Ted Cruz may not be the constitutional conservative he claims to be

[johnwk]

Surely a "constitutional conservative" knows that proposing a flat tax on incomes would not close down the IRS as Cruz claims, but more importantly, it perpetuates today's violation of our Constitution which requires any direct tax to be apportioned among the States.

Would you PLEASE shut up with this bullshit!

Didn't the 16th amendment handle this?

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 16th Amendment does not declare that "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." It merely grants 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 constitution also commands "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

So, how may Congress tax “incomes” without the tax being a direct tax which requires apportionment? The answer to this is found in In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, (1911). In Flint the court confirmed Congress could impose an excise tax on the privilege of being a corporation making it an indirect tax and not having to apportion it, and the amount to be paid by each tax payer was measured from the profits realized under the privilege granted by government.


This is how a tax on incomes can be laid without having to apportion the tax ___ the tax is not a generically named “income tax” which is not mentioned in our Constitution but an excise tax which is one of the specifically named taxes found in our Constitution and does not require apportionment, rather, it requires uniformity throughout the United States when laid and every “constitutional conservative” ought to know this.

The bottom line is, the 16th Amendment merely confirmed what was found by the Court in Flint, that Congress could lay and collect a tax on income without having to apportion it. However, the amendment by its crystal clear wording did not create a generically named “income tax” nor does it declare a direct tax may be laid on incomes without apportionment.


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)

This is the same acrobatics progressives use to justify things that are in the constitution being ignored. The 16th allows an Income tax, without State apportionment, and congress can pass laws making this so. I don't see where the other view has a leg to stand on.

The 16th Amendment was not intended to, nor does it, repeal that portion of the Constitution which requires "direct taxes" to be apportioned.

When proposed, on June 17th 1909, the 16th Amendment originally read as follows:

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes without apportionment among the several states according to population.”

This was later changed, June 28th, to:

"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 direct tax allowance on incomes as originally proposed was removed! So, it is crystal clear, from the legislative history, that the Amendment was not intended to, nor does it by its plain language, remove the protection that “direct taxes” are still required to be apportioned. And this is confirmed by the Supreme Court cases I cite at the top of the page.

The simple truth is, if Congress lays a tax which takes the form of a direct tax, it is still required to be apportioned. The only question remaining is, what did our founders considered to be direct taxes when providing the rule of apportionment as a protection?

Keep in mind our founders were fully aware of the destructive and oppressive nature of direct taxation. In fact, this issue was touched upon by Representative Williams during a debate on Direct Taxes on 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."

So what was meant by direct taxes? During the Convention which framed our Constitution ''Mr. King asked what was the precise meaning of direct taxation? No one answered.'' –

Having studied historical documentation during the time period our Constitution was adopted to identify the distinctions between direct and indirect taxation, one thing I am pretty 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. For example, Hamilton's brief in the Hylton carriage case which Roberts quoted in the Obamacare case says: 'The following are presumed to be the only direct taxes: Capitation or poll taxes, taxes on lands and buildings, general assessments, whether on the whole property of individuals, or on their whole real or personal estate. All else must, of necessity, be considered as indirect taxes.'

And so, I am unwilling as others to assert a flat tax calculated from “incomes” is constitutional. In some cases it may very well be, but in other cases historical evidence indicates it takes the form of a direct tax and must therefore be apportioned to be within the four walls of our Constitution.

Finally, keep in mind that Cruz’s “tax reform” defeats the founder’s intentions that any general tax laid among the states would be apportioned and was agreed upon for a very good reason. That reason was to insure that if and when Congress decided to lay a direct tax, each state’s share of a total being raised would be proportionately equal to its representation in Congress . . . in other words, representation with a proportional financial obligation, an idea which socialists and the friends of big government fear with a passion. They want their one man, one vote, but refuse to pay their one dollar one vote.
In any event, here is what our founder said regarding the rule of apportionment:

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 see:
“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. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.

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 intentionally being designed to insure that the people of each state are to be taxed proportionately equal to their representation in Congress, Mr. PENDLETON says:

“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

JWK



Are we really ok with 45 percent of our nation’s population who pay no taxes on incomes being allowed to vote for representatives who spend federal revenue which the remaining 55 percent of our nation’s hard working and productive population has contributed into our federal treasury via taxes on incomes when our Constitution requires “Representatives and direct taxes Shall be apportioned among the Several States”?

 

[johnwk]

For anyone interested in this topic, pay very close attention to this passage from the Eisner ruling:

"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."

As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income.

Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)

As John will never acknowledge it exists, and ignores it completely. Despite the fact that it explicitly and utterly refutes his claim that the 16th amendment didn't remove the apportionment requirements for taxes on incomes.

Why do you refuse to acknowledge that Eisner v. Macomber stuck down an income tax because it violated the rule which requires direct taxes to be apportioned? The tax in Eisner was held to be a direct tax and was struck down because it was not apportioned:

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. -Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)

JWK

 

[imawhosure]

Surely a "constitutional conservative" knows that proposing a flat tax on incomes would not close down the IRS as Cruz claims, but more importantly, it perpetuates today's violation of our Constitution which requires any direct tax to be apportioned among the States.

Would you PLEASE shut up with this bullshit!

Didn't the 16th amendment handle this?

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 16th Amendment does not declare that "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." It merely grants 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 constitution also commands "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

So, how may Congress tax “incomes” without the tax being a direct tax which requires apportionment? The answer to this is found in In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, (1911). In Flint the court confirmed Congress could impose an excise tax on the privilege of being a corporation making it an indirect tax and not having to apportion it, and the amount to be paid by each tax payer was measured from the profits realized under the privilege granted by government.


This is how a tax on incomes can be laid without having to apportion the tax ___ the tax is not a generically named “income tax” which is not mentioned in our Constitution but an excise tax which is one of the specifically named taxes found in our Constitution and does not require apportionment, rather, it requires uniformity throughout the United States when laid and every “constitutional conservative” ought to know this.

The bottom line is, the 16th Amendment merely confirmed what was found by the Court in Flint, that Congress could lay and collect a tax on income without having to apportion it. However, the amendment by its crystal clear wording did not create a generically named “income tax” nor does it declare a direct tax may be laid on incomes without apportionment.


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)

This is the same acrobatics progressives use to justify things that are in the constitution being ignored. The 16th allows an Income tax, without State apportionment, and congress can pass laws making this so. I don't see where the other view has a leg to stand on.

Surely a "constitutional conservative" knows that proposing a flat tax on incomes would not close down the IRS as Cruz claims, but more importantly, it perpetuates today's violation of our Constitution which requires any direct tax to be apportioned among the States.

Would you PLEASE shut up with this bullshit!

Didn't the 16th amendment handle this?

