I realize this blog is over a year old but as a public service for any simple minded people that may be swayed by this ridiculous and poorly researched blog I decided I would respond anyway.

"The United Stated first flirted with an income tax during the Civil War as a way to gather funds quickly for the war effort; it was imposed on Aug. 5th 1861. In 1895 Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, the Supreme Court ruled that the property income tax, being enforced at the time was an example of a direct tax, which was not properly apportioned among the states by population, thus it was found unconstitutional. This decision made it very difficult for Congress to enact a national income tax, because the Supreme Court would have considered that to also be a direct tax. This was true until the 16th Amendment came along in 1913."

This is incorrect. The US did not flirt with an income tax, it enacted one. It was enacted in 1862 and was in place for 12 years until 1872. It was a forerunner of our modern income tax in that it was based on the principles of graduated, or progressive, taxation and of withholding income at the source. This tax was upheld by the Supreme Court in Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586.

The Pollock Case and resulting 16th Amendment are fallout are due to the Tax Act of 1894 which provided "That from and after the 1st day of January, 1895, there shall be levied, collected, and paid annually upon the gains, profits, and income of every person residing in the United States, or any citizen of the United States residing abroad, derived in each preceding calendar year, whether derived from any kind of property, rents, interest, dividends, or salaries, or from any profession, trade, employment, or vocation carried on in the United States or elsewhere, a tax of 2 per cent on the amount so derived over and above $4,000."
Only about 5% of the country earned enough to be eligible for the tax. It was seen as a means of redistributing wealth and a communistic idea. In any event the Pollock case was distinguishing between direct and indirect taxes, the court noted that there are only two types of direct taxes capitation and property. The issue the court was deciding was whether income from property was nothing more than taxing the property itself. The court ultimately ruled that it was and that is where the unconstitutionality of the income tax came. It had nothing to do with a tax on wages.

"The statement of the case in the report shows that Springer returned a certain amount as his net income for the particular year, but does not give the details of what his income, gains, and profits consisted in.
The original record discloses that the income was not [*579] derived in any degree from real estate but was in part professional as attorney-at-law and the rest interest on United States bonds. It would seem probable that the court did not feel called upon to advert to the distinction between the latter and the former source of income, as the validity of the tax as to either would sustain the action.
The opinion thus concludes: "Our conclusions are, that direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the tax of which the plaintiff in error complains is within the category of an excise or duty."
While this language is broad enough to cover the interest as well as the professional earnings, the case would have been more significant as a precedent if the distinction had [**689] been brought out in the report and commented on in arriving at judgment, for a tax on professional receipts might be treated as an excise or duty, and therefore indirect, when a tax on the income of personalty might be held to be direct.

Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 578-579 (U.S. 1895)

From the very case you use to support your argument comes language damaging to your case. The court recognized and distinguished income from his professional wages as indirect, and distinguishes that from income from federal bonds (i.e. property). The 16th Amendment did not as you assert give "congress the power to tax every American's labor, and after a somewhat debatable State ratification procedure, the Congress had their national income tax." In fact it gave no new taxing powers. According to the Supreme Court
"It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense -- an authority already possessed and never questioned [*18] -- or to limit and distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another, but that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived."

Brushaber v. Union P. R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 17-18 (U.S. 1916)

Continuing on to some of your other glaring errors.
"Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, also known as the Taxing and Spending Clause states "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." It seems obvious that our founding fathers intended for our national tax system to be a national sales tax."
Really how is that remotely obvious from the text you quoted?

"Congress has overstepped their boundaries with the 16th amendment and completely contradicted Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 of the constitution, which states, "No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken." The 16th amendment states, "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." It is clear that the 16th amendment is a direct contradiction of the Constitution. An amendment, by Constitutional standards is appended onto the original body of the text. An amendment is not meant to repeal the original text!"

How is it a direct contradiction? A direct contradiction would be an Amendment that allows congress to lay and collect a direct tax. The constitution never defines what is a direct versus an indirect tax, otherwise there would have been no need for Pollock or any other of the numerous cases that tried to determine what was meant by direct tax. All the sixteenth amendment does is say that income from whatever source derived is essentially to be treated as an indirect tax. It is amending the original text because there is ambiguity.

" The income tax is unconstitutional in other facets as well. For instance, if you don't file a W-2 or a 1040 with the IRS then you are liable to go to prison and then still have to pay your back taxes. This is a direct violation of The 5th amendment which states " No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury". Basically it is unconstitutional to be forced to self-incriminate yourself. "

Did you smoke meth before you read the 5th amendment? How exactly is this a violation of the 5th amendment? Criminal charges are filed in the District courts in front of a Grand Jury, that complies with the text of the 5th amendment. The fact that you are also civilly liable is not a violation of the 5th amendment. There is nothing in the 5th amendment that says anything about not self-incriminating. If this was the case, criminal confessions would be inadmissible per se. What the amendment says is that you can't be forced to testify against yourself. Again no violation of the 5th there.

" It is also unconstitutional for the Federal government to keep records on its citizens. The records that the IRS keep on Americans is unconstitutional by our interpretation of Article 4, Section 1 which reads, " Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

No offense but your interpretation of the Full Faith and credit clause is absurd and has no basis in reality. The clause is intended to ensure that court judgments are enforced evenly throughout the states. Essentially if you have a judgment entered in your favor in one state, without the clause the losing party could simply flee the state and escape the consequences. The clause allows you to go to a court wherever the losing party goes and have them enforce the judgment. The clause does not place any restriction on the federal government to keep records of its citizens. By your logic the post office is unconstitutional.

In summation you don't come close to raising a correct or relevant point.
 

I almost forgot to address your ridiculous assertion that there is not a law on the books that requires Americans to pay income taxes. The duty to pay taxes can be found in 26 U.S.C. § 1 “There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual . . . who is not a married individual a tax determined in accordance with the following table:” The code defines what is taxable income in 26 U.S.C. § 63 as “gross income minus the deductions allowed” . Gross income is defined in 26 U.S.C. § 61. It is an extensive list the most important provision is: [G]ross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items: (1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
26 U.S.C. § 6012(a) requires you to file a tax return if you make a certain amount and 26 U.S.C. § 6151 requires you to pay a tax. It is true that the IRS frequently states that it relies on the “voluntary compliance” of taxpayers. But anyone who relies on that to say that the income tax is voluntary is confusing two different things: the duty to pay the tax and the method of enforcing that duty relied upon by the IRS.