License to Vote?

[Countryboy]

On April 8, 1895, the Supreme Court declared that the federal income tax was unconstitutional

No, it did not.  It merely ruled that the measurement of the tax by receipts derived from the use of personal property is unconstitutional, because the property itself is untaxable:

"The tax imposed by sections 27 to 37, inclusive, of the act of 1894, so far as it falls on the income of real estate, and of personal property, being a direct tax, within the meaning of the constitution, and therefore unconstitutional and void, because not apportioned according to representation, all those sections, constitution one entire scheme of taxation, are necessarily invalid."

That is what the Supreme Court ruled in the 1895 Pollock decision.

Later, the constitution was changed to drop the requirement that all taxes be apportioned.

There has never been a constitutional requirement that all taxes be apportioned - only direct taxes, and that requirement still stands.  Indirect taxes are not apportioned, but there has never been a constitutional requirement for indirect taxes to be apportioned though.

A provision of the Constitution or an amendment to the Constitution is always constitutional. By definition.

Any statute is to be applied in a manner that is in harmony with the constitution.  If the statute or law is applied in a manner that is not in harmony, then it can be struck down.

So Countryboy.

My time is property and therefore can be taxed?

Well my property (time) is worth five hundred dollars per hour, but I can not charge that much because no one will pay. So I have to do the work for a lot less. Therefore I am taking a big lose.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make.  You are very unclear.  Perhaps these court decisions will answer whatever point you are trying to make.

"The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right,...
It has been well said that 'the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property.'"  US Supreme Court, Butcher's Union Co. vs. Crescent City Co., 111 US 746 (1883)

"Included in the right of personal liberty and the right to private property - partaking of the nature of each - is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property." US Supreme Court, Coppage vs. Kansas, 236 US 1 (1915)

"Since the right to receive income or earnings is a right belonging to every person, this right cannot be taxed as privilege." Jack Cole Company vs Alfred T. MacFarland, Commissioner, 206 Tenn. 694, 337 S.W.2d 453 Supreme Court of Tennessee (1960)

"An income tax is neither a property tax nor a tax on occupations of the common right, but is an excise tax...The legislature may declare as 'privileged' and tax as such for state revenue, those pursuits not matters of the common right, but it has no power to declare as a 'privilege' and tax for revenue purposes, occupations that are of the common right."  Simms vs Ahrens, 271 SW 720 (1925)

[Bee Happy]

Art. 1 Section 9 - the original passage: No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
the 16th amdt: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.


They cannot countermand their original powers and limits without a constitutional convention - scrapping the original constitution and replacing it with -
but there, in black and white - is exactly what congress tried to do.
I admit, there are other sources who further legally define (outside of the IRS) how the terms relating to direct tax apply. -the reason I kept iterating that the IRS sets its code forth as voluntary is because they are avoiding the language of compulsory law - because they don't have that power. their enforcement proves otherwise, they have an illusionary force of law by punishing "violators".
(sorry - you can call the direct confiscation of money from the citizens any kind of fee you want - it's still a tax.)
and for good measure I'll say again, I'm not recommending that anyone break the law that isn't there.

There are instances where taxes are legitimate, it depends on the legal definition of "income" -I have yet to read the SCOTUS rulings wherein they defined wages as "barter" and profit as "income" - but if someone asks me who the final authority on the definition of "income" is, my answer will not be "The IRS."

[Vetch]

They cannot countermand their original powers and limits without a constitutional convention - scrapping the original constitution and replacing it with -

Yes, they can. The Constitution is (among other things) a compact between the states. If the states want to change the compact, they can do so, even if the changes are contrary to the original intentions.

Slavery is a prime example. When framing the original compact, the founders were stuck on what to do about slavery, so they accepted slavery. Originally, there was a calculated silence designed to allow slavery, and that was replaced by the opposite, a direct and explicit prohibition.

