Apparently things have become so twisted that (the attempted talking point) equates people keeping what’s theirs rather than government taking (for endless social do-gooding) is somehow “progressive”.
I appreciate your opinion, JayJay, but that is all it is. . . an unsubstantiated opinion!
In my response to your opinion, let us keep in mind the Sixteenth Amendment does not declare:
”The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
The historical record, during the Congressional debates on adopting the Sixteenth Amendment confirms that on June 17th, 1909, Senator Brown offered the following Joint Resolution (S. J. R. 39) to amend the Constitution relative to TAXES ON INCOMES:
”Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of both Houses concurring), That the following section be submitted to the legislatures of the several States, which, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the States, shall be valid and binding as a part of the Constitution of the United States:
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes without apportionment among the several States according to population." CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ___ SENATE, June 17, 1909, Page 3377
But the wording “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes without apportionment”, etc., never made it into the final version of the Sixteenth Amendment, nor is there any wording in the Constitution repealing the command that “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken”
With the above in mind it is important to note that, under the rules which govern constitutional construction, in situations where there appears to be constitutional provisions that are in conflict with each other, as is the current case in which there is no repeal of the constitutional requirement that “direct” taxes must be apportioned, while Congress is granted power to lay and collect taxes on incomes without apportionment, the two provisions must be interpreted to harmonize them in such a manner that effect be given to each.
Finally, with respect to your assertion that the “16th Amendment was introduced specifically to make the collection of income taxes, whether direct or not, free from apportionment”, that assertion is debatable considering what is found in the 1909 Congressional Record.
The Sixteenth Amendment was perceived necessary in order to allow for an additional revenue source in order to lower the tariff burden being paid by poor working people on articles of consumption. The additional revenue source was intended to come from “millionaires” [repeatedly identified during the debates] paying a small portion of their unearned incomes (stocks, bonds, etc.) to help support the functions of government while allowing the lowering of the tariff.
Representative Heflin, during the Congressional Debates on the Sixteenth Amendment actually pointed to a statement made by Robert Ellis Thompson, in the Irish World which articulated the purpose of an income tax:
“An income tax seeks to reach the unearned wealth of the country and to make it pay its share.” 44 Cong. Rec. Page 4420 (1909) right column halfway down the column.
Also see Page 4412, right column, July 12th, 1909, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Representative HENRY:
“It is undeniable that an income tax will reach millions of wealth—bonds and stocks— [which is unearned income] -that would never be touched by a corporation or inheritance tax. It is advocating no new and strange doctrine to favor an income tax. On many occasions during great emergencies this method of taxation has been resorted to, and proved abundantly satisfactory. And now, with a depleted Treasury, with swollen fortunes all around us evading taxation and receiving the protection of Government, and civilized communities everywhere recognizing the economic fairness of such a tax, and with the admitted contention that it contains the humane and sublime blessing of equality to all men, the time is ripe and appropriate for this Government to go forward and keep apace with the progress and civilization of mankind.”
Here is a link to the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD July 12th, 1909 which will substantiate what I stated above . . . scroll to desired page and either the House, or Senate record.
The fact is, a working person’s wage is earned, while the intended target of the Sixteenth Amendment was unearned profits and/or gains, collectively referenced in the Sixteenth Amendment as “incomes”.
JWK
The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
1 Like
Yep. Even if one manages to rationalize a legitimate argument here, it is for naught. No Constitutional argument is going to do away with the Federal Income Tax.
Progressives have been complaining about the fact business and capital owners can deduct many business-related expenses but wage earners cannot deduct equivalent job-related expenses for decades.
You could have…you know…waited until I answered instead of attempting to answer for me.
In the further, maybe stop assuming every argument we have on these forums is an argument over the “morality” of a government action and assigning motives to the “sides” you perceive to be engaging in such an argument.
The word “direct” is implied with the phrase “without apportionment” in the amendment.
Direct taxes had to be apportioned…indirect taxes had to be uniform.