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 16th Amendment does not declare that "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." It merely grants 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 constitution also commands "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

So, how may Congress tax “incomes” without the tax being a direct tax which requires apportionment? The answer to this is found in In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, (1911). In Flint the court confirmed Congress could impose an excise tax on the privilege of being a corporation making it an indirect tax and not having to apportion it, and the amount to be paid by each tax payer was measured from the profits realized under the privilege granted by government.


This is how a tax on incomes can be laid without having to apportion the tax ___ the tax is not a generically named “income tax” which is not mentioned in our Constitution but an excise tax which is one of the specifically named taxes found in our Constitution and does not require apportionment, rather, it requires uniformity throughout the United States when laid and every “constitutional conservative” ought to know this.

The bottom line is, the 16th Amendment merely confirmed what was found by the Court in Flint, that Congress could lay and collect a tax on income without having to apportion it. However, the amendment by its crystal clear wording did not create a generically named “income tax” nor does it declare a direct tax may be laid on incomes without apportionment.


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)

This is the same acrobatics progressives use to justify things that are in the constitution being ignored. The 16th allows an Income tax, without State apportionment, and congress can pass laws making this so. I don't see where the other view has a leg to stand on.

John insists that the 16th amendment doesn't allow for the source of income to be taxed.

Apparently because he says so.

Additionally, the 16th does not mention "income tax", but rather "taxes upon incomes", and the source of income cannot be taxed!

USMB POLL: Repeal the 16th Amendment (Income Tax)

Its a nonsense argument, of course. But John is a 'true believer'. And every so often vomits up this little rhetorical stomach flu on our board. And all sorts of other boards.

He's a one trick pony. And its not a very good trick.

Is he a Libertarian? His whole argument is convoluted.

John, are you a Libertarian? Who the hell are you supporting for President, then please explain why, and how who you support, has policies that mirror whatever it is you want!

 

[johnwk]

Surely a "constitutional conservative" knows that proposing a flat tax on incomes would not close down the IRS as Cruz claims, but more importantly, it perpetuates today's violation of our Constitution which requires any direct tax to be apportioned among the States.

Would you PLEASE shut up with this bullshit!

Didn't the 16th amendment handle this?

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 16th Amendment does not declare that "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." It merely grants 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 constitution also commands "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

So, how may Congress tax “incomes” without the tax being a direct tax which requires apportionment? The answer to this is found in In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, (1911). In Flint the court confirmed Congress could impose an excise tax on the privilege of being a corporation making it an indirect tax and not having to apportion it, and the amount to be paid by each tax payer was measured from the profits realized under the privilege granted by government.


This is how a tax on incomes can be laid without having to apportion the tax ___ the tax is not a generically named “income tax” which is not mentioned in our Constitution but an excise tax which is one of the specifically named taxes found in our Constitution and does not require apportionment, rather, it requires uniformity throughout the United States when laid and every “constitutional conservative” ought to know this.

The bottom line is, the 16th Amendment merely confirmed what was found by the Court in Flint, that Congress could lay and collect a tax on income without having to apportion it. However, the amendment by its crystal clear wording did not create a generically named “income tax” nor does it declare a direct tax may be laid on incomes without apportionment.


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)

This is the same acrobatics progressives use to justify things that are in the constitution being ignored. The 16th allows an Income tax, without State apportionment, and congress can pass laws making this so. I don't see where the other view has a leg to stand on.

Would you PLEASE shut up with this bullshit!

Didn't the 16th amendment handle this?

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 16th Amendment does not declare that "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." It merely grants 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 constitution also commands "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

So, how may Congress tax “incomes” without the tax being a direct tax which requires apportionment? The answer to this is found in In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, (1911). In Flint the court confirmed Congress could impose an excise tax on the privilege of being a corporation making it an indirect tax and not having to apportion it, and the amount to be paid by each tax payer was measured from the profits realized under the privilege granted by government.


This is how a tax on incomes can be laid without having to apportion the tax ___ the tax is not a generically named “income tax” which is not mentioned in our Constitution but an excise tax which is one of the specifically named taxes found in our Constitution and does not require apportionment, rather, it requires uniformity throughout the United States when laid and every “constitutional conservative” ought to know this.

The bottom line is, the 16th Amendment merely confirmed what was found by the Court in Flint, that Congress could lay and collect a tax on income without having to apportion it. However, the amendment by its crystal clear wording did not create a generically named “income tax” nor does it declare a direct tax may be laid on incomes without apportionment.


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)

This is the same acrobatics progressives use to justify things that are in the constitution being ignored. The 16th allows an Income tax, without State apportionment, and congress can pass laws making this so. I don't see where the other view has a leg to stand on.

John insists that the 16th amendment doesn't allow for the source of income to be taxed.

Apparently because he says so.

Additionally, the 16th does not mention "income tax", but rather "taxes upon incomes", and the source of income cannot be taxed!

USMB POLL: Repeal the 16th Amendment (Income Tax)

Its a nonsense argument, of course. But John is a 'true believer'. And every so often vomits up this little rhetorical stomach flu on our board. And all sorts of other boards.

He's a one trick pony. And its not a very good trick.

Is he a Libertarian? His whole argument is convoluted.

John, are you a Libertarian? Who the hell are you supporting for President, then please explain why, and how who you support, has policies that mirror whatever it is you want!

I am a constitutional conservative. How about sticking to the subject of tax reform and the fact that Cruz's tax reform is designed to keep the notoriously evil tax calculated from incomes alive.

JWK





Let us not forget this coming election the betrayal by House Republicans and Senate Republicans who voted in favor of Paul Ryan’s Bill to finance Obama’s invasion of our borders!

 

[Skylar]

Surely a "constitutional conservative" knows that proposing a flat tax on incomes would not close down the IRS as Cruz claims, but more importantly, it perpetuates today's violation of our Constitution which requires any direct tax to be apportioned among the States.

Would you PLEASE shut up with this bullshit!

Didn't the 16th amendment handle this?

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 16th Amendment does not declare that "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." It merely grants 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 constitution also commands "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

So, how may Congress tax “incomes” without the tax being a direct tax which requires apportionment? The answer to this is found in In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, (1911). In Flint the court confirmed Congress could impose an excise tax on the privilege of being a corporation making it an indirect tax and not having to apportion it, and the amount to be paid by each tax payer was measured from the profits realized under the privilege granted by government.


This is how a tax on incomes can be laid without having to apportion the tax ___ the tax is not a generically named “income tax” which is not mentioned in our Constitution but an excise tax which is one of the specifically named taxes found in our Constitution and does not require apportionment, rather, it requires uniformity throughout the United States when laid and every “constitutional conservative” ought to know this.

The bottom line is, the 16th Amendment merely confirmed what was found by the Court in Flint, that Congress could lay and collect a tax on income without having to apportion it. However, the amendment by its crystal clear wording did not create a generically named “income tax” nor does it declare a direct tax may be laid on incomes without apportionment.


