Iyfjky

Question

In the 2006 film America: Freedom to Fascism, several interviews are shown which claim that American workers do not need to pay income tax. Specifically, this clip claims that

There is no law which requires the average American worker (in the
private sector) to pay a direct unapportioned tax on their labor and
compensation, or services.

Is the average US worker legally required to pay income taxes, perhaps in a manner which is indirect or apportioned?

10

Have you tried not paying?
â€“Â henning
2 hours ago

Oddthinkingâ™¦ 97.8k30404509 · Answer 1 · 2018-10-31 13:19:09Z

The IRS has a section of their website, The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments dedicated to explaining the flaws of popular incorrect arguments of why taxes don't have to be paid.

Specifically, it says:

The requirement to pay taxes is not voluntary. Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code clearly imposes a tax on the taxable income of individuals, estates, and trusts, as determined by the tables set forth in that section. [...]

Furthermore, the obligation to pay tax is described in section 6151, which requires taxpayers to submit payment with their tax returns. Failure to pay taxes could subject the non-complying individual to criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment, as well as civil penalties.

They go on citing a number of case laws supporting this point.

Snopes agrees with this:

[I]n a legal sense, neither the obligation to file of tax returns nor to pay taxes owed is voluntary Ã¢Â€Â” those requirements are specifically spelled out in Title 26 of the U.S. Code, particularly Section 6151

The NY Times also agrees in their review of the film:

Arguments made in court that the income tax is invalid are so baseless that Congress has authorized fines of $25,000 for anyone who makes them.

The article goes into some more detail on the law, as well as the consequences of violating it.

For more details see also As a US citizen, what law requires me to pay income tax? at law.SE.

Regarding the movie itself, it might not be the best source. To quote Wikipedia:

The film has been criticized for its promotion of conspiracy theories, its copious factual errors, and its repeated misrepresentations of the individuals and views it purports to criticize.

Isn't it even that this applies to citizens of the US, no matter in what country they work in? — 5 hours ago
@PlasmaHH I'm not familiar with the specific details of that. It seems that the answer is it depends (from what I can tell, you have to file, but depending on the work and the amount earned you may be excempt from paying). — 5 hours ago
Other resources for refuting tax-avoidance arguments are the venerable Tax Protester FAQ (since 1998!) and Jon Siegel's Income Tax Protestors Page. The latter site even has a page devoted to refuting "Freedom to Fascism". — 2 hours ago
@PlasmaHH: US citizens (and Green Card holders) have to file their income taxes and pay on US and non-US income. Interestingly (and uniquely), regardless of whether they live in the US. After the Foreign Tax Credit and the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion, they may not actually owe anything - but they still need to file. — 1 hour ago

score 20 · Answer 2 · 2018-10-31 09:45:28Z

No it is not true. The Sixteenth Amendment was adopted in 1913, so taxes not apportioned to states are constitutional. US Code 26 Subtitle A is the relevant law.

The quoted text seems to allude to a number of arguments that income tax does not need to be paid. The IRS has a page refuting frivolous tax arguments, and anyone contemplating trying to claim that they don't need to pay income tax should read it first. Jonathan Siegel, Professor of Law at George Washington University Law School, also has a similar collection of tax myths, including a page specifically dedicated to refuting the claims made in America: Freedom to Fascism.

Regarding the quoted text:

"(in the private sector)": Presumably refers to the contention that only federal employees need pay federal income tax. This is based on a misreading of the law, which states that the term "employee" includes federal employees (my emphasis). Some people think that "includes" means "includes only".

"Direct unapportioned tax": Presumably this refers to the contention that the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified, or does not authorise federal income tax. No court has ever accepted this argument..

"Labour or compensation, or services": Presumably this refers to contentions that wages are not "income" because they were received in direct exchange for a thing of equal value (i.e. some work). The courts have never accepted this argument either.

An important meta point here is that effectively the law is what the courts say it is. You can't change reality with rhetoric and logical tricks. So anyone coming up with some argument why the law is something different than the courts say it is might as well be writing science fiction. — 1 hour ago
@T.E.D. This! Power trumps all. There were courts and judges and laws in fascist Germany, as well as communist Soviet Union, and current China. What "law" allowed Soviet Union to murder millions of their own citizens (Russian included), or suppress Hungarian uprising. Their law, with their power, and their chain of obedience. — 1 hour ago

WhatRoughBeast 1193 · Answer 3 · 2018-10-31 15:44:31Z

Let me take a different tack on this. The statement as presented,

There is no law which requires the average American worker (in the
private sector) to pay a direct unapportioned tax on their labor and
compensation, or services.

is exactly (in a larger sense) correct, but this larger sense does not help the speaker.