You might read up on Thomas Jefferson's ideas on generational tyranny. He believed that each generation has the right to adapt the Constitution to their conditions and values, and the Constitution only retained its authority when amended, as the amendment process is re-affirming. Here is an example of TJs original intent:

"No society can make a perpetual constitution or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation."

[Jerrymac]

Sorry Countryboy,

I was making sort of a joke about operating at a loss. Not really making income because no one will pay me what I deem my time to be worth. So how can I be compelled to pay taxes on it? Shouldn't I get some sort of deduction on it?

But then how could I convince the IRS that I don't "owe" them any money.  

[Bee Happy]

They cannot countermand their original powers and limits without a constitutional convention - scrapping the original constitution and replacing it with -

Yes, they can. [...]
"No society can make a perpetual constitution or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation."

"Can" in the sense of they did it and got away with it  - of course.  "Can" in the sense of being allowed to assign powers refused to them in the groundwork of operations  - the articles - absolutely not.
When Jefferson said that I can bet that he was talking about the need for a society to adapt to changing conditions of the day through the methods assigned to them- I sincerely doubt that he or any of the other founding fathers would consent to or approve of a government  - a congress - which simply assigns new powers to itself or countermands limitations placed on it. And of course they made provisions for a huge majority to agree to scrap the constitution and start over - it was the first time they'd ever drawn up a new form of government.  Writing an amendment is not a constitutional convention.
 When they wrote the constitution it was not to "give" rights to the people - their assertion was that the people were born with their rights already intact. They wrote the constitution with a focus on limiting the government and preventing it from assigning powers to itself which could incrementally be used to tyrannize the people. The articles spell out how the government is to function and interact, the amendments have to agree with the core "operating system" of the government - or the constitution is just so much worthless toilet paper.
Under the same logic you are using - Congress can abolish the supreme court; declare themselves lords, the people all serfs, vassals, and property, and the president a king. Failing to obey the limits set forth on them in the establishment clauses would allow them to do just that.
It would take a constitutional convention to "legally" change the core functioning of the government.

[Countryboy]

Art. 1 Section 9 - the original passage: No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
the 16th amdt: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.


They cannot countermand their original powers and limits without a constitutional convention - scrapping the original constitution and replacing it with - Huh
but there, in black and white - is exactly what congress tried to do.

Article 1 and the 16th Amendment are in harmony because the Income Tax is an excise tax - it is not a direct tax.

(sorry - you can call the direct confiscation of money from the citizens any kind of fee you want - it's still a tax.)

Are you referring to a direct tax, or an excise tax?  If you have a tax obligation, government does have the legal authority to collect it.

it depends on the legal definition of "income"

The Internal Revenue Code does not define "income".  It does however, define things which are taxable under the income tax.

defined wages as "barter" and profit as "income"

Congress defined "wages"...

Section 3401 (a) Wages
For purposes of this chapter, the term "wages" means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an "employee" [as defined by 3401c] for his "employer" [as defined by 3401d]...
(c) Employee
For purposes of this chapter, the term "employee" is an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, 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. [corporation as defined by Section 207 of the Public Salary Tax Act]
(d) Employer
For purposes of this chapter, the term "employer" means the person for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the "employee" of such person...

Section 3121
(a) Wages
For purposes of this chapter, the term "wages" means all remuneration for "employment", including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash; except that such term shall not include - ...[various pre-tax deductions]
(b) Employment
For purposes of this chapter, the term "employment" means any "service", of whatever nature, performed
--(A) by an "employee" for the person "employing" him, irrespective of citizenship or residence of either,
---(i) within the "United States," [as defined] or
---(ii)on or in connection with an American vessel or American aircraft...or
--(B) outside the "United States" [as defined] by a citizen or resident of the "United States" [as defined] as an "employee" for an "American employer" (as defined in subsection (h)),...
(e)State, United States, and [Puerto Rican} citizen
For purposes of this chapter -
(1) State
The term "State" means the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
(2)United States
The term "United States" when used in a geographical sense means the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
(h) American employer
For purposes of this chapter, the term "American employer" means an employer which is -
(1)the "United States" or any instrumentality thereof,
(2)an individual who is a resident of the "United States",
(3)a partnership, if two-thirds or more of the partners are residents of the "United States",
(4)a trust, if all of the trustees are residents of the "United States", or
(5)a corporation organized under the laws of the "United States" or of any "State."

