Not even irrationality admits of a definition of “slavery” that includes taxation.
Calling oneself a slave because one pays taxes is a self-defeating argument. It is just one of those silly things that people, over time, talk themselves into believing.
Paying taxes doesn’t bunch me up like that. I use the infrastructure that the government provides and pay my part for it.
1 Like
The 16th has been his blind spot for years if not decades.
It has long been established by the courts that the Income Tax is not a direct tax and is lawful and constitutional.
The federal income tax is unconstitutional because it is a “direct tax” that must be apportioned among the states in accordance with the census.
False. It is true that there is an apportionment requirement in the Constitution for “direct taxes,” but the 16th Amendment clearly eliminates the apportionment requirement for all taxes on incomes.Before the adoption of the 16th Amendment, the constitutionality of an income tax was determined under Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 of the Constitution, which states that:
“No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”
The reference to the “Census or Enumeration” was a reference to Article I, Section 2, of the Constitution, which directs that:
“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”
(“All other Persons” meant slaves.)
Whether or not an income tax should have been considered to be a “direct tax” that must be apportioned will be discussed below, but the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1913, removed all doubt about apportionment because it clearly states that:
“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.”
And so, following the ratification of the 16th Amendment, Congress enacted an unapportioned income tax, and the constitutionality of that tax was challenged, but the Supreme Court held unanimously that the income tax was constitutional because “in express terms the Amendment provides that income taxes, from whatever source the income may be derived, shall not be subject to the regulation of apportionment.” Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916).
The arguments that tax protesters make about the validity and meaning of the 16th Amendment will be dealt with in other sections of this FAQ. (See “Related Topics,” below.)
But because tax protesters continue to insist that a tax on incomes was a “direct tax” both before the ratification of the 16th Amendment and even afterwards, a brief history of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of “direct tax” is appropriate.
Slaves! And the scars to prove it.
The fact remains, direct taxes are still, to this day, required to be apportioned, regardless of the 16th Amendment.
As to whether or not a tax calculate from “incomes” is unconstitutional, that would depend on whether or not it is in harmony with the definition of “income” as it was understood during the time the amendment was adopted, and likewise depend on whether or not the tax takes the form of a direct tax, in which case it would require and apportionment among the states.
For example, the definition of income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment is a profit or gain after deducting all necessary expenses and outlays from gross receipts.
And, as to the meaning of a direct tax as understood by our founders, I have researched and carefully studied historical documentation during the time period our Constitution was adopted to identify the distinctions between direct and indirect taxation. One thing I am certain of, there is a consistency among the founders comments and tax legislation of the time that direct taxes are those assessed to the individual by government, while indirect taxes are costs added by government to things which individuals are free to acquired or reject.
An example of an indirect tax calculated from income and upheld by the Court is found in Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, (1911), which explains why the tax there is indirect, while an example of an income tax held to be direct and required to be apportioned is found in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)
JWK
”If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property.”__ POLLOCK v. FARMERS’ LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 [1895]
And once again, you’re in the wrong century where the income tax wasn’t even the subject of discussion.
The fact is, you have no argument to make, the SCOTUS has held up the 16th every time it has been challenged and they have specifically upheld the federal income tax every time it has been challenged since it’s passage.
Did you miss what I stated in THIS POST?
In Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920) the court struck the income tax down as being direct, in addition to not fitting the definition of income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment.
The Court concluded in Eisner:
“Thus, from every point of view we are brought irresistibly to the conclusion that neither under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder. The Revenue Act of 1916, in so far as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment.”
JWK
Why???
May I assume that you are personally not paying income tax to show your strong conviction? I keep asking and not getting an answer
You could drive a truck through that blind spot.
Why what?
JWK
Why are you allowed to ignore the 16th amendment?
Um, he’s not? Not that it stops him…
Why are you making something up?
I specifically pointed out the 16th Amendment did not repeal the constitutional requirement that “direct” taxes must be apportioned among the states. I even provide three Supreme Court opinions confirming that “direct” taxes are still required to be apportioned. And, I also provided a Supreme Court opinion in which the use of the 16th Amendment to tax income was struck down as violating the direct tax provisions in our Constitution.
In this case, Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), the Court concluded:
“Thus, from every point of view we are brought irresistibly to the conclusion that neither under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder. The Revenue Act of 1916, in so far as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment.”
JWK
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.
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
Sorry but it does.
The amendment as you quoted it does not read 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.
Additionally, our Constitution, in crystal clear language does declare: No Capitation. or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
And that is why the Court struck down the tax on incomes in Eisner vs Macomber and concluded:
“Thus, from every point of view we are brought irresistibly to the conclusion that neither under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder. The Revenue Act of 1916, in so far as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment.”
JWK
Delusional post.
Taxes means ALL taxes.
