ATS Debate: Round 1: ilovepizza vs. David

ATS Great Debate
Round One

sarmer vs. David

Topic: The American Internal Revenue Service is actually under no legal mandate to collect taxes.

sarmer will take the affirmative position, agreeing with the statement and will have first opening statement.

David will take the contrary position, and will have first closing statement.

Editing of your posts is strictly prohibited! For obvious reasons. Editing your post results in immediate forfeiture.

1- Competitors assigned the affirmative position go first with an opening statement, and have right of passing their opening statement post to their contrary position competitor. Opening statements cannot contain links.

2- Each competitor in turn contributes six posts to support their side of the topic. (For a total of seven posts) These are the only posts within the debate that may contain links to articles, or embedded pictures/graphics. (one link or graphic per post). No more than 18 hours between posts or you forfeit your turn.

3- The competitor representing the contrary position has first right of closing statement. As with the opening statement, they have an opportunity to pass to their competitor representing the affirmative position. Closing statements cannot contain links.

4- Each competitor can submit one rebuttal to their competitors closing statement, but cannot exceed 200 words. Rebuttals are not required.

This is a total of 18 posts, the debate is closed, and voting begins. Forum members will vote on the merits of your capabilities arguing your side of the position, not their opinion of the position.

The debate begins at 23:00 GMT today. Opening statement from the affirmative side is due by 17:00 tomorrow, or the opening statement is passed to the contrary side.

Good luck, and have fun.


Due to the non-posting of sarmer, our 1st Alternate, ilovepizza is stepping in to take over the side of affirmative.



[Edited on 14-6-2003 by William]

Of course the IRS can collect taxes!


The 16th amendment is

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 of enumeration.

Many people have tried to get out of paying taxes or find a reason for the amendment to be illegal, but everyone has lost in court. I think i have proved my point.

My opening statement on "The IRS Cannot Collect Taxes" as the opposition

Taxes are almost as old as man himself and frankly i find it ludicrous that someone could say that the government of a country cannot collect taxes, i know there are constituitional loop-holes and laws that are older than Reagan in the United States but thats only a legality, you cannot expect a government to provide for people and help them without the financial aid of the citizens.
Money makes the world go round, we use it every day and without it many of us couldn't eat, couldnt get water or electricity and could be cut off from the rest of your family and friends. Without paying the Government we'd have no infrastructure or "safety-nets" the taxes of the people go towards helping the people, they pay for your libraries, schools and for your armed forces, In the United Kingdom they pay for your health care all through life whether you are born here or not, Where would be without taxes? We demand so much from our Governments and taxes are how we get what we request, the Government cannot go print an extra billion because they need it, they need to earn it from the population. Without taxes there would be no free education for all, you would have to pay schools large amounts to teach the fundamentals to you or your children and without those they would be going nowhere in life. Oh, and you wouldnt be able to read or post on ats because you are illiterate
The Armed forces are also funded on our taxes and without those they would be still be using knives and longbows intead of the Apache Longbow helicopters we have today. Many countries would have been overrun by their enemies due to them being unable to afford weapons to defend themselves.
Where would the medical industries be without taxes? Research costs money too.
Taxes are also "working together" at the lowest level, everyone gives money to the government in order to improve the country and the living standard of the entire nation. Some are less charitable than others so taxes are mandatory for all those who can afford them.
98% of what the Government does is funded by your taxes. This is your country and they're damn well making you pay for it.

And as a reply to your opener ilovepizza, many influential lawyers and judges claim that the 16th amendment is unconstituitional and has not even been ratified properly.

Taxes - I know you hate them but you know we need them.

ilovepizza... re-read the instructions, your mandate is to argue that the IRS cannot collect taxes.

Sorry about posting on the wrong side david, I was studying for the ACT's last night and was in a rush.


It does not matter that taxes are needed for the government to work well and have money to spend. What matters is that there is nothing that legally says we have to pay taxes. The government in the past has found other ways to get money. The CIA used to sell drugs illegaly. Government bonds are also a good source of money. You say all the taxes we pay help give back to the people by paying for schools, libraries, and other publicly funded things yet there are still many people who can only read at a basic level. Also a lot of the taxes we pay are wasted on useless expenditures. Outrages prices were spent on toilets; and the money from taxes payed for the toilets when that money could have been better spent. There are also a lot of "balck projects" which we have no way of know what the billions and billions of dollars are spent on. If the government is taking part of the money we make, I sure as hell want to know what they are spending billions of dollars on.