The 16th amendment specifically permits an unapportioned income tax.

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.

The internal revenue code (US Code, Title 26) is enacted by Congress, imposes the various revenue taxes, and provides penalties for non-compliance. If this is not a law, I don't know what is.

Thing is, an income tax (as described in the OP) is not a direct tax, and hence does not need to be apportioned. The meaning of "direct" is often confused, and the fact that a taxpayer pays "directly" to the IRS is often the underlying source of confusion.

The Constitution provides that

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in
Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be
taken. - Section 1, Article 9, Clause 4.

This refers to a head tax, but there are (in US law) only 3 kinds of direct taxes:

Only three taxes are definitely known to be direct: (1) a capitation [
. . . ], (2) a tax upon real property, and (3) a tax upon personal
property. - Murphy v. Internal Revenue Service and United States

Direct taxes are taxes "directly" on property. Indirect taxes are taxes on transactions, or transfers of wealth. And most income falls squarely in the latter category.

Of course, you might ask, why the confusion? Well, that goes to Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, an 1895 Supreme Court decision that held that a tax on income derived directly from property (such as rent or dividends) was in fact a direct tax.

...taxes on real estate being indisputably direct taxes, taxes on the
rents or income of real estate are equally direct taxes.

It made no mention of earned income (as from a job), and so does not apply to what most see as "income tax". The decision invalidated the first general income tax, the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1894, and promised to really complicate bookkeeping for any subsequent income tax. The 16th amendment was a direct response to this situation.

So, as I started out saying, the statement is precisely correct. There is no law which requires payment of a direct tax (unapportioned or otherwise) on labor, compensation or services. But. The IRS income tax on these categories is an indirect tax, and that tax must be paid. The fact that you will pay directly to the IRS does not make it a direct tax (within this context).

Oddthinkingâ™¦ 97.8k30404509 · Answer 4 · 2018-10-31 13:19:09Z

The IRS has a section of their website, The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments dedicated to explaining the flaws of popular incorrect arguments of why taxes don't have to be paid.

Specifically, it says:

The requirement to pay taxes is not voluntary. Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code clearly imposes a tax on the taxable income of individuals, estates, and trusts, as determined by the tables set forth in that section. [...]

Furthermore, the obligation to pay tax is described in section 6151, which requires taxpayers to submit payment with their tax returns. Failure to pay taxes could subject the non-complying individual to criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment, as well as civil penalties.

They go on citing a number of case laws supporting this point.

Snopes agrees with this:

[I]n a legal sense, neither the obligation to file of tax returns nor to pay taxes owed is voluntary Ã¢Â€Â” those requirements are specifically spelled out in Title 26 of the U.S. Code, particularly Section 6151

The NY Times also agrees in their review of the film:

Arguments made in court that the income tax is invalid are so baseless that Congress has authorized fines of $25,000 for anyone who makes them.

The article goes into some more detail on the law, as well as the consequences of violating it.

For more details see also As a US citizen, what law requires me to pay income tax? at law.SE.

Regarding the movie itself, it might not be the best source. To quote Wikipedia:

The film has been criticized for its promotion of conspiracy theories, its copious factual errors, and its repeated misrepresentations of the individuals and views it purports to criticize.

Isn't it even that this applies to citizens of the US, no matter in what country they work in? — 5 hours ago
@PlasmaHH I'm not familiar with the specific details of that. It seems that the answer is it depends (from what I can tell, you have to file, but depending on the work and the amount earned you may be excempt from paying). — 5 hours ago
Other resources for refuting tax-avoidance arguments are the venerable Tax Protester FAQ (since 1998!) and Jon Siegel's Income Tax Protestors Page. The latter site even has a page devoted to refuting "Freedom to Fascism". — 2 hours ago
@PlasmaHH: US citizens (and Green Card holders) have to file their income taxes and pay on US and non-US income. Interestingly (and uniquely), regardless of whether they live in the US. After the Foreign Tax Credit and the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion, they may not actually owe anything - but they still need to file. — 1 hour ago

score 20 · Answer 5 · 2018-10-31 09:45:28Z

No it is not true. The Sixteenth Amendment was adopted in 1913, so taxes not apportioned to states are constitutional. US Code 26 Subtitle A is the relevant law.