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)

This is the same acrobatics progressives use to justify things that are in the constitution being ignored. The 16th allows an Income tax, without State apportionment, and congress can pass laws making this so. I don't see where the other view has a leg to stand on.

The 16th Amendment was not intended to, nor does it, repeal that portion of the Constitution which requires "direct taxes" to be apportioned.

It does and was intended to repeal apportionment requirements on taxes on income. From whatever source derived.

 

[Skylar]

Would you PLEASE shut up with this bullshit!

Didn't the 16th amendment handle this?

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 16th Amendment does not declare that "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." It merely grants 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 constitution also commands "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

So, how may Congress tax “incomes” without the tax being a direct tax which requires apportionment? The answer to this is found in In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, (1911). In Flint the court confirmed Congress could impose an excise tax on the privilege of being a corporation making it an indirect tax and not having to apportion it, and the amount to be paid by each tax payer was measured from the profits realized under the privilege granted by government.


This is how a tax on incomes can be laid without having to apportion the tax ___ the tax is not a generically named “income tax” which is not mentioned in our Constitution but an excise tax which is one of the specifically named taxes found in our Constitution and does not require apportionment, rather, it requires uniformity throughout the United States when laid and every “constitutional conservative” ought to know this.

The bottom line is, the 16th Amendment merely confirmed what was found by the Court in Flint, that Congress could lay and collect a tax on income without having to apportion it. However, the amendment by its crystal clear wording did not create a generically named “income tax” nor does it declare a direct tax may be laid on incomes without apportionment.


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)

This is the same acrobatics progressives use to justify things that are in the constitution being ignored. The 16th allows an Income tax, without State apportionment, and congress can pass laws making this so. I don't see where the other view has a leg to stand on.

Didn't the 16th amendment handle this?

The 16th Amendment does not declare that "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." It merely grants 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 constitution also commands "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

So, how may Congress tax “incomes” without the tax being a direct tax which requires apportionment? The answer to this is found in In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, (1911). In Flint the court confirmed Congress could impose an excise tax on the privilege of being a corporation making it an indirect tax and not having to apportion it, and the amount to be paid by each tax payer was measured from the profits realized under the privilege granted by government.


This is how a tax on incomes can be laid without having to apportion the tax ___ the tax is not a generically named “income tax” which is not mentioned in our Constitution but an excise tax which is one of the specifically named taxes found in our Constitution and does not require apportionment, rather, it requires uniformity throughout the United States when laid and every “constitutional conservative” ought to know this.

The bottom line is, the 16th Amendment merely confirmed what was found by the Court in Flint, that Congress could lay and collect a tax on income without having to apportion it. However, the amendment by its crystal clear wording did not create a generically named “income tax” nor does it declare a direct tax may be laid on incomes without apportionment.


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)

This is the same acrobatics progressives use to justify things that are in the constitution being ignored. The 16th allows an Income tax, without State apportionment, and congress can pass laws making this so. I don't see where the other view has a leg to stand on.

John insists that the 16th amendment doesn't allow for the source of income to be taxed.

Apparently because he says so.

Additionally, the 16th does not mention "income tax", but rather "taxes upon incomes", and the source of income cannot be taxed!

USMB POLL: Repeal the 16th Amendment (Income Tax)

Its a nonsense argument, of course. But John is a 'true believer'. And every so often vomits up this little rhetorical stomach flu on our board. And all sorts of other boards.

He's a one trick pony. And its not a very good trick.

Is he a Libertarian? His whole argument is convoluted.

John, are you a Libertarian? Who the hell are you supporting for President, then please explain why, and how who you support, has policies that mirror whatever it is you want!

I am a constitutional conservative. How about sticking to the subject of tax reform and the fact that Cruz's tax reform is designed to keep the notoriously evil tax calculated from incomes alive.

JWK





Let us not forget this coming election the betrayal by House Republicans and Senate Republicans who voted in favor of Paul Ryan’s Bill to finance Obama’s invasion of our borders!

The 16th amendment is the constitution. And yes, it does repeal the apportionment requirement on taxes on income.

We've done this dance before. You're an essay writer who relies on the ignorance of his audience to pass of bullshit arguments. When you debate someone who is even remotely informed, your arguments fall apart. As your own sources contradict you.

 

[Skylar]

For anyone interested in this topic, pay very close attention to this passage from the Eisner ruling:

"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."

As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income.

Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)

As John will never acknowledge it exists, and ignores it completely. Despite the fact that it explicitly and utterly refutes his claim that the 16th amendment didn't remove the apportionment requirements for taxes on incomes.

Why do you refuse to acknowledge that Eisner v. Macomber stuck down an income tax because it violated the rule which requires direct taxes to be apportioned? The tax in Eisner was held to be a direct tax and was struck down because it was not apportioned:

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. -Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)

JWK

And you did exactly what I insisted you would. You ignored the passage of Eisner that destroys your arguments by affirming that the 16th amendment removes apportionment requirements on income. You've never refuted this passage, you've never offered a rational counter argument. And exactly as I told everyone you would do....

......you have yet to acknowledge that that this passage in Eisner even exists:

"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."

As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income.

Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)

As I've said before, John.....your argument relies on the ignorance of your audience. They can't know the actual cases, the actual law.....because of they do, your entire argument collapses. Let me demonstrate:

Why do you refuse to acknowledge that Eisner v. Macomber stuck down an income tax because it violated the rule which requires direct taxes to be apportioned?

Blithering nonsense. The passage you just cited was in reference to pro-rata stock dividends where a shareholder received no actual cash or other property, and retained the same proportionate share of ownership of the corporation as was held prior to the dividend.

Eisner found that pro-rata stock dividends weren't taxable income.

"Throughout the argument of the Government, in a variety of forms, runs the fundamental error already mentioned—a failure to appraise correctly the force of the term "income" as used in the Sixteenth Amendment, or at least to give practical effect to it. Thus, the Government contends that the tax "is levied on income derived from corporate earnings," when in truth the stockholder has "derived" nothing except paper certificates which, so far as they have any effect, deny him [or "her" — in this case, Mrs. Macomber] present participation in such earnings. It [the government] contends that the tax may be laid when earnings "are received by the stockholder," whereas he has received none; that the profits are "distributed by means of a stock dividend," although a stock dividend distributes no profits; that under the Act of 1916 "the tax is on the stockholder's share in corporate earnings," when in truth a stockholder has no such share, and receives none in a stock dividend; that "the profits are segregated from his [her] former capital, and he has a separate certificate representing his [her] invested profits or gains," whereas there has been no segregation of profits, nor has he any separate certificate representing a personal gain, since the certificates, new and old, are alike in what they represent—a capital interest in the entire concerns of the corporation."

Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)


You know this. You've read this passage. You know that the court found no increase on the part of the certificate holder. You know that the Eisner Court found that pro-rata stock dividends represented no income on the part certificate holder, as they 'derived' nothing.

