential administrations, these guys seem to have been undertaking a series of extremely radical policies, without much transparency or accountability, via dubious means. Forcing private companies to take actions that may be detrimental to their own interests (although perhaps not detrimental to the interests of their CEOs) is ridiculous. SR
Just as a side note Barfo I'm quite a big fan of yours as well. Your comments always have me rolling on the floor laughing. Now back to the arguement. . . I know about the 16th amendment but as far as I'm aware all amendments to the constitution must be ratified (approved/authorized/sanctioned) by 3/4 of the States. This is per article V of the US constitution. At the time there were 48 states and 36 were needed to ratify the ammendment. 38 is the "official count" but if you dig deeper you'll find that they pulled a 2000-election-Florida-hanging-chad-style-fraud as fewer than 20 states can be found to have officially voted to ratify it. Here's a link to an argument about it and there are many many more. http://www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/notratified.htm Amendment 16 was not (legally) ratified and therefore shouldn't be enforced.
Well... great! I knew you knew about the 16th amendment, I just wanted to hear the argument against it without having to google it. I'm lazy that way. Maybe there was some dirty business in ratifying it, I don't know, but, like the 2000 election, what's done is done. The courts have upheld numerous challenges to the tax. It's not going to go away because of something that might have happened 100 years ago. Might as well claim the US is really a British colony. The revolution was illegal after all. barfo
I have buddies of mine that worked on the valuation of ML for B of A. They were furnished incomplete and misleading information from ML on their financial status. It's tough to do M&A on a bank that has a larger and better M&A staff than yours, and ML did a really good job at hiding the depth of their MBS derivative exposure. It should be noted that these securities are pretty exotic and the bond math gets a little fuzzy at the edges, but eventually it comes out in the wash. Hank Paulson was one of the best M&A guys in the business in his Goldman days, and I'm not sure even he understood the kinds of liabilities B of A was going to assume. Getting back to the issue at hand, the B of A acquisition of ML was pushed by the Treasury Secretary because ML going down would have crashed the system. So, unlike other acquisitions--which are a competitive process and result in a high bid which gives the shareholders of the acquired company some equity in exchange for their holdings--this one was like an arranged marriage where the husband only got a quick glance at the bride. Worse, she wearing a veil and the dowry was arranged based on that information. When the veil was taken off (i.e., the due diligence period), B of A saw warts and bad teeth. Based on the money B of A was getting from the Government, when they tried to back out, the government clearly influenced them to stay with it by a carrot (more gov't money) and a stick (pulling those funds). The bottom line is that this wasn't a traditional acquisition and we're beginning to see the problems when the government gets involved in such private-to-private M&A work. Ken Lewis ultimately paid the price, but the expectation from B of A is that they'll eventually be made whole by the Government.
That's a slippery slope. We either have a nation built on the constitution or we just make stuff up as we go along. It is the very basis of our legal framework and without it we are a rudderless ship. Either amendments are passed legally or they are not amendments period. A judge can rule however they want but to avoid activist judges of either stripe we must look to the constitution for guidance. If the 16th amendment was not passed (it's hard for me to say but it seems suspect at best) then it should not be enforced. If it's so wonderful and universally agreed upon we might as well do the formality of re-ratifying it to be sure that it passed. It's the only amendment I know of where there is some question as to it's legality. Let's make it right or be done with it. It's kind of silly anyways as our income tax laws seem to really only apply to lower tier rich and the middle class. Poor people and the very rich pay virtually nothing.
What if there was some possible evidence that the 1st amendment was passed improperly? Or the 2nd? Should we then stop enforcing those? What if it turns out that we stole all this land from the Native Americans? Should we give it back? barfo
You can only respond to events after they have happened. There is no evidence of the 1st amendment being improperly passed, it's part of the bill of rights for crying out loud. Unless you are a supporter of pre-emption you can only deal with things after they have happened. History is altered all the time due to discovery of new information. Likewise during a court proceeding the discovery period can bring up new facts that radically alter the final decision in a case. Since there is evidence that the 16th amendment wasn't passed appropriately we ought to pursue it. If it is a just amendment that we all agree with, then it should have no problem passing. I'm sure the 14th amendment for example would sail right through. The 16th? Maybe not. As to your point about Native Americans I happen to believe there should be some sort of reparation given to Native Americans. Certainly we should stop using eminent domain to steal land on Indian Reservations, such as was the case on Navajo lands with uranium mines in the not too distant past. Germany was helped after WW II with the Marshal Plan and probably prevented another war in europe. By contrast the economic imperialism of the North during the reconstruction has led to a still lingering hatred and divisiveness in the South even 150 years later. Certainly, the Treaty of Versailles with it's onerous burden on the defeated Germany led directly to WWII. Also there have been successful challenges to the IRS. Admittedly, few and far between. I simply think this is a subject that deserves more investigation. In my opinion the creation of the FED which was actually legal, is far more troublesome. Bernake admitted the FED created the first great depression and there are signs their actions over the past decade and currently are ushering in a new one.
Right, I wasn't saying let's assume that the first amendment wasn't passed correctly, I was saying let's suppose it wasn't passed correctly. It is possible to consider it as a hypothetical. You should feel free to do so. I haven't looked into it enough to convince myself there is any evidence, and I am unlikely to look into it much further, because it seems to me a fool's errand. The IRS isn't going to go away, even if you were to produce incontrovertible evidence that the 16th amendment didn't really pass. But it is nevertheless an interesting historical question about whether there was chicanery involved. I'll be interested to hear the answer, should a definitive one ever emerge. barfo
I'm actually increasingly for a Flat Tax with a related consumption / import of luxury goods type tax and doing away with the current income tax as it is regressively centered on the middle class. It would have to include things brought in from other countries or else the rich would be excluded. It would also have to exclude most foods. There would probably have to be a lower limit (survival consumption) that would be tax free. Of course while we are at it I would love to see a voluntary 2 children only movement in this country, but that ain't gonna happen. I agree that the IRS is here to stay. As I said before there are worse things that have been "legally" passed such as warrantless wiretapping, the FED, various constitution shredding bills by both parties etc. Of course hypotheticals are ok but sometimes they lead further away from the matter at hand. I felt like it was one of those situations that kind of led far afield from what we were saying. I also don't think you can ever be 100% logically consistent and even remotely ethical or reasonable. Life isn't logically consistent and neither is my worldview I admit that because it's reality.
