5 ms·

I agree that there is sometimes tension between tax filing and the 5th Amendment. But aren't federal income taxes legally rock solid given that Congress is expl

I agree that there is sometimes tension between tax filing and the 5th Amendment. But aren't federal income taxes legally rock solid given that Congress is explicitly authorized to levy them in the 16th Amendment?

kstrauser 3y ago
They are. I'm kind of surprised at the amount of what I'd consider to be borderline "sovereign citizen" commentary here.
- rootusrootus 3y ago
  And this is just evening time. You really want to see it get weird, swing by HN on the weekend.
lettergram 3y ago
Should read up on the history of the 16th amendment and debates around it. For instance; it was retroactive — they were already levying the tax. They then effectively didn’t pass it by the states in a way that they’d done previously, etc etc Regardless of the scandals there, simple question — does my 5th amendment right disappear because of a tax levy? No. Read the amendment: > 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. This doesn’t say I give up the right to self incrimination, nor the 4th amendment.
- jldugger 3y ago
  > For instance; it was retroactive That doesn't matter in 2023. And it doesn't matter if the tax is applied retroactively -- its not a punishment for the crime of being rich or having income. > They then effectively didn’t pass it by the states in a way that they’d done previously, etc etc Who cares? It's literally enumerated in the constitution that amendments can be introduced by the legislature and ratification completed when Delaware ratified February 3, 1913. These are absolute non-issues, and the court filings from the 70's, as documented in Wikipedia, are clearly motivated reasoning and dismissed by judges. Moreover, if there were any legitimate foundation to overturning tax law, it would be fixed by constitutional amendment instantly.
- kelnos 3y ago
  > For instance; it was retroactive — they were already levying the tax. So what? You could certainly make the argument that any taxes collected prior to the 16th's ratification should be returned (courts may not agree with you, but I think it's a reasonable argument to make), but everything since then is legally free and clear. > They then effectively didn’t pass it by the states in a way that they’d done previously, etc etc Not sure what you mean here. Congress is absolutely constitutionally allowed to propose amendments, and it was then ratified by the 36 states necessary at the time to trigger its adoption. Ultimately, only six states never ratified it. It doesn't matter if all the previous amendments had been proposed by state legislatures; the way 16A was proposed and passed is explicitly outlined in the constitution as a valid way to amend it. The only thing approaching a "scandal" around 16A is that there was a bunch of opposition at the time, mainly in the northeastern states. Which... so what? Bottom line is that it was ratified by the required number of states. Really, it just sounds like you don't personally like the income tax, and are making up fantasy reasons for why the US government should not be allowed to tax you. If it really bugs you that much, you're of course free to renounce your US citizenship, and go live in a country where they don't have an income tax, assuming they'll have you.

kstrauser 3y ago

They are. I'm kind of surprised at the amount of what I'd consider to be borderline "sovereign citizen" commentary here.

rootusrootus 3y ago
And this is just evening time. You really want to see it get weird, swing by HN on the weekend.

lettergram 3y ago

Should read up on the history of the 16th amendment and debates around it. For instance; it was retroactive — they were already levying the tax. They then effectively didn’t pass it by the states in a way that they’d done previously, etc etc Regardless of the scandals there, simple question — does my 5th amendment right disappear because of a tax levy? No. Read the amendment: > 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. This doesn’t say I give up the right to self incrimination, nor the 4th amendment.

jldugger 3y ago
> For instance; it was retroactive That doesn't matter in 2023. And it doesn't matter if the tax is applied retroactively -- its not a punishment for the crime of being rich or having income. > They then effectively didn’t pass it by the states in a way that they’d done previously, etc etc Who cares? It's literally enumerated in the constitution that amendments can be introduced by the legislature and ratification completed when Delaware ratified February 3, 1913. These are absolute non-issues, and the court filings from the 70's, as documented in Wikipedia, are clearly motivated reasoning and dismissed by judges. Moreover, if there were any legitimate foundation to overturning tax law, it would be fixed by constitutional amendment instantly.
kelnos 3y ago
> For instance; it was retroactive — they were already levying the tax. So what? You could certainly make the argument that any taxes collected prior to the 16th's ratification should be returned (courts may not agree with you, but I think it's a reasonable argument to make), but everything since then is legally free and clear. > They then effectively didn’t pass it by the states in a way that they’d done previously, etc etc Not sure what you mean here. Congress is absolutely constitutionally allowed to propose amendments, and it was then ratified by the 36 states necessary at the time to trigger its adoption. Ultimately, only six states never ratified it. It doesn't matter if all the previous amendments had been proposed by state legislatures; the way 16A was proposed and passed is explicitly outlined in the constitution as a valid way to amend it. The only thing approaching a "scandal" around 16A is that there was a bunch of opposition at the time, mainly in the northeastern states. Which... so what? Bottom line is that it was ratified by the required number of states. Really, it just sounds like you don't personally like the income tax, and are making up fantasy reasons for why the US government should not be allowed to tax you. If it really bugs you that much, you're of course free to renounce your US citizenship, and go live in a country where they don't have an income tax, assuming they'll have you.