Yet you really hope we don't. As always, John....your argument only works if the people you're speaking to haven't read the cases you're citing. If they have, you're fucked. As the very cases you've cited destroy your argument.

 

[Skylar]

Surely a "constitutional conservative" knows that proposing a flat tax on incomes would not close down the IRS as Cruz claims, but more importantly, it perpetuates today's violation of our Constitution which requires any direct tax to be apportioned among the States.

Would you PLEASE shut up with this bullshit!

Didn't the 16th amendment handle this?

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 16th Amendment does not declare that "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." It merely grants 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 constitution also commands "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

So, how may Congress tax “incomes” without the tax being a direct tax which requires apportionment? The answer to this is found in In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, (1911). In Flint the court confirmed Congress could impose an excise tax on the privilege of being a corporation making it an indirect tax and not having to apportion it, and the amount to be paid by each tax payer was measured from the profits realized under the privilege granted by government.


This is how a tax on incomes can be laid without having to apportion the tax ___ the tax is not a generically named “income tax” which is not mentioned in our Constitution but an excise tax which is one of the specifically named taxes found in our Constitution and does not require apportionment, rather, it requires uniformity throughout the United States when laid and every “constitutional conservative” ought to know this.

The bottom line is, the 16th Amendment merely confirmed what was found by the Court in Flint, that Congress could lay and collect a tax on income without having to apportion it. However, the amendment by its crystal clear wording did not create a generically named “income tax” nor does it declare a direct tax may be laid on incomes without apportionment.


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)

This is the same acrobatics progressives use to justify things that are in the constitution being ignored. The 16th allows an Income tax, without State apportionment, and congress can pass laws making this so. I don't see where the other view has a leg to stand on.

Would you PLEASE shut up with this bullshit!

Didn't the 16th amendment handle this?

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 16th Amendment does not declare that "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." It merely grants 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 constitution also commands "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

So, how may Congress tax “incomes” without the tax being a direct tax which requires apportionment? The answer to this is found in In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, (1911). In Flint the court confirmed Congress could impose an excise tax on the privilege of being a corporation making it an indirect tax and not having to apportion it, and the amount to be paid by each tax payer was measured from the profits realized under the privilege granted by government.


This is how a tax on incomes can be laid without having to apportion the tax ___ the tax is not a generically named “income tax” which is not mentioned in our Constitution but an excise tax which is one of the specifically named taxes found in our Constitution and does not require apportionment, rather, it requires uniformity throughout the United States when laid and every “constitutional conservative” ought to know this.

The bottom line is, the 16th Amendment merely confirmed what was found by the Court in Flint, that Congress could lay and collect a tax on income without having to apportion it. However, the amendment by its crystal clear wording did not create a generically named “income tax” nor does it declare a direct tax may be laid on incomes without apportionment.


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)

This is the same acrobatics progressives use to justify things that are in the constitution being ignored. The 16th allows an Income tax, without State apportionment, and congress can pass laws making this so. I don't see where the other view has a leg to stand on.

John insists that the 16th amendment doesn't allow for the source of income to be taxed.

Apparently because he says so.

Additionally, the 16th does not mention "income tax", but rather "taxes upon incomes", and the source of income cannot be taxed!

USMB POLL: Repeal the 16th Amendment (Income Tax)

Its a nonsense argument, of course. But John is a 'true believer'. And every so often vomits up this little rhetorical stomach flu on our board. And all sorts of other boards.

He's a one trick pony. And its not a very good trick.

Is he a Libertarian? His whole argument is convoluted.

John, are you a Libertarian? Who the hell are you supporting for President, then please explain why, and how who you support, has policies that mirror whatever it is you want!

John is a taxation conspiracy theorist. And a shitty one. As his arguments collapse with an even causal review of the cases John is citing. He intentionally misrepresents these cases, withholding vital information that he knows destroys his entire argument.

For example, that Bromley v. McCaughn is about a gift tax. Not income tax. Or that Eisner is about pro-rata stock dividends in which the recipient receives no cash or a larger proportion of the company. And thus isn't income.

If you toss his handle into Google....he been spamming this same silly shit on numerous boards for about the last decade. He's obsessed. He's also laughably wrong. And knows he's wrong as he demonstrates for us by fastidiously refusing to acknowledge the existence of key passages in the cases he cites that absolutely destroy his entire argument.

In short, John is lying to himself as much as he's lying to the rest of us.

 

[johnwk]

Eisner found that pro-rata stock dividends weren't taxable income.
.

Why do you refuse to acknowledge that Eisner v. Macomber stuck down an income tax because it violated the rule which requires direct taxes to be apportioned? The tax in Eisner was held to be a direct tax and was struck down because it was not apportioned. The conclusion of the court is as follows:

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. -Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)

The fact is, Direct taxes are still required to be apportioned as pointed out in Eisner v. Macomber. And in BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929), the Court 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 recent Obamacare case:


"The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States."


The truth is, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 has never been repealed and declares:


No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

Any tax which takes the form of a direct tax, regardless of what name you attach to the tax, requires an apportionment.

Why is this so difficult for you to acknowledge when the court confirms this fact?


Aside from the above, what does all this have to do with Cruz's tax reform plan keeping alive a federal tax calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other lawfully earned incomes? And how does Cruz close down the IRS when he supports keeping alive the "income tax"?

JWK






To support John Kasich, Hillary Clinton or Paul Ryan, is to support our Global Governance Crowd and their WTO, NAFTA, GATT, and CAFTA, all used to circumvent America First trade policies, while fattening the fortunes of international corporate giants who have no allegiance to America or any nation.

 

[Skylar]

Eisner found that pro-rata stock dividends weren't taxable income.
.

Why do you refuse to acknowledge that Eisner v. Macomber stuck down an income tax because it violated the rule which requires direct taxes to be apportioned? The tax in Eisner was held to be a direct tax and was struck down because it was not apportioned. The conclusion of the court is as follows:

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. -Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)

The fact is, Direct taxes are still required to be apportioned as pointed out in Eisner v. Macomber.

Nope. That is not what Eisner finds. Eisner finds that pro-rata stock dividends aren't income as the recipient 'derived' nothing. No cash, no property, no greater proportion of the company, nothing.. Since pro-rata stock dividents aren't income, pro-rata stock dividends aren't covered by the 16th amendment. And contrary to your nonsense argument, Eisner explicitly finds that the 16th amendment removes apportionment requirements for taxes on income:

"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."

As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income.

Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)

You're fucked. This passage of Eisner explicitly contradicts your argument. And you know you're fucked.....as you refuse to acknowledge that this passage in Eisner even exists. You run from it like it is on fire. And show us exactly where you know your argument fails.

Remember....just because you close your eyes and pretend that you can't see that passage in Eisner.......doesn't mean that we can't read it. Or that it vanishes just because its inconvenient to your argument.

