Economic: Taxes: There is no federal or state income tax on working wages by law in this country.

[Sonny Tufts]

The income tax was only intended to be a temporary tax to support war efforts from long ago, as a tax upon wealth, but never a permanent tax upon necessity, and not rates surpassing the tithe.

You are confusing the wisdom of legislation with its constitutionality. The constitutional provisions authorizing taxation place no limit on the tax rates that Congress may impose or on the period during which the taxes are to operate. The drafters of the Constitution didn't want to put Congress in an economic strait jacket regarding taxation because they couldn't foresee what the revenue needs of the country might be. As Jefferson said, "I approved, from the first moment, of the great mass of what is in the new constitution, ... and the power of taxation. I thought at first that the latter might have been limited. A little reflection soon convinced me it ought not to be."

It is an undeniable fact that the Constitution was designed to grant the federal government a broad taxing power and to leave it up to Congress to determine what and how much to tax. The Articles of Confederation had been a dismal failure in this regard.

Federalist 30:

What remedy can there be for this situation, but in a change of the system which has produced it in a change of the fallacious and delusive system of quotas and requisitions? What substitute can there be imagined for this ignis fatuus in finance, but that of permitting the national government to raise its own revenues by the ordinary methods of taxation authorized in every well-ordered constitution of civil government? Ingenious men may declaim with plausibility on any subject; but no human ingenuity can point out any other expedient to rescue us from the inconveniences and embarrassments naturally resulting from defective supplies of the public treasury.

The more intelligent adversaries of the new Constitution admit the force of this reasoning; but they qualify their admission by a distinction between what they call internal and external taxation. The former they would reserve to the State governments; the latter, which they explain into commercial imposts, or rather duties on imported articles, they declare themselves willing to concede to the federal head. This distinction, however, would violate the maxim of good sense and sound policy, which dictates that every POWER ought to be in proportion to its OBJECT; and would still leave the general government in a kind of tutelage to the State governments, inconsistent with every idea of vigor or efficiency. Who can pretend that commercial imposts are, or would be, alone equal to the present and future exigencies of the Union? Taking into the account the existing debt, foreign and domestic, upon any plan of extinguishment which a man moderately impressed with the importance of public justice and public credit could approve, in addition to the establishments which all parties will acknowledge to be necessary, we could not reasonably flatter ourselves, that this resource alone, upon the most improved scale, would even suffice for its present necessities. Its future necessities admit not of calculation or limitation; and upon the principle, more than once adverted to, the power of making provision for them as they arise ought to be equally unconfined. I believe it may be regarded as a position warranted by the history of mankind, that, in the usual progress of things, the necessities of a nation, in every stage of its existence, will be found at least equal to its resources.

To say that deficiencies may be provided for by requisitions upon the States, is on the one hand to acknowledge that this system cannot be depended upon, and on the other hand to depend upon it for every thing beyond a certain limit. Those who have carefully attended to its vices and deformities as they have been exhibited by experience or delineated in the course of these papers, must feel invincible repugnancy to trusting the national interests in any degree to its operation. Its inevitable tendency, whenever it is brought into activity, must be to enfeeble the Union, and sow the seeds of discord and contention between the federal head and its members, and between the members themselves. Can it be expected that the deficiencies would be better supplied in this mode than the total wants of the Union have heretofore been supplied in the same mode? It ought to be recollected that if less will be required from the States, they will have proportionably less means to answer the demand. If the opinions of those who contend for the distinction which has been mentioned were to be received as evidence of truth, one would be led to conclude that there was some known point in the economy of national affairs at which it would be safe to stop and to say: Thus far the ends of public happiness will be promoted by supplying the wants of government, and all beyond this is unworthy of our care or anxiety. How is it possible that a government half supplied and always necessitous, can fulfill the purposes of its institution, can provide for the security, advance the prosperity, or support the reputation of the commonwealth? How can it ever possess either energy or stability, dignity or credit, confidence at home or respectability abroad? How can its administration be any thing else than a succession of expedients temporizing, impotent, disgraceful? How will it be able to avoid a frequent sacrifice of its engagements to immediate necessity? How can it undertake or execute any liberal or enlarged plans of public good?

