There is no law anywhere that requires you to actually pay income tax.

AGREED. One imposes that liability upon himself.

A right is not a privilege that can be taxed.

The name of the tax does not make it the subject of the tax. The name of the tax 'income tax' refers to the income that is derived from being engaged in a certain privilege, and it is this income which is used to measure how much tax is to be paid. Such privileges are described within the statutes of the Internal Revenue Code.

Those who were responsible for the writing of the Internal Revenue Code (probablably the same people that wrote the Sixteenth Amendment) knew what they were doing in conspiring to misinform the public. I suspect the naming of the tax was primary to their purpose. As most employers have been conditioned and misinformed as to the difference between a right and a privilege. This misinformation of the public was paramount to the writing of the revenue laws.

Earning income as a right, as in the pursuit of happiness is, therefore, not taxable. It is like there are two different types of income that can be made. One is derived from the fruits of one's labor (nontaxable), the other is derived from being engaged in a privilege that is described within the Internal Revenue Code, as in operating a business in a corporate manner (and, hence, subject to a revenue tax).

Signing an IRS Form of any kind is making a contract with the government, in doing so, one agrees that he is a "taxpayer", hence, making one "subject to" [liable for] a revenue tax. It is providing the prima facie evidence needed for an IRS agent to move against you. And forcing one to sign such a form prior to be allowed to exercise one's right to obtain work is denying one's right of due process. One must, of course, be aware of this difference between right and privilege himself - most do not. Hence, the prima facie evidence (the signed IRS Form) shows on paper that the work that you are doing is not a right but is a privilege, which is subject to being taxed. This why the business world of America gets away with violations of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Once the form is signed then the presumption (of being a "taxpayer") is left unchallenged.

So, if one finds himself in such a predicament, and to avoid going to jail, the first thing one has to do is to understand the tax laws and then when brought into court, is to challenge the jurisdiction of the court at the very beginning, before the trial gets underway, because doing so after it begins, is then not an option. When this moment passes, the presumption implied by the prima facie evidence is taken by the court to be true. And one is looked at by the court as being a "taxpayer", and lies within their jurisdiction.

No judge has the power to make you a "taxpayer" (as that term is defined within the Internal Revenue Code), one does that to himself. Deny being a "taxpayer" and this takes you out of their jurisdiction.
This is so because of a federal court ruling which states:
" Since the statutory definition of "taxpayer is exclusive, the federal courts do not have the power to create non statutory taxpayers for the purpose of applying the provisions of the revenue laws..." C.I.R. v Trustees of L. Inv. Ass'n., 100 F.2d 18, at 29 (7th Cir. 1938).

The chance of finding a lawyer that understands this is practically nil. For he has been programmed by the university that he gets his so-called education from to ignore this issue... because tax laws and the Sixteenth Amendment are never really deeply studied, or even understood by their professors. When they pass the bar, all they really want is their big houses and sailing boats. So what if they give away a third of their income... they will make up for it by the outrageous fees they charge... same with all the other professionals. The only people that are grossly hurt by this massive campaign - the misapplication of the internal revenue laws - are the low income hourly folks, they are having a very tough time keeping up. The middle-class is disappearing! And the reason is because they are being taxed out of existence! By the misapplication of the revenue laws.

The claim that the Income Tax is unconstitutional is a flawed argument.

Flawed argument #2. The individual claims that the income tax is a direct tax which is not apportioned among the States and is, therefore unconstitutional. He also claims that all the Supreme Court decisions regarding an income tax were wrong except the Pollock decision.

With this flawed argument, the individual has placed a tremendous and untenable burden of proof upon himself. If one is going to argue that the Supreme Court was wrong, he is going to have to take his argument to the Supreme Court because the lower courts are required to accept the Supreme Court rulings until such time as the Supreme Court changes it mind. See Cheek v, United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991). For a defendant to argue that the tax law is unconstitutional is to argue that i would apply to him if it were constitutional. Such an argument will also "prove the government's allegation of willfulness, because when a defendant claims the law requiring him to make a tax return is unconstitutional, he is at the same time acknowledging the statutory legal duty to make the return. This issue is discussed quite throughly in the Cheek case. (The Biggest "Tax Loophole" of All by Otto Skinner (page 193))