 

[johnwk]

Nope. That is not what Eisner finds. Eisner finds

The conclusion of the court is as follows:

"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." -Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)

The fact is, Direct taxes are still required to be apportioned as pointed out in Eisner v. Macomber. And in BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929), the Court 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 recent Obamacare case:


"The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States."


The truth is, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 has never been repealed and declares:


No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

Any tax which takes the form of a direct tax, regardless of what name you attach to the tax, requires an apportionment.


JWK

 

[martybegan]

Surely a "constitutional conservative" knows that proposing a flat tax on incomes would not close down the IRS as Cruz claims, but more importantly, it perpetuates today's violation of our Constitution which requires any direct tax to be apportioned among the States.

Would you PLEASE shut up with this bullshit!

Didn't the 16th amendment handle this?

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 16th Amendment does not declare that "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." It merely grants 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 constitution also commands "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

So, how may Congress tax “incomes” without the tax being a direct tax which requires apportionment? The answer to this is found in In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, (1911). In Flint the court confirmed Congress could impose an excise tax on the privilege of being a corporation making it an indirect tax and not having to apportion it, and the amount to be paid by each tax payer was measured from the profits realized under the privilege granted by government.


This is how a tax on incomes can be laid without having to apportion the tax ___ the tax is not a generically named “income tax” which is not mentioned in our Constitution but an excise tax which is one of the specifically named taxes found in our Constitution and does not require apportionment, rather, it requires uniformity throughout the United States when laid and every “constitutional conservative” ought to know this.

The bottom line is, the 16th Amendment merely confirmed what was found by the Court in Flint, that Congress could lay and collect a tax on income without having to apportion it. However, the amendment by its crystal clear wording did not create a generically named “income tax” nor does it declare a direct tax may be laid on incomes without apportionment.


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)

This is the same acrobatics progressives use to justify things that are in the constitution being ignored. The 16th allows an Income tax, without State apportionment, and congress can pass laws making this so. I don't see where the other view has a leg to stand on.

The 16th Amendment was not intended to, nor does it, repeal that portion of the Constitution which requires "direct taxes" to be apportioned.

When proposed, on June 17th 1909, the 16th Amendment originally read as follows:

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes without apportionment among the several states according to population.”

This was later changed, June 28th, to:

"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 direct tax allowance on incomes as originally proposed was removed! So, it is crystal clear, from the legislative history, that the Amendment was not intended to, nor does it by its plain language, remove the protection that “direct taxes” are still required to be apportioned. And this is confirmed by the Supreme Court cases I cite at the top of the page.

The simple truth is, if Congress lays a tax which takes the form of a direct tax, it is still required to be apportioned. The only question remaining is, what did our founders considered to be direct taxes when providing the rule of apportionment as a protection?

Keep in mind our founders were fully aware of the destructive and oppressive nature of direct taxation. In fact, this issue was touched upon by Representative Williams during a debate on Direct Taxes on 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."

So what was meant by direct taxes? During the Convention which framed our Constitution ''Mr. King asked what was the precise meaning of direct taxation? No one answered.'' –

Having studied historical documentation during the time period our Constitution was adopted to identify the distinctions between direct and indirect taxation, one thing I am pretty 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. For example, Hamilton's brief in the Hylton carriage case which Roberts quoted in the Obamacare case says: 'The following are presumed to be the only direct taxes: Capitation or poll taxes, taxes on lands and buildings, general assessments, whether on the whole property of individuals, or on their whole real or personal estate. All else must, of necessity, be considered as indirect taxes.'

And so, I am unwilling as others to assert a flat tax calculated from “incomes” is constitutional. In some cases it may very well be, but in other cases historical evidence indicates it takes the form of a direct tax and must therefore be apportioned to be within the four walls of our Constitution.

Finally, keep in mind that Cruz’s “tax reform” defeats the founder’s intentions that any general tax laid among the states would be apportioned and was agreed upon for a very good reason. That reason was to insure that if and when Congress decided to lay a direct tax, each state’s share of a total being raised would be proportionately equal to its representation in Congress . . . in other words, representation with a proportional financial obligation, an idea which socialists and the friends of big government fear with a passion. They want their one man, one vote, but refuse to pay their one dollar one vote.
In any event, here is what our founder said regarding the rule of apportionment:

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 see:
“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. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.

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 intentionally being designed to insure that the people of each state are to be taxed proportionately equal to their representation in Congress, Mr. PENDLETON says:

“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

JWK



Are we really ok with 45 percent of our nation’s population who pay no taxes on incomes being allowed to vote for representatives who spend federal revenue which the remaining 55 percent of our nation’s hard working and productive population has contributed into our federal treasury via taxes on incomes when our Constitution requires “Representatives and direct taxes Shall be apportioned among the Several States”?

You can believe what you want, however your interpretation is wrong, and uses the same logical mind-twists progressives use to ignore parts of the constitution they don't like. Bad logic is bad logic no matter what side of the aisle it comes from.

 

[martybegan]

Surely a "constitutional conservative" knows that proposing a flat tax on incomes would not close down the IRS as Cruz claims, but more importantly, it perpetuates today's violation of our Constitution which requires any direct tax to be apportioned among the States.

Would you PLEASE shut up with this bullshit!

Didn't the 16th amendment handle this?

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 16th Amendment does not declare that "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." It merely grants 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 constitution also commands "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

So, how may Congress tax “incomes” without the tax being a direct tax which requires apportionment? The answer to this is found in In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, (1911). In Flint the court confirmed Congress could impose an excise tax on the privilege of being a corporation making it an indirect tax and not having to apportion it, and the amount to be paid by each tax payer was measured from the profits realized under the privilege granted by government.


This is how a tax on incomes can be laid without having to apportion the tax ___ the tax is not a generically named “income tax” which is not mentioned in our Constitution but an excise tax which is one of the specifically named taxes found in our Constitution and does not require apportionment, rather, it requires uniformity throughout the United States when laid and every “constitutional conservative” ought to know this.

The bottom line is, the 16th Amendment merely confirmed what was found by the Court in Flint, that Congress could lay and collect a tax on income without having to apportion it. However, the amendment by its crystal clear wording did not create a generically named “income tax” nor does it declare a direct tax may be laid on incomes without apportionment.


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)

This is the same acrobatics progressives use to justify things that are in the constitution being ignored. The 16th allows an Income tax, without State apportionment, and congress can pass laws making this so. I don't see where the other view has a leg to stand on.

Would you PLEASE shut up with this bullshit!

Didn't the 16th amendment handle this?

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 16th Amendment does not declare that "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." It merely grants 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 constitution also commands "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

So, how may Congress tax “incomes” without the tax being a direct tax which requires apportionment? The answer to this is found in In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, (1911). In Flint the court confirmed Congress could impose an excise tax on the privilege of being a corporation making it an indirect tax and not having to apportion it, and the amount to be paid by each tax payer was measured from the profits realized under the privilege granted by government.


