I've argued that the income tax is slavery, but I'm an ideologue. Hell I even changed avatar because I don't want people associating veiws as extreme as mine with the party. However, I would like you to find out for me whether the 16th Amendment was ever properly constitutionally ratified. On that basis alone we should protest it.
The only arguments that I could find against the 16th amendment being properly ratified are ones that contend punctuation, spelling, and capitalization was not consistent among the various ratified versions and one that contends that Ohio was not a state until 1953 because it never officially proclaim such.
All of these seem like ridiculously weak arguments that reek of deciding on a conclusion and then looking for evidence.
Punctuation, spelling and capitalization are important. Such a minor detail can totally change the meaning of a statute, and it's a legitimate complaint that if the amendement passed in one state and is not worded exactly how it is in congress, then it shouldn't be passed because the state didn't pass the same thing.
"Another argument made by tax protesters is that the word "income" as used in the Sixteenth Amendment cannot be interpreted as applying to wages. Others have claimed that wages are not income because labor is exchanged for them (see below)."
Which is a good argument. I've a friend who doesn't pay income tax on the basis that it's not the same thing-he works for wages and not an income.
"Thomas is a tax protester, and one of his arguments is that he did not need to file tax returns because the sixteenth amendment is not part of the constitution. It was not properly ratified, Thomas insists, repeating the argument of W. Benson & M. Beckman, The Law That Never Was (1985). Benson and Beckman review the documents concerning the states' ratification of the sixteenth amendment and conclude that only four states ratified the sixteenth amendment; they insist that the official promulgation of that amendment by Secretary of State Knox in 1913 is therefore void."
Even though we didn't have all 50 states back then, I'm sure four states is less than the required amount needed to ratify.
I would make the argument that it goes against the thirteenth amendment, that involuntary servitude can be involuntary if the state takes money directly from a worker. Did the worker voluntarily work for that part of his check?
As much as I would like to see the 16th amendment repealed, the arguments against it being properly ratified are just silly.
Oh, and your point regarding the 13th amendment would be valid if the 16th amendment hadn't made it irrelevant.
Poll
