Mark Levin’s Liberty Amendment on taxation is not what our Founders intended!

[dcraelin]

The 16th Amendment merely confirmed what the Supreme Court had already ruled in Flint - that Congress did have power to lay and collect taxes calculated from incomes without apportionment. In fact, the 16th Amendment granted no new power to Congress as stated by the Supreme Court in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. (1916):

"...by the previous ruling (the previous ruling was Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. 1916), it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of INDIRECT taxation to which it inherently belonged.."

I agree with all this. Somehow you think it proves your point. ???
"no new power of taxation" means Congress could always tax anyway they wanted to
what 16th amendment essentially did was say the gimmicky ruling in Pollock v farmers loan was erroneous

 

[Antares]

.

According to an article titled Preserving republican government in America: Mark Levin’s Liberty Amendments, which appeared in “Conservative Intelligence Briefing”, August 29th, 2013, written by J. Cal Davenport:


Levin proposes an amendment to limit federal taxing. It would limit the income tax at a rate no higher than 15%. It would eliminate the estate tax and prevent Congress from adding a value-added tax or a national sales tax on top of the income tax. Most interestingly, in order to remind Americans how much they hate federal taxes and to incentivize them to vote for someone who won’t raise taxes to an out-of-control rate, Levin’s amendment would move Tax Day to the day before Election Day.


What is most distressing is, Mark Levin appears to not only be ok with keeping alive the very system of taxation which is the source of power used by our despotic federal government to inflict economic tyranny upon America’s businesses, industries and productive members of society, but Mr. Levin has totally ignored or perhaps overlooked that part of the Great Compromise of the Convention of 1787 which was intended to tie both direct taxation and representation by the rule of apportionment___ a rule which boils down to “one man one vote”, and, ”one vote one dollar” whenever a direct tax is laid upon the people of the United States.

This tax, if levied directly upon the people by Congress turns out to be an equal per capita tax! For example, if a “progressive” representative from a socialist state like California, New York, New Jersey, etc., votes to federally fund a welfare program in their district, his immediate constituents who benefit from that “program” will be obligated to pay the same amount of tax as a constituent of another state who does not benefit from the program. The exception is when a direct tax is levied and a bill is sent to each state’s Governor and Legislature to pay an apportioned share of the tax and a provision is made in the levy to allow each state to raise its share in its own chosen way.


Our Founding Fathers fair share formula for this tax is as follows:


States’ pop.
---------------- X SUM NEEDED = STATE’S SHARE
U.S. Pop.


As you can see the rule of apportioning direct taxes, which Mark seems to have overlooked but is still very much part of our Constitution, if enforced would discourage members of Congress to levy direct taxes except upon emergency because their immediate constituents would be subject to an equal share of the burden.


Although Mark Levin makes an attempt to soften the impact of direct taxes calculated from profits, gains and other incomes, and make it a bit more palatable for those who have to pay it __ a tax embraced by socialists and progressives __ Mr. Levin makes no attempt to resurrect the brilliance of our Founders ingenious tax plan which was intended to protect the American people from the evil nature of direct taxation.


In speaking of direct taxes, and the evils of an unrestrained power to impose them, our founders were fully cognizant of the destructive nature of this tax which was noted by 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."

And to correct the oppressive and destructive nature of direct taxation, our founders intentionally agreed that direct “taxation shall be in proportion to Representation" and they went on to 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.”
In reference to the rule of apportionment and direct taxation, here is what some of our founding fathers had to say:
Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment:

“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.” 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6

And Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution says:
“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”3 Elliot’s, 243,“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244


Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public."3 Elliot, 255

And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment being intentionally designed to insure that the people of each state contribute a share of this tax directly in proportion to their voting strength in Congress, Mr. PENDLETON points out:

“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41

Also see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied.

And then see Section 7 of direct tax of 1813 allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.


And so, Mr. Levin’s proposed tax amendment totally ignores the wisdom and legislative intent of our Constitution, and would keep alive the source of power used by our despotic federal government to inflict economic tyranny upon America’s businesses, industries and productive members of society. Why does he ignore the vital protection which the rule of apportionment was intended to provide?

JWK


"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides,that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story

Too funny, sorry it was NEVER intended that Taxes could be confiscatory......

 

[dcraelin]

And Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution says:
“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”3 Elliot’s, 243,“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244

This very quote (and others you give) show that Direct taxes were thought to be those that were paid BY THE STATE...DIRECTLY....rather than by individuals. .....Thus the income tax, paid by individuals ..is not a direct tax but and INDIRECT tax. Being an INDIRECT tax means it does NOT have to worry about the rule of apportioning.

There are problems with the income tax no doubt, but being unconstitutional is not one of them.