The 16th amendment was never legally ratified.
"The 16th amendment to the U.S. Constitution (the "income tax amendment") was fraudulently and illegally proclaimed to be ratified in 1913. Exhaustive legal research from both state and national archives documented conclusively that the amendment did not even come close to being legally approved by the required number of states. The Courts have refused to hear this issue." See bottom of post for the source i got that information from!!
Forcing US citizens to pay taxes would be going against our 5th amendment rights.

Source of quote www.ylana.com...

How can you justify the government paying for projects with blood money like that earned from the sale of drugs, and to make enough money to make changes in the USA we'd have to get the whole damn population hooked on crack (not a good thing )
Money is the property of the Government, so you never really own it, therefor when the nice people at the IRS take it back from you in the income taxes they are only taking back what another part of the government owns. And they arent taking it for a reason, this money is your "bill" for all the governmental services you have recieved over the past year, its kinda like going with you friends for dinner, everyone will pay part of the bill even if some ate more or less.
If that amendment was really unconstituitional dont you think they'd have changed it already?
The supreme court has already made up its mind and refuses to hear anymore cases on the matter.

Your paying you damn taxes whether you like it or not.

Why would the government change it? They get a lot of money from taxes and want to keep getting that money.

As for taxes paying for the services in america thing, they do. But that does not change the fact that taxes are not legal. Since the 16th amendment was never ratified how can the supreme court make a decision about it? You find me the number of states that voted to ratify the 16th amendment and number that went against it. Cause untill stats are shown that it did get the necessary amount of votes it is not legal.

I meant if the amendment was not good enough to make people pay then they would pass one or amend the amendment.
And as for the 16th amendment not being properly ratified...that my dear friend...is bull
Maybe you should take note that Congress approved the 16th amendment in 1909, the same year it established a corporate income tax. Ratification of the amendment took another four years to complete. And it wasn't the first time an income tax was approved. An income tax was imposed on the North during the Civil War. Another was declared unconstitutional in 1895 and led directly to the 16th amendment.
Around three-quarters of the 48 states that were then in the union had to approve the amendment....and they did so, even though some changed a little of the wording to get past their own laws.

The constituition should be black and white and easy to understand but its not, there are so many loopholes and amendments that many things are actually illegal.

Alot of these "freedom from oppressive taxes" schemes are just bull that scammers are using to make a quick buck online, if you dont pay your taxes the IRS will eat you up for lunch.

Go ahead and challenge the IRS though, the courts will make an example of you because you dont have a leg to stand on and i'll bet you lose miserably and go to jail.

Information sources = The US Constituition, CNBC, IRS

I have found the proof that the 16th amendment was not leaglly ratified.

"The ratification required by at least 36 states -- three-fourths of the 48 states then in existence -- has to be identical to the amendment passed by Congress. Benson cites federal documents affirming that for state approval to be acceptable, neither words nor punctuation can be changed. And the states may not violate their own state constitutions in ratifying the amendment.

Of the 48 states, here's the story:

Eight states (Rhode Island, Utah, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Kentucky, Florida, Virginia and Pennsylvania) did not approve or ratify the amendment.

Texas and Louisiana were forbidden by their own state constitutions to empower the federal government to tax.

Vermont and Massachusetts rejected the amendment with a recorded vote count, and only later declared it passed without a recorded vote after the amendment was declared ratified by Knox.

Tennessee, Ohio, Mississippi, California and Washington violated their state constitutions in their ratification procedures.

Minnesota did not send any copy of its resolution to Knox, let alone a signed and sealed one, as required.

And Oklahoma, Georgia and Illinois made unacceptable changes in wording. (Some of the above states also made such changes, in addition to their other unacceptable procedures.)

Take 48 states, deduct these 21, and you have proper ratification by only 27 states -- far less than the required 36. "

I got it from this site www.freerepublic.com...

I think i have proven my point.

You havent PROVEN your point, you have regurgitated other peoples information to disprove mines. And FYI the information on that page was deeply flawed.

Anyway, here goes,
Kentucky did vote AND APPROVE the amendment, but subsequently reversed that decision when someone pointed out that the wording had been altered which was of course, against the rules. However, a second -- properly worded -- amendment ultimately met with the approvement and praise of the legislators and was counted as a yes vote.

There may have been some punctuation changes in the proposal that came before certain state legislatures. However, given that law required three-quarters of all states to approve the measure that was ratified by Congress, that would mean that more than 12 states would have to have approved substantially different proposals to invalidate the process. But 42 of 48 states approved the measure between 1909 and 1913. Only Rhode Island, Connecticut and Utah rejected the amendment outright. Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia didn't act on it.