The quoted text seems to allude to a number of arguments that income tax does not need to be paid. The IRS has a page refuting frivolous tax arguments, and anyone contemplating trying to claim that they don't need to pay income tax should read it first. Jonathan Siegel, Professor of Law at George Washington University Law School, also has a similar collection of tax myths, including a page specifically dedicated to refuting the claims made in America: Freedom to Fascism.

Regarding the quoted text:

"(in the private sector)": Presumably refers to the contention that only federal employees need pay federal income tax. This is based on a misreading of the law, which states that the term "employee" includes federal employees (my emphasis). Some people think that "includes" means "includes only".

"Direct unapportioned tax": Presumably this refers to the contention that the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified, or does not authorise federal income tax. No court has ever accepted this argument..

"Labour or compensation, or services": Presumably this refers to contentions that wages are not "income" because they were received in direct exchange for a thing of equal value (i.e. some work). The courts have never accepted this argument either.

An important meta point here is that effectively the law is what the courts say it is. You can't change reality with rhetoric and logical tricks. So anyone coming up with some argument why the law is something different than the courts say it is might as well be writing science fiction. — 1 hour ago
@T.E.D. This! Power trumps all. There were courts and judges and laws in fascist Germany, as well as communist Soviet Union, and current China. What "law" allowed Soviet Union to murder millions of their own citizens (Russian included), or suppress Hungarian uprising. Their law, with their power, and their chain of obedience. — 1 hour ago

WhatRoughBeast 1193 · Answer 6 · 2018-10-31 15:44:31Z

Let me take a different tack on this. The statement as presented,

There is no law which requires the average American worker (in the
private sector) to pay a direct unapportioned tax on their labor and
compensation, or services.

is exactly (in a larger sense) correct, but this larger sense does not help the speaker.

The 16th amendment specifically permits an unapportioned income tax.

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.

The internal revenue code (US Code, Title 26) is enacted by Congress, imposes the various revenue taxes, and provides penalties for non-compliance. If this is not a law, I don't know what is.

Thing is, an income tax (as described in the OP) is not a direct tax, and hence does not need to be apportioned. The meaning of "direct" is often confused, and the fact that a taxpayer pays "directly" to the IRS is often the underlying source of confusion.

The Constitution provides that

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in
Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be
taken. - Section 1, Article 9, Clause 4.

This refers to a head tax, but there are (in US law) only 3 kinds of direct taxes:

Only three taxes are definitely known to be direct: (1) a capitation [
. . . ], (2) a tax upon real property, and (3) a tax upon personal
property. - Murphy v. Internal Revenue Service and United States

Direct taxes are taxes "directly" on property. Indirect taxes are taxes on transactions, or transfers of wealth. And most income falls squarely in the latter category.

Of course, you might ask, why the confusion? Well, that goes to Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, an 1895 Supreme Court decision that held that a tax on income derived directly from property (such as rent or dividends) was in fact a direct tax.

...taxes on real estate being indisputably direct taxes, taxes on the
rents or income of real estate are equally direct taxes.

It made no mention of earned income (as from a job), and so does not apply to what most see as "income tax". The decision invalidated the first general income tax, the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1894, and promised to really complicate bookkeeping for any subsequent income tax. The 16th amendment was a direct response to this situation.

So, as I started out saying, the statement is precisely correct. There is no law which requires payment of a direct tax (unapportioned or otherwise) on labor, compensation or services. But. The IRS income tax on these categories is an indirect tax, and that tax must be paid. The fact that you will pay directly to the IRS does not make it a direct tax (within this context).

Search This Blog

Iyfjky

Are US workers legally required to pay income taxes?

3 Answers
3

3 Answers
3

3 Answers
3

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Long meetings (6-7 hours a day): Being â€œbabysatâ€ by supervisor

Is the Concept of Multiple Fantasy Races Scientifically Flawed? [closed]

Confectionery

Category

Random preview

Are US workers legally required to pay income taxes?

3 Answers 3

3 Answers 3

3 Answers 3

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Long meetings (6-7 hours a day): Being â€œbabysatâ€ by supervisor

Is the Concept of Multiple Fantasy Races Scientifically Flawed? [closed]

Confectionery

3 Answers
3

3 Answers
3

3 Answers
3

Long meetings (6-7 hours a day): Being â€œbabysatâ€ by supervisor