When you understand the actual legal definitions of these common words, you see that "United States" is what common people would call 'federal zone', (or a State for 3401 purposes) and an "employee" is someone who works in the 'federal zone', (or State or local government for 3401 purposes) and "wages" are what is paid to the federal zone worker. (or State or local government worker.)

And the federal government has every right under the 16th Amendment to tax those privileged federal zone worker's pay.  It is an excise tax, because they are privileged to be paid with tax dollars...

(State and local government workers are treated as 'privileged' under the Section 218 Agreement between States and the Federal Government, but that's a whole different tangent.)

I was making sort of a joke about operating at a loss. Not really making income because no one will pay me what I deem my time to be worth. So how can I be compelled to pay taxes on it? Shouldn't I get some sort of deduction on it?

You still make no sense.  On one hand, you imply that you owe the tax, but on the other hand, you imply that the tax laws do not apply to you. 
"The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope." United States Court of Claims, Economy Plumbing and Heating vs United States, 470 F.2d 585, at 589 (1972)

Which one are you?  A taxpayer who is taxable, or a nontaxpayer, who is untaxable?

But then how could I convince the IRS that I don't "owe" them any money.

You must rebut, in the correct time and manner, any erroneous assertation that your receipts were taxable.  If someone LIES, and says they paid you a taxable receipt when it was not a taxable receipt - if you do not deny it and correct the record, then it is treated as truth by the law, and you will have to pay a tax on that receipt.

The IRS has never prosecuted anyone for tax fraud who paid more than they were legally required to pay.  You can claim you received taxable receipts of a gazillion dollars - and the IRS won't prosecute you if you pay the tax on that gazillion dollar receipt, even though you are lying through your teeth about the gazillion dollar income.

Most people have no clue what the actual Internal Revenue Code says. (even though they sign a tax return under penalty of perjury that they know the code.)  They have no clue what is taxable or not taxable.  They willingly pay far more than they are legally required to, out of their ignorance of the law.

[Jerrymac]

You still make no sense. 

Well gosh. I'm so sorry my intelligent level is so far beneath yours that I can not communicate with you. Perhaps one of these other bright people that get what I am saying can explain it. Sorry I wasted your time.

[Bee Happy]

I quit. but in parting, I'll offer this movie by Aaron Russo (He claims to have credits with the Eddie Murphy movie 'trading places' - yes - not journalism) In spite of Russo's non-journalistic roots, and the fact that I wouldn't necessarily reach some of the conclusions he does - many of his interviewees include former IRS agents, and he heavily cites Supreme court decisions - including ones which exclude wages from being counted as income. I did jump into research myself, but I admit that everywhere I found those rulings, they were attached to someone's interpretations. The actual supreme court.gov site does NOT include complete transcripts of its decisions through history. In addition I found a site claiming that people who claim there is no real tax law are fraudulent - but their first critical misstep for me was the claim that the Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co verdict was the absolute validation of the 16th amdt - without the note that the decision hinged on Mr Brushaber acting as a foreign fiduciary - which took some of the credibility away for me, along with court rulings cited which I couldn't ascertain whether they were lower courts acting in non-accordance with SCOTUS decisions (illegally). 
-The run time is just under 2 hours...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173

[Countryboy]

I quit.

That's great to hear!  I quit paying more than my fair share too - in 2003.

You don't realize how refreshing it is to get audited by the IRS, and then get every penny of Federal, State, Social Security, and Medicare withholdings refunded back to me.  I hope everyone that is overpaying quits.  I'm certain I do a better job of managing my money than the government used to do with my money.