posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 03:13 AM
Originally posted by sporkmonster
reply to post by someguy420
Short answer, it is constitutional for the gov't of the united States. There is an amendment that allows for the collection of income tax. That is
I'm a small gov't proponent. I think that many of the taxes imposed are not legal under the constitution. Yet under the constitution it is legal for
the fed gov't to collect income tax.
There are many points of that, that could be argued. Such as, only employees of the gov't are obligated to pay federal income tax.
That gets into too many if's, and's or but's, for this thread.
I do wholly agree about having an audit of the Fed Res. I think it would reveal that the Fed has been doing illegal things for decades. I also think
that it would cause huge harm to the economy of America, when it is revealed the Fed is a crook.
Personally I am willing to face the pain of that. I know it will be bad. I want this country to be closer to 'fixed.'
[edit on 16-1-2010 by sporkmonster]
If you are referring to the 16th Amendment, you have made a mistake of fact and misinterpretation of law. The 16th Amendment does not "allow"
Congress to lay taxes on income and it certainly doesn't authorize any tax collector to collect income tax. The Congress all ready had the authority
to tax income since the inception of the United States. Indeed, in order to fund the Civil War an income tax was passed at this time to pay the debt.
It was repealed a few years later and then in 1894 Congress attempted to pass another income tax but this particular tax was struck down as being
It was the SCOTUS ruling of Pollack v. Farmers & Loan Trust Co. that declared the entire income portion of the revenue law of 1894 as unconstitutional
because it was viewed as a direct tax without any apportionment as Constitutionally required of all direct taxes. Congress, in response to this, but
not as any repudiation of the Pollack Court, passed the 16th Amendment to flex their own muscles and make clear they had the complete and plenary
power of taxation.
It was in two seminal rulings, Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., that SCOTUS explained the meaning and purpose of
the 16th Amendment. It was challenged by both Brushaber and Stanton as being unconstitutional because much like you they interpreted that Amendment
to be an act of expanding Congressional power that was contrary to the original Constitution. Chief Justice White explained in both rulings that it
was not an unconstitutional act and that Congress did not at all expand their scope of taxation nor did they impose any new burden of taxation upon
Chief Justice White further explained that the 16th Amendment did not authorize a non apportioned direct tax as such an act would most assuredly be
unconstitutional. What Congress did do, as the Chief Justice explained was prohibit any future court from ever viewing a non apportioned tax on
income as a direct tax again, instead forcing the courts and thus We the People in understanding that a non apportioned tax on income was an indirect
tax not subject to the rule of apportionment, but rather the rule of uniformity.
It is then imperative to understand the difference between direct taxes and indirect taxes and how they are laid and what the subject of the tax is.
If the so called "Personal Income Tax" is not a direct tax on income, and is instead an indirect tax, where income is not the subject but, as Chief
Justice White explained, merely used as a measurement to gauge how much tax is owed, then what exactly is the subject of the tax? That is the