So i guess we had enough to pass it, i've researched these passages from harvard professors of constituitional law.

Legal authorities who say federal income tax is perfectly legal and also those that say income tax is illegal both note that courts have consistently ruled against citizens who refuse to pay their just due.
So i think you get the message, we've made up our minds and taxes are legal.

Besides, as i said, its not about legalities, taxes must be collected in order for the state to function, you dont like that then tough, go ahead and try to come up with a better system (thats feasible and doesnt involve unfair treatment)do it and i'll bow to you.

Ok david re-read the topic we are debating on. It is the legality of taxes. So the economy may not be as good without taxes, but that is a totaly different topic.

As for the information you have about what states said no to the 16th amendment and other information about. Where did you get this information? My source may not be the encyclopedia but it is better than no source at all. If you dont tell the exact source and place to find the information i have no way of knowing if you made the information up.

www.federalbudget.com...

That site shows you what amound of the taxes each agency gets. A lot of it is spent on interst the government payes on debt. Who wants money they earn to help pay someone elses debt? I know it is our government but they shouldnt be spending so much money that they do not have to spend.

There may have been some punctuation changes in the proposal that came before certain state legislatures

Since when did re-wording things like that become legal? If you had to change wording to get around the certain states laws then you are breaking different laws.

I recieved the information from CNBC, a service of NBC And DowJones, quite the experts on money and from several university professors who specialise in law and so, if we're strictly talking legality, why are you trivialising with how the money is spent?

A link to the site of Senator Chuck Grassley , Iowa
Watch out for the pitch lines from the tax scam hucksters. Favorite lines include:

-- If this were illegal, don't you think the government would arrest me? It hasn't.
-- It's your "right" not to pay taxes.
-- Taxes are "voluntary." Therefore, smart people will not volunteer to pay.
-- Taxes are unconstitutional. The 16th Amendment was never ratified.
-- Taxes have to be paid only by U.S. citizens (defined as someone born in or living in Washington, D.C., or the U.S. territories) and foreign companies doing business in the United States.
-- Rich people save money on their taxes with this plan; so can you.
-- The IRS is weak; play the audit lottery.
-- These are elite tax planning services offered by sophisticated advisers. Your attorney/accountant doesn't know about them.
-- Disguise your income on tax forms. You can't be caught by IRS computers.
grassley.senate.gov...

Anyway, heres another reason to prove the IRS can collect taxes to counter those who believe that the internal revenue code says they cant.

Even though the Internal Revenue Code (to which the IRS adheres) doesn�t explicitly say so, the IRS has the authority to collect an income tax.
Another point raised by you income tax opponents is that nowhere does a law exist that specifically empowers the federal government to collect an income tax. That should be consistent with other laws that plainly dictate what is legal and what is not.
�Many believe that all laws have to be clear and that includes the constitutional foundation for the income tax."
I beg to differ. To counter those who believe the income tax to be on solid legal ground. While they grant that there is no single clause in the Internal Revenue Service code that specifies an income tax, they argue that the code taken as a whole makes it implicit that the federal government can collect an income tax
And a quote supporting it
�There�s no one statute that identified an income tax, but the IRS� code is really a collection of statutes. All 900 sections of the code are designed to work together.�

In the interests of time, one more post each, then on to closing statements.

While cnbc and harvaf professors and the dow jones are good sources; you did not give exact links to the sources. The info you gave is just facts you came up with until i have the exact place to verify that they are true.

You also did not tell me when it was legal for the states to change some of the wording around so it would be ok with their constitution. I have given plently of evidence and sites that back up that evidence.

www.wcool.com...

I have found yet another site on the states and radifying the 16th amendment. This site has the proof i need. This persons also sites that sources he gets them form so the information is reliable. I have given you a lot of evidence that proves income tax is illegal.

Also david you dont need to post today since it is your birthday. Unless you want to post.

Right...
I am under no obligation to refer to my sources by link, however i shall show you as it not longer jeopradises my case and they are good sources.
The wording of the amendment was changed to accomodate these states.

The ratification of this Amendment was the direct consequence of the Court's decision in 1895 in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., whereby the attempt of Congress the previous year to tax incomes uniformly throughout the United States was held by a divided court to be unconstitutional. A tax on incomes derived from property, the Court declared, was a ''direct tax'' which Congress under the terms of Article I, Sec. 2, and Sec. 9, could impose only by the rule of apportionment according to population, although scarcely fifteen years prior the Justices had unanimously sustained the collection of a similar tax during the Civil War, the only other occasion preceding the Sixteenth Amendment in which Congress had ventured to utilize this method of raising revenue.