Well what do you expect? All of the land line phone services are doomed. It doesn't matter who the president is, they were going down.
Wouldn't bother me any if we did that. Well, once you get started on making exceptions, pretty soon you end up with a tax code the size of the current one. Better to have no exceptions for anything. Well, I'd make one exception - no income tax for those under $X of income. 1.7 would be plenty. Agreed. Fair enough. The only way to be truly consistent is to take everything to some ridiculous extreme. barfo
http://www.apfn.org/APFN/16th.htm 17 F.Supp. 237 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. George M. HOUSE and Marion M. House, Defendants. Nos. G85-23-01 CR, G85-23-02 CR. United States District Court, W.D. Michigan. June 7, 1985. George M. House and Marion M. House, in pro. per. Lowell H. Becraft, Jr., Huntsville, Ala., for defendants. David M. Brown and Dana Boente, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff. OPINION ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER MOTION TO DISMISS MILES, Chief Judge. Defendants were indicted on March 7, 1985 on seven counts of tax evasion in violation of 26 U.S.C. s 7201, and seven counts of failure to file income tax returns in violation of 26 U.S.C. s 7203. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the indictment on April 12, 1985, claiming that the sixteenth amendment which grants Congress the power to lay taxes was never properly ratified, and that as a result, all laws that have been passed pursuant to the authority granted by the sixteenth amendment are null and void. The Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss on April 30, 1985. On May 21, 1985, the date noticed for jury selection, defendants submitted a motion for reconsideration of their motion to dismiss on the basis that the Court had not had the opportunity to consider all the evidence on the subject of the ratification of the sixteenth amendment. A hearing was held on Saturday, May 25, 1985. At that time defendants introduced the testimony of William Benson, co-author of the book, The Law That Never Was (1985). Mr. Benson testified that he had researched the legislative history of the sixteenth amendment and had discovered that in the ratification process only four states had passed resolutions that quoted absolutely and accurately the sixteenth amendment as proposed by Congress. All the other states which had allegedly passed the amendment had in fact passed resolutions that in one or more ways differed from the language of the Congressional resolution. It is defendants' contention that Philander Knox, then Secretary of State, was aware of the differences between the Congressional and the state versions of the proposed amendment, but that he nevertheless certified the amendment as having been ratified. This action, defendants contend, was in violation of the law, and rendered void the certification process. The matter of the ratification of the sixteenth amendment as set forth by the defendants is one of first impression. It has never been before any appellate court of our nation. In support of their contentions defendants introduced copies of what Mr. Benson testified were certified documents he had obtained from the National Archives in Washington, D.C. and copies of certified documents he had obtained from eight of the forty-eight states he had visited during his research. Over the objection of the government, which had never had an opportunity to review the voluminous documents, the Court agreed to provisionally admit the documents into evidence. The documents illustrate that Secretary of State Philander Knox was aware in 1913 that the resolutions passed by the various states were not in every particular identical to the resolution adopted by Congress. Philander Knox nevertheless certified that thirty-six states had ratified the amendment. Some of the variances noted by Mr. Benson were the use of the word "sources" instead of "source," the word "levy" instead of "lay," the word "income" instead of "incomes," and differences in capitalization and punctuation. Mr. Benson presented evidence that Minnesota did not provide a copy of the resolution it passed, even though the state of Wyoming was specifically required to do so. He also presented evidence that the state of Kentucky had never properly ratified the sixteenth amendment. Defendants have not, in either their initial motion or in their motion for reconsideration, asserted any authority for their contention that state resolutions are invalid if they do not exactly mirror in every particular the amendment as proposed by Congress. Mr. Benson testified that he was aware of no constitutional provision, no statute, and no cases which state that errors in punctuation render an attempted ratification null and void. Defendants' only authority for their assertion that the ratification attempts were invalid is found in a Library of Congress Congressional Research Service publication dated April 18, 1980. That publication, according to defendant, states that the joint resolution must contain in full the exact language of the proposed amendment, and that it must contain a clear, unequivocal ratification clause. Defendants have offered no evidence that such a publication is binding on this Court at the present time, or on Philander Knox in 1913. Neither has defendant offered any evidence that the variations of text affected in any material way the meaning or intent of the sixteenth amendment. Defendants have not shown the Court any evidence that a resolution containing the word "levy" means anything different from a resolution containing the word "lay." Neither have they shown any significance deriving from the addition of the letter "s" to the word "source" or the deletion of the letter "s" from the word "incomes." Defendants have not shown that the meaning of the amendment was altered in any way by the omission of a comma or the failure to capitalize a word. Defendants have merely pointed to technical variances which may be of some historical interest, but which have no substantive effect on the meaning of the sixteenth amendment. (More at the link)
Well after reading Denny's legalese unto bleeding eyeballs it looks like there is not substantial evidence that the 16th amendment was passed unfairly. I'm not sure this is the only court challenge and I'm curious if there are other aspects to it. I know it was passed with the understanding that it would be a war time tax but it's not like laws aren't passed all the time through political misrepresentation. I haven't looked into it enough to know and it appears there might not be much to it. Good find Denny.