One problem I see is that there are too many loopholes for the rich & influential which forces more to be taken from less wealthy people. Eisenhower,
had a top rate of 91%, the country did well. It is surprising how many people think that means those people had to pay 91% of their total income in taxes. No, the rich pay no higher rate than anyone else does on their first dollars. It is only on income over a certain amount that is taxed at the top rate. A rate this high wouldnt be needed if loopholes were closed.

 

[johnwk]

The 16th Amendment merely confirmed what the Supreme Court had already ruled in Flint - that Congress did have power to lay and collect taxes calculated from incomes without apportionment. In fact, the 16th Amendment granted no new power to Congress as stated by the Supreme Court in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. (1916):

"...by the previous ruling (the previous ruling was Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. 1916), it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of INDIRECT taxation to which it inherently belonged.."

I agree with all this. Somehow you think it proves your point. ???
"no new power of taxation" means Congress could always tax anyway they wanted to
what 16th amendment essentially did was say the gimmicky ruling in Pollock v farmers loan was erroneous

No. It does not mean that "Congress could always tax anyway they wanted to". You are forgetting two important limitations stated in our Constitution: Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states…, and, ”No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”


JWK



“Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“ ___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.

 

[dcraelin]

the income tax is not a direct tax

 

[johnwk]

the income tax is not a direct tax

Don't switch the subject until we settle your last claim. Are you now retracting what you previously stated, that "no new power of taxation" means Congress could always tax anyway they wanted to".?

JWK

 

[dcraelin]

the income tax is not a direct tax

Don't switch the subject until we settle your last claim. Are you now retracting what you previously stated, that "no new power of taxation" means Congress could always tax anyway they wanted to".?
JWK

I said the direct tax thing right at the beginning.

I was, I believe, quoting one of your own referenced opinions. I should have said"at any rate"...you are right that direct taxes had to be apportioned

but even if you think income tax is a direct tax, it doesnt matter now because the 16th amendment said without regard to any apportionment(or something similar)

 

[johnwk]

the income tax is not a direct tax

Don't switch the subject until we settle your last claim. Are you now retracting what you previously stated, that "no new power of taxation" means Congress could always tax anyway they wanted to".?
JWK

I said the direct tax thing right at the beginning.

I was, I believe, quoting one of your own referenced opinions. I should have said"at any rate"...you are right that direct taxes had to be apportioned

but even if you think income tax is a direct tax, it doesnt matter now because the 16th amendment said without regard to any apportionment(or something similar)

The 16th Amendment does not mention an "income tax". It refers specifically to taxes laid upon incomes.


Keep in mind that It cannot he presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect … Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137; 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803)

So. does our Constitution declare “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States…” and ”No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”? Yes. It does.

Did the supreme court strike down a tax upon income as being direct and not apportioned after the 16th Amendment was adopted? Yes! It did in Eisner vs Macomber. And the Court stated:

“[T]his 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....This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.”

Did our Supreme Court, after Eisner vs Macomber, confirm once again that direct taxes are to be apportioned? Yes. It did so in BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929). The Court, in upholding a tax on incomes, also emphatically stated “As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.”

And let us not forget that even Justice Roberts stated in the Obamacare case:

A tax on going without health insurance does not fall within any recognized category of direct tax. It is not a capitation. Capitations are taxes paid by every person, "without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance." Hylton, supra, at 175 (opinion of Chase, J.) (emphasis altered). The whole point of the shared responsibility payment is that it is triggered by specific circumstances—earning a certain amount of income but not obtaining health insurance. The payment is also plainly not a tax on the ownership of land or personal property. The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States.


And so, it is without question that Congress has power to lay and collect taxes upon incomes without apportionment, but if the tax takes the form of a "direct tax", it must then be laid by the rule of apportionment! And what would make a tax upon incomes indirect? Flint vs Stone Tracy answers this question in part:

The tax under consideration, as we have construed the statute, may be described as an excise upon the particular privilege of doing business in a corporate capacity, i.e., with the advantages which arise from corporate or quasi corporate organization; or, when applied to insurance companies, for doing the business of such companies. As was said in the Thomas case, supra, the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of privileges, and the element of absolute and unavoidable demand is lacking. If business is not done in the manner described in the statute, no tax is payable.

The 16th Amendment merely confirmed what the Supreme Court had already ruled in Flint - that Congress did have power to lay and collect taxes calculated from incomes without apportionment. In fact, the 16th Amendment granted no new power to Congress as stated by the Supreme Court in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. (1916):

"...by the previous ruling (the previous ruling was Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. 1916), it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of INDIRECT taxation to which it inherently belonged.."


But to the contrary, in the Macomber case, the tax upon income was held to be direct and forbidden to be laid unless apportioned.