Let us attend to what would be the effects of this situation in the very first war in which we should happen to be engaged. We will presume, for argument's sake, that the revenue arising from the impost duties answers the purposes of a provision for the public debt and of a peace establishment for the Union. Thus circumstanced, a war breaks out. What would be the probable conduct of the government in such an emergency? Taught by experience that proper dependence could not be placed on the success of requisitions, unable by its own authority to lay hold of fresh resources, and urged by considerations of national danger, would it not be driven to the expedient of diverting the funds already appropriated from their proper objects to the defense of the State? It is not easy to see how a step of this kind could be avoided; and if it should be taken, it is evident that it would prove the destruction of public credit at the very moment that it was becoming essential to the public safety. To imagine that at such a crisis credit might be dispensed with, would be the extreme of infatuation. In the modern system of war, nations the most wealthy are obliged to have recourse to large loans. A country so little opulent as ours must feel this necessity in a much stronger degree. But who would lend to a government that prefaced its overtures for borrowing by an act which demonstrated that no reliance could be placed on the steadiness of its measures for paying? The loans it might be able to procure would be as limited in their extent as burdensome in their conditions. They would be made upon the same principles that usurers commonly lend to bankrupt and fraudulent debtors, with a sparing hand and at enormous premiums.

Federalist 34:

...it will be well to advert to the proportion between the objects that will require a federal provision in respect to revenue, and those which will require a State provision. We shall discover that the former are altogether unlimited, and that the latter are circumscribed within very moderate bounds. In pursuing this inquiry, we must bear in mind that we are not to confine our view to the present period, but to look forward to remote futurity. Constitutions of civil government are not to be framed upon a calculation of existing exigencies, but upon a combination of these with the probable exigencies of ages, according to the natural and tried course of human affairs. Nothing, therefore, can be more fallacious than to infer the extent of any power, proper to be lodged in the national government, from an estimate of its immediate necessities. There ought to be a CAPACITY to provide for future contingencies as they may happen; and as these are illimitable in their nature, it is impossible safely to limit that capacity. It is true, perhaps, that a computation might be made with sufficient accuracy to answer the purpose of the quantity of revenue requisite to discharge the subsisting engagements of the Union, and to maintain those establishments which, for some time to come, would suffice in time of peace. But would it be wise, or would it not rather be the extreme of folly, to stop at this point, and to leave the government intrusted with the care of the national defense in a state of absolute incapacity to provide for the protection of the community against future invasions of the public peace, by foreign war or domestic convulsions? If, on the contrary, we ought to exceed this point, where can we stop, short of an indefinite power of providing for emergencies as they may arise? Though it is easy to assert, in general terms, the possibility of forming a rational judgment of a due provision against probable dangers, yet we may safely challenge those who make the assertion to bring forward their data, and may affirm that they would be found as vague and uncertain as any that could be produced to establish the probable duration of the world. Observations confined to the mere prospects of internal attacks can deserve no weight; though even these will admit of no satisfactory calculation: but if we mean to be a commercial people, it must form a part of our policy to be able one day to defend that commerce. The support of a navy and of naval wars would involve contingencies that must baffle all the efforts of political arithmetic.

 

[Wheeljack]

By doing what? The legislature and executive branches want the income tax as it now is. So does the public, except with a little tweaking to it.

So let's say we get the public to be against the income tax, and then through elections get the legislature to be against the income tax. Essentially what you're going for is the passages of legislation that would cause income taxes to stop being collected.

Well yeah, that's what we're all after. The OP doesn't really change that.

First and foremost, I am not against the income tax. It is not my intention to get anyone against the income tax.

There is no need to pass any legislation of any kind.

All that is needed is to understand the legislation that has already been passed.

 

[erowe1]

First and foremost, I am not against the income tax.