This is how a tax on incomes can be laid without having to apportion the tax ___ the tax is not a generically named “income tax” which is not mentioned in our Constitution but an excise tax which is one of the specifically named taxes found in our Constitution and does not require apportionment, rather, it requires uniformity throughout the United States when laid and every “constitutional conservative” ought to know this.

The bottom line is, the 16th Amendment merely confirmed what was found by the Court in Flint, that Congress could lay and collect a tax on income without having to apportion it. However, the amendment by its crystal clear wording did not create a generically named “income tax” nor does it declare a direct tax may be laid on incomes without apportionment.


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)

This is the same acrobatics progressives use to justify things that are in the constitution being ignored. The 16th allows an Income tax, without State apportionment, and congress can pass laws making this so. I don't see where the other view has a leg to stand on.

John insists that the 16th amendment doesn't allow for the source of income to be taxed.

Apparently because he says so.

Additionally, the 16th does not mention "income tax", but rather "taxes upon incomes", and the source of income cannot be taxed!

USMB POLL: Repeal the 16th Amendment (Income Tax)

Its a nonsense argument, of course. But John is a 'true believer'. And every so often vomits up this little rhetorical stomach flu on our board. And all sorts of other boards.

He's a one trick pony. And its not a very good trick.

Is he a Libertarian? His whole argument is convoluted.

John, are you a Libertarian? Who the hell are you supporting for President, then please explain why, and how who you support, has policies that mirror whatever it is you want!

Probably a "Big L" libertarian, as opposed to a "small l" libertarian, which is where my leanings are.

 

[martybegan]

Didn't the 16th amendment handle this?

The 16th Amendment does not declare that "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." It merely grants 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 constitution also commands "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

So, how may Congress tax “incomes” without the tax being a direct tax which requires apportionment? The answer to this is found in In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, (1911). In Flint the court confirmed Congress could impose an excise tax on the privilege of being a corporation making it an indirect tax and not having to apportion it, and the amount to be paid by each tax payer was measured from the profits realized under the privilege granted by government.


This is how a tax on incomes can be laid without having to apportion the tax ___ the tax is not a generically named “income tax” which is not mentioned in our Constitution but an excise tax which is one of the specifically named taxes found in our Constitution and does not require apportionment, rather, it requires uniformity throughout the United States when laid and every “constitutional conservative” ought to know this.

The bottom line is, the 16th Amendment merely confirmed what was found by the Court in Flint, that Congress could lay and collect a tax on income without having to apportion it. However, the amendment by its crystal clear wording did not create a generically named “income tax” nor does it declare a direct tax may be laid on incomes without apportionment.


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)

This is the same acrobatics progressives use to justify things that are in the constitution being ignored. The 16th allows an Income tax, without State apportionment, and congress can pass laws making this so. I don't see where the other view has a leg to stand on.

The 16th Amendment does not declare that "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." It merely grants 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 constitution also commands "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

So, how may Congress tax “incomes” without the tax being a direct tax which requires apportionment? The answer to this is found in In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, (1911). In Flint the court confirmed Congress could impose an excise tax on the privilege of being a corporation making it an indirect tax and not having to apportion it, and the amount to be paid by each tax payer was measured from the profits realized under the privilege granted by government.


This is how a tax on incomes can be laid without having to apportion the tax ___ the tax is not a generically named “income tax” which is not mentioned in our Constitution but an excise tax which is one of the specifically named taxes found in our Constitution and does not require apportionment, rather, it requires uniformity throughout the United States when laid and every “constitutional conservative” ought to know this.

The bottom line is, the 16th Amendment merely confirmed what was found by the Court in Flint, that Congress could lay and collect a tax on income without having to apportion it. However, the amendment by its crystal clear wording did not create a generically named “income tax” nor does it declare a direct tax may be laid on incomes without apportionment.


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)

This is the same acrobatics progressives use to justify things that are in the constitution being ignored. The 16th allows an Income tax, without State apportionment, and congress can pass laws making this so. I don't see where the other view has a leg to stand on.

John insists that the 16th amendment doesn't allow for the source of income to be taxed.

Apparently because he says so.

Additionally, the 16th does not mention "income tax", but rather "taxes upon incomes", and the source of income cannot be taxed!

USMB POLL: Repeal the 16th Amendment (Income Tax)

Its a nonsense argument, of course. But John is a 'true believer'. And every so often vomits up this little rhetorical stomach flu on our board. And all sorts of other boards.

He's a one trick pony. And its not a very good trick.

Is he a Libertarian? His whole argument is convoluted.

John, are you a Libertarian? Who the hell are you supporting for President, then please explain why, and how who you support, has policies that mirror whatever it is you want!

I am a constitutional conservative. How about sticking to the subject of tax reform and the fact that Cruz's tax reform is designed to keep the notoriously evil tax calculated from incomes alive.

JWK





Let us not forget this coming election the betrayal by House Republicans and Senate Republicans who voted in favor of Paul Ryan’s Bill to finance Obama’s invasion of our borders!

The 16th amendment is the constitution. And yes, it does repeal the apportionment requirement on taxes on income.

We've done this dance before. You're an essay writer who relies on the ignorance of his audience to pass of bullshit arguments. When you debate someone who is even remotely informed, your arguments fall apart. As your own sources contradict you.

Considering this has us agreeing on a topic, anyone who has an opposite opinion should take that into consideration.

 

[Skylar]

The 16th Amendment does not declare that "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." It merely grants 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 constitution also commands "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

So, how may Congress tax “incomes” without the tax being a direct tax which requires apportionment? The answer to this is found in In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, (1911). In Flint the court confirmed Congress could impose an excise tax on the privilege of being a corporation making it an indirect tax and not having to apportion it, and the amount to be paid by each tax payer was measured from the profits realized under the privilege granted by government.


This is how a tax on incomes can be laid without having to apportion the tax ___ the tax is not a generically named “income tax” which is not mentioned in our Constitution but an excise tax which is one of the specifically named taxes found in our Constitution and does not require apportionment, rather, it requires uniformity throughout the United States when laid and every “constitutional conservative” ought to know this.

The bottom line is, the 16th Amendment merely confirmed what was found by the Court in Flint, that Congress could lay and collect a tax on income without having to apportion it. However, the amendment by its crystal clear wording did not create a generically named “income tax” nor does it declare a direct tax may be laid on incomes without apportionment.


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)

This is the same acrobatics progressives use to justify things that are in the constitution being ignored. The 16th allows an Income tax, without State apportionment, and congress can pass laws making this so. I don't see where the other view has a leg to stand on.

This is the same acrobatics progressives use to justify things that are in the constitution being ignored. The 16th allows an Income tax, without State apportionment, and congress can pass laws making this so. I don't see where the other view has a leg to stand on.

John insists that the 16th amendment doesn't allow for the source of income to be taxed.

Apparently because he says so.