Which of course is another way we can know the framers of the amendment did not mean the income tax to be considered an indirect tax. The first income tax enacted after the 16th Amendment passed included a graduated scale starting at 1% and going up to 6% for those with incomes > $500,000. If this was supposed to be an indirect tax, this scale would have violated the rule of uniformity.
To my knowledge no one ever brought a case against this first income tax for violating the rule of uniformity.
Did you miss what I wrote HERE
So, the question to be answered here is, why is the capitalist allowed, and rightly so, to deduct their capital investments from money coming in, to arrive at their taxable income as per Eisner, while the wage earner is not?
Implying that I’m “Progressive” is absurd. Your name calling is insulting. Aside from that I see you never answered the legitimate question I asked above.
Of course I saw this post…I responded directly to it.
And I asked…is this what you are pushing for?
That wage earners be allowed to deduct any expenses directly related to earning their wages before they are taxed?
Because if you are…progressives beat you to this idea…by a country mile.
It IS A progressive talking point.
My objective was stated HERE
Now, with regard to you implying that I’m a “Progressive” with respect to income taxation, and your comment about a talking point, I, unlike those who embrace income taxation, whether they be rich or poor, have advocated for about 45 years, to end this patently evil system of federal taxation and return to our Constitution’s original tax plan, as our Founders intended it to operate. So many of the miseries we suffer today can be traced directly, or indirectly to our federal income tax system. Why not work to end it?
JWK
When Federal Reserve Notes were made a legal tender in violation of our Constitution, and a direct un-apportioned tax was imposed upon the people without their consent, America’s free enterprise, free market system was subjugated, and the tools of oppression and thievery were made available to some very immoral and nefariously evil people.
I said nothing of morality.
It was your apparent reasoning that was twisted.
It is not “progressive” to not tax people.
That may be perfectly in tune with classic American liberalism … but progressivism is opposed to the ideals on which our nation was founded and is rather in line with the insipid French Revolution where all things were to be politically sourced (including rights and the meaning of words, administrative laws rather than any inherited common laws) and government one where the departments of governance were loosely defined by their responsibilities and not by a few enumerated powers granted them.
So if you want to calculate income from wages the same way you calculate income from a sale, you would subtract the basis from the revenue. What would be the basis for a wage?
I’m not buying the eating and housing part. You do those for personal reasons anyway. Travel to work? Maybe, but how far you travel to work is again a personal choice. If I choose to live by a lake and therefore travel a hundred miles to work instead of two miles, that is a choice for my own benefit.
Required to buy my own uniform for work? Ok. Now we are making some sense. Not sure how the irs treats that.
How much are you willing to have our military and economic capabilities reduced in order for that to be achieved?
Because that’s what these types of taxation fund (well they fund more than that, but that’s a story for another day).
I’m not even saying it’s a bad idea…simply saying that we are the economic and military powerhouse we are today because of that system of taxation.
And no there would not be some commensurate “boost of economic activity” if his system of taxation went away.
Longer term, maybe it would be better for the US in terms of economic growth sustainability…but there would be severe economic dislocation first.
And this is the part that the people that espouse such policies never want to address.
I also find it funny that in one breath people espouse economic policies that will reduce America’s hegemonic stature while in the next breath are talking about “how weak we have become because look! China is selling oil in yuan instead of dollars!”
Like these are all just “unrelated happenings”.
When calculating a profit and or gain, collectively called income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment, only that portion which represents a “profit” or “gain” may be taxable under the Sixteenth Amendment as per EISNER and a number of other S.C. cases.
Keep in mind that profits, and/or gains are calculated by deducting all necessary expenses and outlays from gross receipts …the remaining portion being a profit and/or gain.
You do not have to buy the self-evident observation that financing the cost of housing and nourishment is part of the costs which makes one’s labor possible. Nor do you have to accept the fact that there are a number of other investments and outlays which a laboring class person makes in order to provide one’s labor e.g., the “investment” of eight hours of life itself which the wage earner invests and makes available to their employer, and that is in addition to the actual physical and mental labor invested by the wage earner, which is also made available to their employer. But truth be told, without the laboring class person financing, and bearing the costs of the above mentioned particulars, it is more than just difficult to imagine how one’s labor can be made available.