All of my differences with you are rooted in this most fundamental point.

 

[Occam's Banana]

It is an undeniable fact that the Constitution was designed to grant the federal government a broad taxing power and to leave it up to Congress to determine what and how much to tax. The Articles of Confederation had been a dismal failure in this regard.

That the Articles were a "dismal failure" with regard "to grant[ing] the federal government a broad taxing power ..." certainly cannot be denied.

But some (such as myself) regard that "dismal failure" as one of the Articles' chiefest virtues.

The "inconveniences and embarrassments naturally resulting from defective supplies of the public treasury" were a feature, not a bug ...

 

[Danke]

First and foremost, I am not against the income tax. It is not my intention to get anyone against the income tax.

There is no need to pass any legislation of any kind.

All that is needed is to understand the legislation that has already been passed.

And so few get this fact, just apply it correctly.

 

[Weston White]

The constitutional provisions authorizing taxation place no limit on the tax rates that Congress may impose or on the period during which the taxes are to operate.

We have already been through this dozens of times. It is the Federalist Papers—besetting America’s original intent—and Congressional Records on the federal income tax, and substantiated case law, which does exactly that, exactly that.

The drafters of the Constitution didn't want to put Congress in an economic strait jacket regarding taxation because they couldn't foresee what the revenue needs of the country might be.

Be that as it may—and keeping that the powers of federal taxation are not limitless; that Americas Founders did not either desire to crush the states and their residents with overreaching federalism—the means by which people like you describe the federal income tax goes so far beyond this, that it is patently offensive for you to even raise mention of the U.S. Constitution, to wit, an instrument that you pay mere lip-service and nothing more.

You wrap yourself up in the American flag as a mere convenience—pathetically sickening.

It is an undeniable fact that the Constitution was designed to grant the federal government a broad taxing power and to leave it up to Congress to determine what and how much to tax.

And they did exactly that, and yet through decade after decade of mission creep, the limited breadth of the federal income tax is entirely ignored by the IRS and progressivists such as you.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

keeping that the powers of federal taxation are not limitless

The only limits in the Constitution are that Congress can't tax exports; that direct taxes must be apportioned; and that excises (such as the income tax) must be geographically uniform.

through decade after decade of mission creep, the limited breadth of the federal income tax is entirely ignored by the IRS and progressivists such as you.

No, your beef is really with Congress. In case you didn't know, the IRS doesn't originate tax laws; Congress does. Your beef is that Congress has exercised its taxing power too extensively. Fine -- that's a valid complaint. But it doesn't mean the exercise of its power is unconstitutional.

 

[Weston White]

The only limits in the Constitution are that Congress can't tax exports; that direct taxes must be apportioned; and that excises (such as the income tax) must be geographically uniform.

Negative, those are not the only limits:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes ... to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;

Further still, the enforcement must oblige the breadth of the act of law as ratified or amended.

No, your beef is really with Congress. In case you didn't know, the IRS doesn't originate tax laws; Congress does. Your beef is that Congress has exercised its taxing power too extensively. Fine -- that's a valid complaint. But it doesn't mean the exercise of its power is unconstitutional.

Really, the IRS does not lobby its Legislature, the same as its president, for new or amendments to existing law? The IRS lobbies and administrates, meanwhile, the Congress ratifies, the Executive enforces, and the Judicial turns a blind eye.

The status quo, modern-progressive stance on taxation of income upon individuals is unconstitutional. You have been provided dozens upon dozens of valid sources (including citations) proving exactly that beyond any shadow of a doubt.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Negative, those are not the only limits:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes ... to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;

That limits what the tax revenue can be spent on and has nothing to do with what can be taxed.

The status quo, modern-progressive stance on taxation of income upon individuals is unconstitutionalYou have been provided dozens upon dozens of valid sources (including citations) proving exactly that beyond any shadow of a doubt.

I have been provided with your uninformed misreading of cases, none of which supports your crackpot theories. Indeed, no one in history has ever avoided taxation relying on your worthless arguments.

