*Loan,banking and credit>>>income tax

What Law states that we have to pay income tax? Isn't that unconstitutional as it is a direct unportioned tax?

Glad to oblige.

For the income tax laws, check out:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/u...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/u...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/u...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/u...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/u...

The contention that the 16th amendment was not ratified is principly based on a book by William Benson called "The law that never was". The book argues that many of the state ratifications didn't count for reasons like Illinois misspelled a word, and that Ohio really wasn't a state at the time. While the arguments are creative and novel, they have never been successful argued in court as a basis for not paying taxes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/tax_protest...
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/the_law_tha...
http://www.answers.com/topic/the-law-tha...

Take a look at the 16th Amendment to the Constitution.

You can google it.
I believe that you are right, and I think that there has to be something that the people as a whole can do to rectify this unacceptable situation! Replacing the income tax with the Fair tax would be an excellent beginning! *sm*
Gray Shadow gives you an excellent answer. I do want to add a few things...

In Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 75 U.S. 533, 543 (1869). The court said, 鈥淭his review [of the history of Congressional impositions of 鈥渄irect taxes鈥漖 shows that personal property, contracts, occupations, and the like, have never been regarded by Congress as proper subjects of direct tax.鈥?br />
That was in 1869, the court basically said that Congress had never treated income taxes as direct taxes.

The 1895 decision, Pollock v. Farmers鈥?Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601 (1895), the court struck down a tax on income from property (basically, rental income) by saying it was a direct tax. However, that same court said in the decision that "the constitution may bear a different meaning, and that such different meaning must be recognized.鈥?br />
The 16th amendment was drafted, passed and ratified to CLARIFY that Congress had the power to lay and collect an income tax from the beginning. The argument that the 16th amendment was not properly ratified is refuted in .S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986):
<BEGIN QUOTE>
鈥淏enson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913. Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal instruments of ratification to the Secretary of State. (Minnesota notified the Secretary orally, and additional states ratified later; we consider only those Secretary Knox considered.) Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. The text Congress transmitted to the states was: 鈥淭he 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.鈥?Many of the instruments neglected to capitalize 鈥淪tates,鈥?and some capitalized other words instead. The instrument from Illinois had 鈥渞emuneration鈥?in place of 鈥渆numeration鈥? the instrument from Missouri substituted 鈥渓evy鈥?for 鈥渓ay鈥? the instrument from Washington had 鈥渋ncome鈥?not 鈥渋ncomes鈥? others made similar blunders.

鈥淭homas insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and--taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems--advised the Secretary that he was authorized to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so.

鈥淎lthough Thomas urges us to take the view of several state courts that only agreement on the literal text may make a legal document effective, the Supreme Court follows the 鈥渆nrolled bill rule.鈥?If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted."
<END QUOTE>

BTW, Bill Benson is an idiot. He says he researched his book for over a year. It took me all of five minutes to find that he misinterpreted the Tennessee Constitution as it was in 1909.

In Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916), the court stated, 鈥渂y the previous ruling [in Brushaber] it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation....鈥?br />
Basically, the above means that the court said that Congress always had the power to lay and collect an income tax, but that the 16th amendment prevents income taxes from being deemed direct taxes by the courts.

Now, the actual law that states we have to pay income taxes is the Internal Revenue Code, which has been properly passed by Congress and signed by a President. This is codified in Title 26 of the U.S. Code.
http://www2.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscod...

BTW, any other tax protestor arguments that claim the U.S. Code is not law, or that it doesn't tax wages or any other silly argument are all wrong.

In the past 95 years, there has not been a single tax protestor that has successfully proven that they did not have to pay taxes. In most cases, the court has used words and phrases like, "frivolous", "without merit", "specious", "the argument is just plain wrong", "the court hereby fines you for wasting the court's precious time", etc.