Some days there’s just nothing interesting on TV, and I’ll kick on some good old talk radio. Today I was treated to an episode of Joseph Farah’s http://www.worldnetdaily.com/ World Net Daily, featuring a former accountant and ex-IRS CID agent turned tax protester, Joseph Bannister. Entertaining stuff. I’ve been exposed to these arguments before, and this guy is but one of many who scour legal documents, tax code, and the Constitution in an effort to “prove” that they aren’t required to pay taxes.
On the surface, these citizen law interpreters are quite convincing in their arguments. Citing specific sections of the tax code that they interpret to mean they’re not liable for taxes; arguing that “wages” are only earned by “employees” of the United States (ie. government employees), and are not the same as income received in exchange for labor; and claiming that the http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxvi.html 16th amendment to the Constitution of the United States is somehow invalid.
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.
As I looked over several of the websites supporting these claims, I even read one in-duh-vidual’s (self-recorded) testimony to a tax auditor that “from whatever source derived doesn’t mean from whatever source derived”, whatever that argument was supposed to mean. :crazy:
Now I’m quite sure that these well-intentioned, well-educated, well-read people truly believe that they have a valid argument against paying taxes. I’m quite sure that none of them qualifies as “Anti-American”, nor does any of them harbor ill-will towards our government. Perhaps these people would do more of a service to their fellow Americans by pointing out where the tax code is not explicit enough for their tastes, and petition lawmakers to ensure it is crystal clear to even the most skeptical reader.
Now, I hate paying taxes, too… but I understand that I owe an obligation to the country that provides me the freedom and opportunity to live my life productively, safely, and happily. Part of that obligation is repayed in “real” terms… a portion of my income paid as taxes.
One argument (http://www.taxableincome.net/ found here) lists a couple of self-defeating statements that immediately caught my eye. First, the author states: [the notes in (parentheses) are where the author attempts to lead the reader to his point of view]
1) The federal income tax is imposed upon “taxable income” (not all income).
2) “Taxable income” is generally defined in the first part of the law as “gross income” minus deductions.
3) “Gross income” is generally defined in the first part of the law as “all income from whatever source derived,” including compensation, interest, rents, dividends, etc.
Which pretty clearly lays out what we all know – that income is taxed, with some exemptions (it’s all those exemptions that make our annual “voluntary filing” such a pain. But the author goes on to state:
4) Certain sections of the law specifically describe in which situations income from inside the United States is taxable (the income of most Americans).
5) While those sections show income to be taxable when it derives from certain kinds of international and foreign commerce (in other words, when the income crosses country borders), they do NOT show the income of United States citizens living and working only in the 50 states to be taxable.
I’m no legal expert, but the argument that further sections laying out specific clarifications from the earlier general desctiption might somehow negate those things not specified is… well, frivolous.
Of course, there’s always the fallback argument that points out the valid statement that the tax code specifically mentions “voluntary filing” as justification for not filing if one chooses not to volunteer. In reality, it is meant to “encourage voluntary filing of tax returns and truthful reporting of income, and thus to facilitate tax collection”, where the alternative would be annual audits with a tax agent telling you what your debt is. Perhaps these people would be happier in an environment where the king sends his “tax collectors” around every year to take what they think you should pay…?
It’s all rather mind-boggling when you delve into these sites. These people honestly believe they are right, and that the law is wrong simply because it’s not clear enough for their tastes. I agree that the tax code could use a hell of a lot of slimming down, clarification, and refinement… but it actually upsets me greatly that people like this are 1) trying to not pay taxes, and 2) wasting taxpayer money on frivilous litigation. Boiled down to the basics – they’re stealing money from those of us who understand the meaning of obligation.
Poke at the referenced sites and have a read… the leaps of logic are fascinating.
http://www.taxableincome.net/
http://www.reasons2vote.com/
http://www.861evidence.com/pgs/home.shtml
And please, feel free to point out the arguments I’ve missed in favor of the logic of not paying taxes… as I have stated, I’d love for the tax code to be more specific, simplified, and understandable for the average citizen. That in no way should be interpreted that I don’t believe the average American should pay taxes (although perhaps at a more “fair” rate).
Edit: I forgot to mention why this conspiracy theorist and his wild suppositions got my dander up: during the interview, a caller outlined his experience in tax refusal, which he had based on Joseph Bannister’s speeches and writings on the topic. Needless to say, the caller is now working out a payment plan with the IRS to pay off several years of neglected taxes. Mr. Bannister then stated something to the effect of “I don’t suggest people actually do this, I’m just explaining the reasons why you should.” Lovely. So he goes on nationwide radio to explain his lopsided reasoning for refusing to pay taxes (and has been for years), pushes his sense of reality on whoever is willing to listen, and then claims he doesn’t think people should try this themselves.
The comparison that came to mind for me? Islamic religious leaders driving the ignorant masses into a foamed-at-the-mouth frenzy to go out and kill the “infidels”, then telling reporters they don’t support such actions after the aforementioned rabid beasts actually do commit murder.