Additionally, the 16th does not mention "income tax", but rather "taxes upon incomes", and the source of income cannot be taxed!

USMB POLL: Repeal the 16th Amendment (Income Tax)

Its a nonsense argument, of course. But John is a 'true believer'. And every so often vomits up this little rhetorical stomach flu on our board. And all sorts of other boards.

He's a one trick pony. And its not a very good trick.

Is he a Libertarian? His whole argument is convoluted.

John, are you a Libertarian? Who the hell are you supporting for President, then please explain why, and how who you support, has policies that mirror whatever it is you want!

I am a constitutional conservative. How about sticking to the subject of tax reform and the fact that Cruz's tax reform is designed to keep the notoriously evil tax calculated from incomes alive.

JWK





Let us not forget this coming election the betrayal by House Republicans and Senate Republicans who voted in favor of Paul Ryan’s Bill to finance Obama’s invasion of our borders!

The 16th amendment is the constitution. And yes, it does repeal the apportionment requirement on taxes on income.

We've done this dance before. You're an essay writer who relies on the ignorance of his audience to pass of bullshit arguments. When you debate someone who is even remotely informed, your arguments fall apart. As your own sources contradict you.

Considering this has us agreeing on a topic, anyone who has an opposite opinion should take that into consideration.

Marty, you and I have a fundamental disagreement. But you're not an irrational person. We're probably going to agree on way more than we disagree.

 

[martybegan]

This is the same acrobatics progressives use to justify things that are in the constitution being ignored. The 16th allows an Income tax, without State apportionment, and congress can pass laws making this so. I don't see where the other view has a leg to stand on.

John insists that the 16th amendment doesn't allow for the source of income to be taxed.

Apparently because he says so.

Its a nonsense argument, of course. But John is a 'true believer'. And every so often vomits up this little rhetorical stomach flu on our board. And all sorts of other boards.

He's a one trick pony. And its not a very good trick.

Is he a Libertarian? His whole argument is convoluted.

John, are you a Libertarian? Who the hell are you supporting for President, then please explain why, and how who you support, has policies that mirror whatever it is you want!

I am a constitutional conservative. How about sticking to the subject of tax reform and the fact that Cruz's tax reform is designed to keep the notoriously evil tax calculated from incomes alive.

JWK





Let us not forget this coming election the betrayal by House Republicans and Senate Republicans who voted in favor of Paul Ryan’s Bill to finance Obama’s invasion of our borders!

The 16th amendment is the constitution. And yes, it does repeal the apportionment requirement on taxes on income.

We've done this dance before. You're an essay writer who relies on the ignorance of his audience to pass of bullshit arguments. When you debate someone who is even remotely informed, your arguments fall apart. As your own sources contradict you.

Considering this has us agreeing on a topic, anyone who has an opposite opinion should take that into consideration.

Marty, you and I have a fundamental disagreement. But you're not an irrational person. We're probably going to agree on way more than we disagree.

Yeah, the stuff in this thread is pretty out there.

and I would call myself 10% irrational, I can get cranky as a thread goes on for 50 pages of rehashing the same argument over and over and over.

 

[Skylar]

Nope. That is not what Eisner finds. Eisner finds

The conclusion of the court is as follows:

"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." -Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)

The fact is, Direct taxes are still required to be apportioned as pointed out in Eisner v. Macomber. And in BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929), the Court 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 recent Obamacare case:


"The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States."


The truth is, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 has never been repealed and declares:


No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

Any tax which takes the form of a direct tax, regardless of what name you attach to the tax, requires an apportionment.


JWK

JWK.......on pro-rata stock dividends in which no cash is given, no property is given, and no change in proportional ownership is given.....as nothing is derived. The court found that pro-rata dividends aren't income

Again, John, plucking 9 words from my response and then ignoring the very passage of Eisner that destroys your argument doesn't mean that *we* can't see it:

"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."

As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income.

Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)

Eisner destroys your argument. As it makes it clear that the 16th amendment removed apportionment requirements on taxes on income.

You say otherwise. You lost.

 

[johnwk]

Would you PLEASE shut up with this bullshit!

Didn't the 16th amendment handle this?

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 16th Amendment does not declare that "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." It merely grants 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 constitution also commands "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

So, how may Congress tax “incomes” without the tax being a direct tax which requires apportionment? The answer to this is found in In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, (1911). In Flint the court confirmed Congress could impose an excise tax on the privilege of being a corporation making it an indirect tax and not having to apportion it, and the amount to be paid by each tax payer was measured from the profits realized under the privilege granted by government.


This is how a tax on incomes can be laid without having to apportion the tax ___ the tax is not a generically named “income tax” which is not mentioned in our Constitution but an excise tax which is one of the specifically named taxes found in our Constitution and does not require apportionment, rather, it requires uniformity throughout the United States when laid and every “constitutional conservative” ought to know this.

The bottom line is, the 16th Amendment merely confirmed what was found by the Court in Flint, that Congress could lay and collect a tax on income without having to apportion it. However, the amendment by its crystal clear wording did not create a generically named “income tax” nor does it declare a direct tax may be laid on incomes without apportionment.


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)

This is the same acrobatics progressives use to justify things that are in the constitution being ignored. The 16th allows an Income tax, without State apportionment, and congress can pass laws making this so. I don't see where the other view has a leg to stand on.

The 16th Amendment was not intended to, nor does it, repeal that portion of the Constitution which requires "direct taxes" to be apportioned.

When proposed, on June 17th 1909, the 16th Amendment originally read as follows:

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes without apportionment among the several states according to population.”

This was later changed, June 28th, to:

"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 direct tax allowance on incomes as originally proposed was removed! So, it is crystal clear, from the legislative history, that the Amendment was not intended to, nor does it by its plain language, remove the protection that “direct taxes” are still required to be apportioned. And this is confirmed by the Supreme Court cases I cite at the top of the page.

The simple truth is, if Congress lays a tax which takes the form of a direct tax, it is still required to be apportioned. The only question remaining is, what did our founders considered to be direct taxes when providing the rule of apportionment as a protection?

Keep in mind our founders were fully aware of the destructive and oppressive nature of direct taxation. In fact, this issue was touched upon by Representative Williams during a debate on Direct Taxes on 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."

So what was meant by direct taxes? During the Convention which framed our Constitution ''Mr. King asked what was the precise meaning of direct taxation? No one answered.'' –

Having studied historical documentation during the time period our Constitution was adopted to identify the distinctions between direct and indirect taxation, one thing I am pretty 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. For example, Hamilton's brief in the Hylton carriage case which Roberts quoted in the Obamacare case says: 'The following are presumed to be the only direct taxes: Capitation or poll taxes, taxes on lands and buildings, general assessments, whether on the whole property of individuals, or on their whole real or personal estate. All else must, of necessity, be considered as indirect taxes.'

