16th amendment

[Weston White]

Mr. White, you are delusional. I simply described how the EIC allows some people to pay no income tax. I never said it was good policy.

Precisely, it is not some much what you say; it is more what you’re not saying that truly matters. Ergo, your non-responsiveness, in hand with your steadfast defensiveness, equates both adherence and concurrence on such matters.

Mr. White, not only are you profoundly ignorant concerning tax law, you are paranoid as well. First of all, the precise holding of Pollock was that in considering whether an income tax was a direct tax that needed to be apportioned, one needs to look at the source of the income. This rationale has been completely rejected by the Court in later cases. That's why the Stanton case referred to it as "a mistaken theory". Second, the Court doesn't need to waste its limited time in hearing cases brought by crackpot tax protesters who claim they've found some magic argument that says they don't have to pay income tax. The Court has said time and again that a tax on compensation for work is taxable, and it doesn't need to satisfy your harebrained desires.

First of all the breadth of ‘incomes’ in its constitutional sense, is that as defined within the originating 1909 Corporation Excise Tax Act (i.e., Stratton’s Independence was referenced within the Stanton case), and its pith appropriately clarified through subsequent precedence.

As to your “delusional”, “ignorant”, “paranoid”, “tax protester”, and “crackpot” comments, I merely point out that my own writings withstand such weak and unimaginative squabbling.

Still yet, you actually argue that it is not for SCOTUS’ to “waste” its time with addressing constitutional concerns that so blatantly pertain to federal questions, which is as fact its primary function, and you claim you’re not of the progressive mindset?

The only person arguing about finding magical cures to avoiding taxation is a one Sonny Jim, the last small few of remaining members of “Quatlostia!”

Mr. White, if you think the 16th wasn't in response to the Pollock decision, then you are not only profoundly ignorant of tax law, you have the American History knowledge of a potted plant.

And if you think such was the basis for my response then you have all the faulty logic of a double negative Boolean, that or an insane Vulcan; either one take your pick.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

dude, u are more knowledgable than this. U know the 16th A did not create the Income Tax. Repeal will only change a small portion of taxable income that was addressed in the Pollock case.

True. But direct taxes would "officially" be disallowed. More of a feel-good thing than anything else.