As we near President Trump’s two-year mark in office, he certainly has overseen a number of positive accomplishments, e.g.: new unemployment claims are the lowest in decades; Hispanic and African-American unemployment is at the lowest rate ever recorded; youth unemployment is the lowest in nearly half a century; unemployment among those without a high school diploma hit an all-time low; not to mention over 3 million Americans have been lifted off food stamps since President Trump’s election. But when it comes to real tax reform, President Trump misses the mark!
On a federal level, the most odious form of taxation goes unnoticed by President Trump, and that tax ___ a federal tax which seizes the product of a working person’s labor ___ helps to trap our nation’s working poor on the Democrat Party Leadership’s government cheese plantation.
Let us not forget it was the Democrat Party Leadership which imposed “The Temporary Victory Tax” of 1943 which went beyond the limitations of the 16th Amendment and wrongly imposed an unconstitutional, un-apportioned, ”direct tax” upon a working person’s earned wage, as contradistinguished from the meaning of income within the 16th Amendment.
To this very day, our Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed that federal “direct taxes” are still to be apportioned among the states, notwithstanding the 16th Amendment. See: Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920); BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929), and more recently see what Justice Roberts stated in the Obama case: The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States.
It has be said that the “… patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property.” See BUTCHERS’ UNION CO. v. CRESCENT CITY CO., . Is there any question that the product of a working person’s labor is their property, and ought to be protected by the rule of apportionment as it does the wealthy’s property? See: Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189,
“A proper regard for its genesis, as well as its very clear language, requires also that this amendment [Sixteenth Amendment] shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes upon property, real and personal. This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.”
If today’s socialist leaders like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders, Stacey Abrams, Kyrsten Sinema, Nancy Pelosi, Andrew Gillum, etc., were really determined to help the working poor, rather than conning them for their vote to seize and keep power, they would be demanding an end to the “Temporary Victory Tax” of 1943 which now robs the bread that hard working people living in our nation’s inner cities earn from the sweat of their labor ___ an insidious tax designed by Democrat Leaders which helps to trap our nation’s working poor on the socialist’s leaders free cheese plantation by hindering them from accumulating wealth and financial independence.
Would it not be a blessing to our nation’s working poor for President Trump to call for an end to the Temporary Victory Tax of 1943, and replacing it with a temporary tax upon specifically chosen articles of luxury to make up the difference?
Of course, and better yet, repealing the 16th Amendment and forbidding Congress to lay and collect any tax calculated from profits, gains, interest, wages, salaries or other lawfully earned “incomes”, and returning to our Constitution’s original tax plan, would be the ultimate federal tax reform. It would end the failed experiment with the socialist/Marxist inspired tax calculated from incomes which has proven to inflame and agitate a never ending war between the rich and poor, the productive and nonproductive, and now empowers corrupted and thieving politicians in Washington who use this hideous tax to divide and conquer the American people while fattening the fortunes of their friends and the well connected.
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