If we agree on these points, you may find it interesting to learn at the time our Constitution was framed and ratified, taxes on earned wages were considered to be direct!

A review of Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, a contemporary writing of the time which our Founders were very much familiar with, we find the following reference regarding a capitation tax as being a direct tax:


“Capitation taxes, so far as they are levied upon the lower ranks of people, are direct taxes upon the wages of labor.” Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations,

Do you know what the scum in Washington did in 1943 regarding taxation?

JWK

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

None of the ‘liberty amendments’ are what the Framers intended.

 

[eflatminor]

Everyone is for limiting government, until you ask them what part of government they want to go away. Then the answer is always the same, "That stuff you give to other people. Don't take away mine."

As long as "everyone" doesn't include libertarians, then yes. I'm here to say "Take mine away. Take it all away - I don't want 'free' stuff." Restrict the federal government to the original idea of the enumerated powers, which could be easily funded with no income tax. I'm absolutely fine with that, whatever 'entitlements' I might miss out on.

 

[dcraelin]

The 16th Amendment does not mention an "income tax". It refers specifically to taxes laid upon incomes.
JWK

get real.....It means the same damn thing

 

[johnwk]

The 16th Amendment does not mention an "income tax". It refers specifically to taxes laid upon incomes.
JWK

get real.....It means the same damn thing

What the 16th Amendment says is very real, and it mentions nothing about granting power to lay and collect an "income tax". The 16th Amendment reads as follows:

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.

It simply says that Congress may tax incomes without apportionment, which is a power Congress had from the very beginning!

And note, the amendment does not say that Congress may lay and collect a direct tax on incomes, which means that any tax on "incomes" which takes the form of a direct tax, is still required to be apportioned.

Now, having said that, let us take a look at some historical facts.


During the 16th Amendment debates we find Mr. HEFLIN agitating the working class people into supporting the amendment by saying “An income tax seeks to reach the unearned wealth of the country and to make it pay its share.” 44 Cong. Rec. 4420 (1909). Note the wording “unearned wealth“ as distinguished from earned wages.


And this was shortly after Mr. BARTLETT of Georgia had begun the class warfare attack by preaching to the working poor: As I see it, the fairest of all taxes is of this nature [a tax on gains, profits and unearned income], laid according to wealth, and its universal adoption would be a benign blessing to mankind. The door is shut against it, and the people must continue to groan beneath the burdens of tariff taxes and robbery under the guise of law.” 44 Cong. Rec. 4414 (1909).

But what these cunning scumbag con artists really had in mind was to create a tax allowing the expansion of the federal government’s manipulative iron fist over the entire economy which would eventually be used to squeeze the working people’s earned wages from their pockets in a more devastating manner than any tariff has ever done, and make them dependent upon government for their subsistence! Keep in mind that today’s progressive crowd on Capitol Hill cannot survive without a permanent dependent class which is then bribed for their vote with gifts from government. In any event, our nation’s progressive ringleaders cleverly waited for one generation to pass after the adoption of the 16th Amendment and a war to begin before completing their mission which was the Temporary Victory Tax of 1942

This tax expanded the “income tax” upon corporations and businesses to include a 5 percent temporary tax upon working people’s earned wages. And although the 16th Amendment was sold as a way to tax “unearned income” as apposed to “earned income“, the temporary tax on working people’s earned wages was sold as a patriotic necessity in the war effort. And today our progressive’s class warfare tax, which robs the bread working people have earned by the sweat of their brow, is still to this very day being collected, and its burden has constantly increased over the years, forcing millions upon millions of poor working people into a state of poverty and then dependency upon government for their subsistence.

In discussing the Victory Tax of 1942 Senator La Follette of Wisconsin warned us that:

It places an unfair and dangerous share of the increased tax burden upon the lower-income groups, encroaching upon subsistence standards of living and in effect taxing bread out of the people’s mouths… Studies of consumer income indicate that any tax program, which bears down upon individuals and families receiving incomes of $1,500 or less, encroaches upon subsistence standards of living. The tax dollars collected from taxpayers of these lower-income groups are dollars that would otherwise be spent for food, shelter, and the bare necessities of life. In these income groups are to be found approximately 43 percent of the Nation’s population, but in the current year it is estimated they are receiving only 16 percent of the aggregate consumer income. SEE: Congressional Record-Senate, Volume 88, October 10, 1942. Senator La Follette of Wisconsin


I wonder why Mark Levin in his liberty amendments proposes to keep this evil tax alive.



JWK


“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

 

[dcraelin]

I agree with some of the criticisms of the income tax, that it started off as a tax on unearned wealth but morphed. But the problem is not with the tax but with those that manipulate the tax code for corporate welfare.