So, it WAS ratified.

Direct quote from FindLaw, US Law Directory.
Used by many lawyers and judges.

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...


And another point, another argument the anti-income tax posse make is that the income tax violates the Constitution by the fact that it is neither a uniform nor an apportioned tax (k, a quick legal lesson those who are in doubt: uniform, as the name implies, means that the tax is applied the same throughout the entire country regardless of state. Apportioned tax refers to clauses in the Constitution that required taxes to be apportioned among the states based on population -- the more people, the greater the tax burden.)

Nonsense, reply legal authorities who support the legitimacy of the income-tax. First, they say, the tax is uniform -- as a writer notes, a taxpayer in Florida and another in Ohio who make the same amount of money pay the same federal tax rate. And the amendment itself makes the apportionment argument.

�The 16th Amendment itself says that you don�t have to apportion a tax based on income,�

I pass to you david. Good luck with your closing statement.

Well folks, my closing statement is relatively simple...

The 16th Amendment was ratified correctly by the number of states needed to pass it.

All courts have ruled in favour of the IRS, and now refuse to even hear cases against them.

Most of the "tax break schemes" are people online trying to make easy money off of the ignorant.

The IRS is well within its power as it has been appointed by congress to collect taxes, it is also empowered by the internal revenue code.

We couldn't live without a tax-funded government

Legal authorities who say federal income tax is perfectly legal and also those that say income tax is illegal both note that courts have consistently ruled against citizens who refuse to pay their just due.

Lawyers have argued about this in courts for many years and no law can be written to cover all the bases due to the enormous complexity of the tax system as a whole.
Everyone knows that you have to pay your taxes for the good of the country and for all those living in it, we will all rely on the government at least once during our lifetimes. If we are helped by the government, its almost certainly funded by the taxes of our peers. Every time we drive on a road, attend a school, call public services and amenities we are relying on taxes, for without them, we could never do any of that, and there would be many millions more who starve to death as they have no money to feed themselves.

There will always be speculation by those who do not wish to pay their just due as they feel they are above it but its all set down in black and white that taxes are legal and you will pay your taxes, if there was any legal doubt about it then the laws would have been changed within a couple of weeks to make it legal. The United States Government is dead set on taxing you and if theres a loophole to get yourself out of it then they will seal it up quick.
Have you ever met anyone who challenged the IRS and got away with it?
I didnt think so.

And to close i'll just say again, it is legal and it always has been, if you argue with it then you're staring a truth in the face and lying. However there are always the misinformed and ignorant who believe that they are right, so many in fact that no courts will hear their challenges to the IRS.

Besides, if you have used the system then you have legally accepted the deal. You use it, you pay for it.

You can take on the government, but you wont win, because they have their backs covered this time... due to the real undisputable-undeniable-iron-clad-rock-solid fact that....
TAXES ARE LEGAL!

Here is my closing statement.

As i have proven the 16th admendment was never ratified. Here is the main idea of my proof. The proper number of states never ratified the 16th amendment.


This is what has to happen for an admendment to be legaly ratified.
"Each amendment must be inserted in precisely the proper place in the bill, with the spelling and punctuation exactly the same as it was adopted by the House. Obviously, it is extremely important that the Senate receive a copy of the bill in the precise form in which it passed the House. The preparation of such a copy is the function of the enrolling clerk. (at 34) (emphasis added) When the bill has been agreed to in identical form by both bodies - either without amendment by the Senate, or by House concurrence in the Senate amendments, or by agreement in both bodies to the conference report - a copy of the bill is enrolled for presentation to the President. The preparation of the enrolled bill is a painstaking and important task since it must reflect precisely the effect of all amendments, either by deletion, substitution, or addition, agreed to by both bodies. The enrolling clerk ... must prepare meticulously the final form of the bill, as it was agreed to by both Houses, for presentation to the President.... each (amendment) must be set out in the enrollment exactly as agreed to, and all punctuation must be in accord with the action taken."

As i have shown that did not happen. I have given many links and sources to show how the proccess was never followed. It is not hard to fix some punctuation errors, but it was never done. There are strict ways of making an amendment and getting it ratified and they were not followed.




Good luck david and may the best person win.

Whether it was ratified or not, precedence has been set in the courts thereby making it legal

And it WAS ratified, as i have shown through the constituition and all my sources.