OK, according to the article:
Badnarik "believes that the federal income tax has no legal authority and that people are justified in refusing to file a tax return until such time as the IRS provides them with an explanation of its authority to collect the tax." Accordingly, he hasn't filed any federal tax return in many years.
Actually this is correct.
It's correct that the government has no legal authority to tax incomes? Then what does the 16th amendment do?
It's unconstitutional and should be repealed immediately. States were coerced into ratifying it.
A constitutional amendment by definition cannot be unconstitutional. An amendment overrides whatever the constitution said previously.
The 16th amendment was actually the result of a political scheme by the Democrats and Republicans. Initially, it started out as the Bailey Bill in 1909, intoduced by Democrat Joseph Bailey (Who himself was opposed to income taxes). The purpose of it was to force the Republicans to oppose it, and thus give them a bad face (i.e. show openly that the Republicans were a party of the rich).
Instead, Roosevelt and some other left leaning Republicans actually favored the bill, and it was going to be passed. Then, conservative Republicans (Taft, Aldritch, Lodge) started looking for a way to cancel the bill, and decided that they would favor an income tax ONLY if it became an amendment (The thinking was, it wouldnt get enough votes to ratify it). Of course, this didn't work out, and it went through. So, it ended up badly for the Republicans, and a win for the Democrats (but not in the way they wanted). "Soak the rich" had passed the bill, even though ultimately, the rich got off pretty much scotfree with this little "clause":
Provided, however, that nothing in this section shall apply...to any corporation or association organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific or educational purposes
Before the bill was even introduced, people like Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan set up "charities" and as such, the income tax amendment didnt effect them whatsoever. In the end, everyone basically lost, or "broke even" (Didnt really affect the rich, besides them having to go through the trouble of settting up those charities).
Finally, the point is, if you unquestioningly accept every single law and amendment passed, does that mean a democracy? What if another political "fluke" happened and a new amendment was passed that had even "worse" effects on Americans (Patriot Act). Should you blindly accept these new laws and rules, or should you be able to go against them and question them? I do agree with paying your taxes, but I dont agree with the idea behind income taxes. I can see where Band. is codming from, he'll pay his taxes as long as the IRS justifies them. Shouldn't he, and everyone, be allowed to have their taxes justified?
