Zeitgeist - Part III: ... (Income Tax)


It's worthwhile to point out that the American public's ignorance towards the Federal Income Tax is a testament to how dumbed down and oblivious the American population really is.
First of all the Federal Income Tax is completely unconstitutional as it is a direct unapportioned tax. All direct taxes have to be apportioned to be legal, based on the Constitution.

False The 16th Amendment to the constitution made it constitutional to pass income tax laws.

Some background…

Article 1 Section 2 of the constitution includes the phrase:

…direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States … according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons…excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

What this means is that federal taxes had to be in proprortion to a states population (with exceptions for some Native Americans, and 40% of slaves)

In 1862, Congress passed the first Income Tax to help pay for the war. It was eliminated in 1872 but was revived in 1894. In 1895, the Supreme Court ruled the Income Tax unconstitutional in the case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. based on the apportionment clause.

In 1909, Congress passed the a proposal for amendment to the constitution. On February 13, 1913 the Secretary of State certified that it had been ratified and it became the 16th Amendment to the constitution.


Secondly, the required number of states in order to ratify the amendment to allow the Income Tax was never met.

False By 2/3/1913, the 16th Amendment was ratified by 38 states, two more than the required 36 (ref: [http://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html#Am16])


And this has even been sided in modern court cases.

False No court case has ever ruled the 16th amendment to be invalid.


“If you… examined [the 16th amendment] carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment.” -U.S. District Court Judge, James C. Fox, 2003”

Mostly True … that Judge James C. Fox was quoted to have said something like that but it was anecdotal and not a ruling per se.

The case was that of Sullivan vs U.S. The plaintiff asked a ruling against Bush for acting in violation of the constitution in regards to war powers.

Judge Fox, though he appears somewhat sympathetic, indicates that historical, unchallenged practice tends to show an accepted interpretation of the constitution. He used the 16th Amendment as an example. He read somewhere that it was not properly ratified but that the passing of several decades makes that a moot point.

A more complete quote follows:

(Fox) … I have to tell you that there are cases where a long course of history in fact does change the constitution, and I can think of one instance. I believe I'm correct on this. I think if you were to go back and try to find and review the ratification of the 16th amendment, which was the internal Revenue, Income Tax. I think if you went back and examined that carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment. … And nonetheless, I think it's fair to say that it is part of the constitution of the United States and I don't think any court would ever … set it aside. Well, I've seen that — I've seen somewhere a treatise on that. And I think it was — I think I'm correct in saying that actually the ratification never really properly occurred… Yet nonetheless, I'm sure no court's going to say that the 16th amendment permitting income is void for any reason, although I wouldn't mind filing for a rebate myself.

So the 16th amendment ratification question this was just a recollection by the judge that he read 'somewhere'. It was hardly a careful examination by the judge that the film implies. In any event, his conclusion was that it didn't matter any way (even if it was true).

(Ref: * Transcript from Sullivan VS U.S)


Third, at the present day roughly 35% of the average worker's income is taken from them via this tax. That means you work 4 months out of the year to refill this tax obligation.

False 35% is greatly exaggerated almost by a factor of 3. In 2005, IRS stats should the average filer paid about 12.45% of their income (which would not have counted non-filers who mostly did not pay any tax).

(Ref: [http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html])


And guess where that money goes? It goes to pay the interest on the currency being produced by the fraudulent Federal Reserve Bank, a system that does not have to exist at all.

False All income tax is collected by the U.S. Treasury and it goes into the general revenue fund. The Federal Reserve does not collect a penny.

Even if one considers that the Fed costs something, the math doesn't even come close to this claim.

A) For 2006, revenue from income tax was $1.047T (Ref: [http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/factfiles_detail.cfm?issue_type=federal_budget&list=7] )

B) For 2006, interest is generated on the national debt was $226B. (Ref: [http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/factfiles_detail.cfm?issue_type=federal_budget&list=8])

C) So does about 22% of income tax goes to the national debt interest? Not really.

All income tax goes to the general revenue fund from which all expenses are paid. It is not specifically directed to any program (like Social Security and Medicare taxes are).

As a proportional percentage, about 8.5% of income tax goes to national debt interest. (ref: [http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/factfiles_detail.cfm?issue_type=federal_budget&list=8])

D) So much much does the Federal Reserve get of the income tax?

There are two valid answers:

1) $0. No dollars are budgeted to the Federal Reserve. It receives all its income from user fees and interest on T-Bills it owns.

2) about $3B which is the budget for the Federal Reserve. (Ref: http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/frbbankbudgets/2007ReserveBankBudgets.pdf )

By law, the Fed has to turn over it's profits (income after expenses) to the Treasury at the end of the year. So all that interest the Fed gets on T-Bills? 90%+ is returned to the Treasury.


The money you make working 4 months out of the year goes almost literally into the pockets of the international bankers who own the private Federal Reserve Bank.


  • Income tax goes to the Treasury
  • The Federal Reserve System is not private though the branches have shares owned by member banks


And fourth, even with the fraudulent Government claim as to the legality of the Income Tax there is literally no statute, no law in existence that requires you to pay this tax. Period.

False In these days of Google, one wonders why this myth persists.

The Income Tax laws are codified under Title 12 of the U.S. Code



“I really expected that, of course there is a law that you can point to in the law book, a code that requires you to file a tax return. Of course there is! I was at that point where I couldn't find a statute that clearly made me personally liable, at least not me and the most people I know and I had no choice in my mind except to resign.” –John Turner, Former IRS Agent

Undetermined Could not validate quote


“Based on the resource that I did throughout the year 2000 and that I'm still doing I have not found that law. I've asked the Congress, we've asked a lot of people, in the IRS, IRS Commissioner's helpers, they can't answer because if they answer the American people are gonna know that this whole thing is a fraud.” –Sherry Jackson, Former IRS Agent - “I haven't filed a thorough income tax return since I left.” “I have not filed a tax return since 1999.”

Undetermined However, given her history, this can be accepted as a likely quote. Sherry Jackson ran workshops on how to avoid paying taxes.

BTW, in October 2007, Sherry Jackson was convicted of four counts for failure to file for income tax.


External Links


Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License