And so, I am unwilling as others to assert a flat tax calculated from “incomes” is constitutional. In some cases it may very well be, but in other cases historical evidence indicates it takes the form of a direct tax and must therefore be apportioned to be within the four walls of our Constitution.

Finally, keep in mind that Cruz’s “tax reform” defeats the founder’s intentions that any general tax laid among the states would be apportioned and was agreed upon for a very good reason. That reason was to insure that if and when Congress decided to lay a direct tax, each state’s share of a total being raised would be proportionately equal to its representation in Congress . . . in other words, representation with a proportional financial obligation, an idea which socialists and the friends of big government fear with a passion. They want their one man, one vote, but refuse to pay their one dollar one vote.
In any event, here is what our founder said regarding the rule of apportionment:

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 see:
“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. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.

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 intentionally being designed to insure that the people of each state are to be taxed proportionately equal to their representation in Congress, Mr. PENDLETON says:

“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

JWK



Are we really ok with 45 percent of our nation’s population who pay no taxes on incomes being allowed to vote for representatives who spend federal revenue which the remaining 55 percent of our nation’s hard working and productive population has contributed into our federal treasury via taxes on incomes when our Constitution requires “Representatives and direct taxes Shall be apportioned among the Several States”?

You can believe what you want, however your interpretation is wrong, and uses the same logical mind-twists progressives use to ignore parts of the constitution they don't like. Bad logic is bad logic no matter what side of the aisle it comes from.

Thank you for you opinion. Unlike your opinion, what I post is support by documented facts.

JWK

 

[johnwk]

Eisner destroys your argument. As it makes it clear that the 16th amendment removed apportionment requirements on taxes on income.
.

The conclusion of the court is as follows:

"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." -Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)

The fact is, Direct taxes are still required to be apportioned as pointed out in Eisner v. Macomber. And in BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929), the Court 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 recent Obamacare case:


"The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States."


The truth is, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 has never been repealed and declares:


No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

Any tax which takes the form of a direct tax, regardless of what name you attach to the tax, requires an apportionment.


JWK

 

[Skylar]

Didn't the 16th amendment handle this?

The 16th Amendment does not declare that "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." It merely grants 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 constitution also commands "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

So, how may Congress tax “incomes” without the tax being a direct tax which requires apportionment? The answer to this is found in In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, (1911). In Flint the court confirmed Congress could impose an excise tax on the privilege of being a corporation making it an indirect tax and not having to apportion it, and the amount to be paid by each tax payer was measured from the profits realized under the privilege granted by government.


This is how a tax on incomes can be laid without having to apportion the tax ___ the tax is not a generically named “income tax” which is not mentioned in our Constitution but an excise tax which is one of the specifically named taxes found in our Constitution and does not require apportionment, rather, it requires uniformity throughout the United States when laid and every “constitutional conservative” ought to know this.

The bottom line is, the 16th Amendment merely confirmed what was found by the Court in Flint, that Congress could lay and collect a tax on income without having to apportion it. However, the amendment by its crystal clear wording did not create a generically named “income tax” nor does it declare a direct tax may be laid on incomes without apportionment.


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)

This is the same acrobatics progressives use to justify things that are in the constitution being ignored. The 16th allows an Income tax, without State apportionment, and congress can pass laws making this so. I don't see where the other view has a leg to stand on.

The 16th Amendment was not intended to, nor does it, repeal that portion of the Constitution which requires "direct taxes" to be apportioned.

When proposed, on June 17th 1909, the 16th Amendment originally read as follows:

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes without apportionment among the several states according to population.”

This was later changed, June 28th, to:

"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 direct tax allowance on incomes as originally proposed was removed! So, it is crystal clear, from the legislative history, that the Amendment was not intended to, nor does it by its plain language, remove the protection that “direct taxes” are still required to be apportioned. And this is confirmed by the Supreme Court cases I cite at the top of the page.

The simple truth is, if Congress lays a tax which takes the form of a direct tax, it is still required to be apportioned. The only question remaining is, what did our founders considered to be direct taxes when providing the rule of apportionment as a protection?

Keep in mind our founders were fully aware of the destructive and oppressive nature of direct taxation. In fact, this issue was touched upon by Representative Williams during a debate on Direct Taxes on 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."

So what was meant by direct taxes? During the Convention which framed our Constitution ''Mr. King asked what was the precise meaning of direct taxation? No one answered.'' –

Having studied historical documentation during the time period our Constitution was adopted to identify the distinctions between direct and indirect taxation, one thing I am pretty 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. For example, Hamilton's brief in the Hylton carriage case which Roberts quoted in the Obamacare case says: 'The following are presumed to be the only direct taxes: Capitation or poll taxes, taxes on lands and buildings, general assessments, whether on the whole property of individuals, or on their whole real or personal estate. All else must, of necessity, be considered as indirect taxes.'

And so, I am unwilling as others to assert a flat tax calculated from “incomes” is constitutional. In some cases it may very well be, but in other cases historical evidence indicates it takes the form of a direct tax and must therefore be apportioned to be within the four walls of our Constitution.

Finally, keep in mind that Cruz’s “tax reform” defeats the founder’s intentions that any general tax laid among the states would be apportioned and was agreed upon for a very good reason. That reason was to insure that if and when Congress decided to lay a direct tax, each state’s share of a total being raised would be proportionately equal to its representation in Congress . . . in other words, representation with a proportional financial obligation, an idea which socialists and the friends of big government fear with a passion. They want their one man, one vote, but refuse to pay their one dollar one vote.
In any event, here is what our founder said regarding the rule of apportionment:

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 see:
“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. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.

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 intentionally being designed to insure that the people of each state are to be taxed proportionately equal to their representation in Congress, Mr. PENDLETON says:

“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

JWK



Are we really ok with 45 percent of our nation’s population who pay no taxes on incomes being allowed to vote for representatives who spend federal revenue which the remaining 55 percent of our nation’s hard working and productive population has contributed into our federal treasury via taxes on incomes when our Constitution requires “Representatives and direct taxes Shall be apportioned among the Several States”?

You can believe what you want, however your interpretation is wrong, and uses the same logical mind-twists progressives use to ignore parts of the constitution they don't like. Bad logic is bad logic no matter what side of the aisle it comes from.

Thank you for you opinion. Unlike your opinion, what I post is support by documented facts.

JWK

John, what you've posted is the same meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish you've been spouting for years. And it dies on the same passage from the same ruling every time:

"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."

As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income.

Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)

This is your own source. And it destroys your entire argument. It demonstrates, irrefutably, that per the Supreme Court, the 16th amendment removed the apportionment requirement for taxes on incomes.

You keep pretending that this finding of the Supreme Court doesn't exist. But neither the law, the courts, nor the rest of us give a shit what you ignore. As the explicit finding of the court still exists, still destroys your argument, and still demonstrates your understanding that your argument is broken every time you avoid it.

You're fucked.