Having said that, a very long time ago, while studying constitutional law, I came across the following, found in my 1925-26 Bouviers Law Dictionary, which defines “profit”, a subject of taxation under the Sixteenth Amendment:
“This is a word of very extended signification. In commerce, it means the advance in the price of goods sold beyond the cost of purchase. In distinction from the wages of labor, it is well understood to imply the net return to the capital of stock employed, after deducting all the expenses, including not only the wages of those employed by the capitalist, but the wages of the capitalist himself for superintending the employment of his capital or stock. Adam Smith, Wealth of Nat. b. i. c. 6 and M’Culloch’s Notes; Mill, Polit. Econ. C. 15”
That quote inspired my thinking a long time ago with relation to a wage earner’s investments and outlays made, which make the wage earner’s labor possible when selling the property each has in their own labor.
Should we not apply the same rules for deductions to compute a wage earner’s profit as the capitalist is rightfully entitled to? I only bring this up to establish the patently evil nature of a direct tax on incomes.
But now, some food for thought.
See Representative Williams during a debate on Direct Taxes, January 18th, 1797
“History, Mr. Williams said, informed them of the annihilation of nations by means of direct taxation. He referred gentlemen to the situation of the Roman Empire in its innocence, and asked them whether they had any direct taxes? No. Indirect taxes and taxes upon luxuries and spices from the Indies were their sources of revenue; but, as soon as they changed their system to direct taxation, it operated to their ruin; their children were sold as slaves, and the Empire fell from its splendor. Shall we then follow this system? He trusted not.”
JWK
I’m not sure what you are implying by that comment. Why would the funding of our federal government’s primary and constitutionally authorized function be “reduced”?
JWK
The Biden Administration is betting the farm that American citizens will not raise one finger to defend their border against the Administration’s ongoing and planned invasion of the United States.
Yup. A real “powerhouse” in which income taxation has opened the door for a number of nefarious ends, including our powerhouses shadow government using it to attack political opponents.
JWK
When Federal Reserve Notes were made a legal tender in violation of our Constitution, and a direct un-apportioned tax was imposed upon the people without their consent, America’s free enterprise, free market system was subjugated, and the tools of oppression and thievery were made available to some very immoral and nefariously evil people.
Are you suggesting our Supreme Court, will not do its job and strike down unconstitutional applications of the Sixteenth Amendment? If so, you could be wrong considering Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 in which the Court has already done so.
JWK
At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, ‘Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?’ “A republic, if you can keep it,” responded Franklin.
Yep, that’s right, they won’t strike down the Federal Income Tax (regardless of whether they see it as their job or not.)
51% of Federal government revenue comes from individual income taxes.
7% comes from corporate income taxes.
36% comes from payroll taxes (which are just an earmarked individual income tax)
94% of Federal revenues come from income taxes. I assure you, they will never be struck down. And even if a court was crazy enough to do so, the Federal Government would simply ignore the ruling. No government is going to tolerate cutting off its primary revenue source.
That would just be insanity.
1 Like
Why would it be insanity?
1 Like
Simple.
Income taxation is by far the most efficient way to collect revenue and is used by virtually every country in the world for the lion’s share of their revenues.
Income taxation lends itself to progressive taxation, allowing the tax to fall much lighter on the low end of the income spectrum and gradually more heavily as income goes up.
In the United States a generous standard deduction and numerous exemptions and credits available for poor families ensures that many people at the low end not only don’t pay income tax, but receive a net payment from the government.
Sales taxes at the national level are much more difficult and people would STILL need to provide extensive information to the IRS to qualify for a “prebate” a necessary component to avoid driving the poor into insolvency.
Income taxes are an efficient revenue gathering mechanism and should be maintained.