 

[Weston White]

That limits what the tax revenue can be spent on and has nothing to do with what can be taxed.

Au contraire, it is so much more than that--it besets the federal governments necessity to tax its populace in the first place, that is with even further consideration to the enumerated powers of the U.S. Constitution, to effect its treasury.

I have been provided with your uninformed misreading of cases, none of which supports your crackpot theories. Indeed, no one in history has ever avoided taxation relying on your worthless arguments.

Ah yes, that must be why you always ignore pretty much single thing that I post, such as the below—and yet you will happily sit, wasting your entire day, in a back and forth debate on belittling another (clearly, your college degree has been put to such good use):

In justice, however, to the majority, we must quote the statement made by Mr. Murray, of Oklahoma:

There are those who would say that we should begin at $1000, in lieu of $4000. They forget the principle upon which this tax is founded, and that is that every man who is making no more than a living should not be taxed upon living earnings, but should be taxed upon the surplus that he makes over and above that amount necessary for good living. We also recognize the assumption that $4000 will reach the highest grade of good living. . . . The purpose of this tax is nothing more than to levy a tribute upon that surplus wealth which requires extra expense, and in doing so, it is nothing more than meting out evenhanded justice. [Congressional Record, p.1219]”

“The Federal Income Tax”, Edwin Robert Anderson Seligman, LL.D., “Political Science Quarterly”, Vol. XXIX, Number I, March, 1914, pp. 1, 7-8, 12

* Noting that $4,000 in 1913 is equal in purchasing power to $95,595 in 2015.

ETA:

 

[cjm]

I would like to hear everyone's thoughts on this.

I find it discouraging.

 

[Danke]

I find it discouraging.

We are no longer have juries of our peers. People who sit on a jury are brainwashed imbeciles for the most part and many feed off of stealing property from others.

 

[oyarde]

We are no longer have juries of our peers. People who sit on a jury are brainwashed imbeciles for the most part and many feed off of stealing property from others.

True , be pretty hard to get a jury of my peers without picking from at least 48 states .

 

[Sonny Tufts]

The reason this lying POS doesn’t talk about it is because it’s a totally bogus theory.

Notice that Rose never points to anything in the Constitution that exempts any kind of income from taxation. He goes on and on bloviating about the regulation’s reference to income that’s not constitutionally taxable, but he conveniently never gives an example.

But there’s a very good reason for that – there is no example. There used to be examples, but not because of any specific language in the Constitution. What happened was that beginning in the 19th century the Supreme Court held that certain kinds of income were exempt from federal taxation because of the federalism structure of the Constitution. In a series of cases the Court held that Congress couldn’t tax such things as the income earned by the States, the salaries of state employees, or interest on state and local obligations. The idea was that taxing such items would unduly interfere with the States’ governmental functioning. The drafters of the regulation Rose cites obviously had these decisions in mind, and when the regulation was promulgated interest on state and local obligations was still exempt.

But what Rose never mentions is that all of these prior decisions were overruled by the Court itself, the last instance occurring in South Carolina v. Baker, 85 U.S. 505 (1988), in which the Court held that interest income from state and local obligations could be subject to federal taxation. So since 1988 there is no kind of income that’s constitutionally exempt except certain income earned by state and local governments.

He also misrepresents the regulation under Section 861 as somehow exempting some income from taxation. It doesn’t.

He lies about his trial as well. Rose never properly put his legal theory before the court (which if it had been correct would have dispensed with the need for a trial), but instead tried a so-called Cheek defense (named after the defendant in a 1991 SCOTUS case). Because Rose was charged with a specific intent offence (i.e., the government had do prove he acted willfully) and because the Court had held in the Cheek case that a sincere belief that one’s income isn’t taxable, however objectively unreasonable, is a defense to willfulness, he tried to persuade the jury that he really believed in his theory. But the jury saw right thjrough him and didn’t buy his B.S.

 

[Danke]

Like I said, cjm