The Temporary Victory Tax ghost of 1943 lives on.

[johnwk]

I know, but johnwk isn't going to grasp...
.

Truth be told, I took the time to expound upon the subject at great length HERE. Is there something specific in my post you wish to pursue?

JWK


When Federal Reserve Notes were made a legal tender in violation of our Constitution, and a direct un-apportioned tax was imposed upon the people without their consent, America’s free enterprise, free market system was subjugated, and the tools of oppression and thievery were made available to some very immoral and nefariously evil people.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

No. It is not "misleading" when one reviews the debates during which time the Sixteenth Amendment was framed and debated. I certainly have, and could not find a shred of evidence to indicate the object of the Sixteenth Amendment was to grant power to Congress to lay and collect a direct, un-apportioned tax, on a working person’s earned wages.

That's not surprising, since Congress already had the authority to levy an unapportioned tax on wages and personal earnings. Congress was well aware of the Springer decision, which had held that the income tax was in the nature of an excise or duty and it also knew that the Pollock decision had not overruled Springer with respect to a tax on wages and personal earnings. Indeed, Pollock had expressly recognized that such a tax was not a direct tax, and Brushaber later reaffirmed Pollock in this regard:

Pollock: "We have considered the act only in respect of the tax on income derived from real estate, and from invested personal property, and have not commented on so much of it as bears on gains or profits from business, privileges, or employments, in view of the instances in which taxation on business, privileges, or employments has assumed the guise of an excise tax and been sustained as such..."

Brushaber: "...recall that in the Pollock Case, in so far as the law taxed incomes from other classes of property than real estate and invested personal property, that is, income from 'professions, trades, employments, or vocations', its validity was recognized; indeed, it was expressly declared that no dispute was made upon that subject, and attention was called to the fact that taxes on such income had been sustained as excise taxes in the past."

In its discussion of the severance issue (i.e., could the rest of the 1894 Tax Act be saved if only the part about taxing investment income were stricken), the Pollock majority reiterated its view that an unapportioned tax on pay-for-work was valid:

According to the census, the true valuation of real and personal property in the United States in 1890 was $65,037,091,197, of which real estate with improvements thereon made up $39,544,544,333. Of course, from the latter must be deducted, in applying these sections, all unproductive property and all property whose net yield does not exceed $4,000; but, even with such deductions, it is evident that the income from realty formed a vital part of the scheme for taxation embodied therein. If that be stricken out, and also the income from all invested personal property, bonds, stocks, investments of all kinds, it is obvious that by far the largest part of the anticipated revenue would be eliminated, and this would leave the burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vocations; and in that way what was intended as a tax on capital would remain, in substance, a tax on occupations and labor. We cannot believe that such was the intention of congress. We do not mean to say that an act laying by apportionment a direct tax on all real estate and personal property, or the income thereof, might not also lay excise taxes on business, privileges, employments, and vocations. But this is not such an act, and the scheme must be considered as a whole.

So it's ludicrous to think the 16th Amendment implicitly overruled Springer and turned a tax on pay-for-work into a direct tax. Congress isn't in the habit of cutting itself off from sources of revenue.

In the instant case, harmonizing is to be found in a tax on incomes laid by Congress so long as it does not take the form of a direct tax, which then would require an apportionment.

And how do we carry out the legislative intent of the Sixteenth Amendment and have those with un-earned income contribute a share to the funding of our federal government while likewise preserving the rule that any direct tax must be apportioned?

One way is by laying and collecting a tax on incomes realized under a privilege of doing business as an artificial entity created by government ___ a corporation with the advantages which inhere in the corporate capacity which are not enjoyed by private firms or individuals’ ___ and calculating the tax from profits and gains realized under the privilege.

Taxing “incomes” in this manner, those which are realized under a privilege granted by government and calculated from profits and or gains therefrom, makes the tax indirect and not requiring an apportionment, and thus satisfies the Sixteenth Amendment’s granted power to tax “incomes” without apportionment, while also preserving the constitutional protection requiring any “direct” tax must be apportioned.

Your problem with this is that an unapportioned tax on corporations measured by income had already been upheld in Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911), two years before the 16th Amendment was ratified. Moreover, such a tax would not reach dividends, rents, interest, and other unearned income received by individuals. It's undisputed (except maybe by you) that that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to overturn the result of the Pollock case and subject investment income to an unapportioned tax, but your "harmonizing" would not have that effect and the people receiving such income could continue to enjoy it tax free.

In reality, there is no need to harmonize when you realize that the Amendment rejected the "mistaken theory" of Pollock: that in determining whether an income tax is a direct tax one should look at the source of the income. Once you do this it follows that there is no conflict because an income tax is not a direct tax, regardless of the nature or source of the income.

"by the previous ruling [Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R.], it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived -- that is, by testing the tax not by what it was, a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed." Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112-113 (1916) (emphasis added)

 

[johnwk]

Sixteenth Amendment, earned wages vs unearned income, which gets taxed?

In reality, there is no need to harmonize when you realize that the Amendment rejected the "mistaken theory" of Pollock:

Once again you deflect, editorialize and post opinions regarding why the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted, and pay no attention to the expressed objectives of the proposed amendment as stated during the Congressional sessions, by members of Congress, when actually debating the Amendment.

For example, Mr. HENRY of Texas says during these debates:

"Therefore the decision, [Pollock] in effect, puts the dollar of the millionaire beyond the pale of being equitably taxed according to his wealth, unless a constitutional amendment be invoked… However, there should be some method by which the untold wealth and riches of this Republic may be compelled to bear their just burdens of government and contribute an equitable share of their incomes to supply the Treasury with needed taxes".

As I see it, the fairest of all taxes is of this nature [a tax on gains, profits and unearned income], laid according to wealth, and its universal adoption would be a benign blessing to mankind. The door is shut against it, and the people must continue to groan beneath the burdens of tariff taxes and robbery under the guise of law." 44 Cong. Rec. Page, 4414 (1909).

And mention, only a few pages later is made again that, "An income tax seeks to reach the unearned wealth of the country and to make it pay its share." 44 Cong. Rec. Page 4420 (1909).


Now, let us note at this point in time that there is a vast distinction between earned wages and, unearned income which was the intended target of the Sixteenth Amendment.

Aside from that, I took the time IN THIS POST to expound upon how the Sixteenth Amendment allows Congress to lay and collect a tax on incomes without apportioning the tax, while at the same time preserving the protection requiring direct taxes to be apportioned.

JWK

When Federal Reserve Notes were made a legal tender in violation of our Constitution, and a direct un-apportioned tax was imposed upon the people without their consent, America’s free enterprise, free market system was subjugated, and the tools of oppression and thievery were made available to some very immoral and nefariously evil people.

 

[unknown]

The Federalist Papers were also penned in an effort to try and convince NYers to ratify the Constitution.

It was part of the contract upon which the states ratified the goddam thing.