I think the point most of "we don't have to pay income tax" folks take is that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified and therefore is not the law of the land and so income taxes can't be collected.
In that they are wrong in law since that very question was considered by SCOSUS and they ruled it was legit.
But in any case, it really is a moot point. Section 8 clause 1 of the Constitution gives Congress unlimited scope relating to taxes.
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Correct. That is the clause that was most often used as the basis for complaints. When it was amended under XVI the challenge moved to whether the ratification was handled properly or not. That went all the way to SOCTUS and the ratification was upheld. So from that, I see little hope of not paying income tax.
Also "held to answer" does not, to me, appear to mean "hold you for questioning," despite the similarity of the wording. I think "held to answer," in the context, means "forced to answer," and while police may make efforts to get around that, the US is really pretty good about making sure criminals know they don't have to answer in any criminal case, not just capital ones.
Actually, in the context of usage at the time it was written "Held to answer" refers to the act of charging someone with a crime. It's saying that you cannot be placed on trial without the issue passing a lower level test of going through a Grand Jury to determine if there is even enough evidence for charges to be placed.
Thank you. Do you mind me asking how you know this?
Sure, and a great question.
One reason is that I am lucky enough to be a really old fart that grew up in the mid-Atlantic states at a time when the term was still in common usage. It was not at all unusual to be told "You'll have to answer for that!" when I made minor transgressions.
To 'answer for' always referred to sanctioning and punishment. It was not a reference to questioning, it was a promise of a rather severe whopping.
The section referred to is yet another protection found in our Constitution. It was a limiting act saying that you could not be tried for major crimes, particularly those that normally carried the ultimate sanction, death, without first convincing a body of citizens that there actually was a crime and that there was actually enough evidence to at the least suspect that you were the perpetrator. It was a major change from the then existing system where someone of Nobility or Position could have someone tried simply on an accusation. It was one of the first barriers to conviction from authority.