Today's Federal tax on earned wages may violate our Constitution.

[johnwk]

.
For the record, let us all acknowledge that the Sixteenth Amendment is part of our Constitution, and it declares:

”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.”

Now keep in mind the Sixteenth Amendment does not declare:

”The 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.”


Nor does the Sixteenth Amendment declare:


"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on earned wages, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."


Additionally, our Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed, after the adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment, direct taxes laid by Congress are still required to be apportioned.

For example, if Congress, under the authority of the Sixteenth Amendment, asserts to be taxing incomes, but the tax, as it is applied, takes the form of a direct tax, and it is not being apportioned, the Supreme Court will strike the tax down as violating the constitutional protection requiring direct taxes to be apportioned, "notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment", as stated in EISNER v. MACOMBER , 252 U.S. 189 (1920):

"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."
.
.
Seems relatively obvious when considering the above stated FACTS, the contention made by some that today's federal tax on a working person's earned wages may very well violate our federal constitution and has great merit for the following reasons:

Today's federal tax on earned wages is not in harmony with the original objective of adopting the Sixteenth Amendment which was to allow for a federal tax on “unearned” incomes [stocks, bonds, etc.] as can be contrasted from “earned” wages.

Today’s federal tax on a working person’s earned wages takes the form of a direct tax, is not being apportioned, and thus violates the constitutional protection requiring direct taxes to be apportioned.

Finally, and in respect of the Sixteenth Amendment and calculating today’s federal tax on earned wages “ . . . it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not "income," as the term is there used; and to apply the distinction, as cases arise, according to truth and substance, without regard to form. Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.” EISNER v. MACOMBER , 252 U.S. 189 (1920)

Today’s federal tax on earned wages does not follow the set rules laid out in EISNER V. MACOMBER to calculate and distinguish what portion, if any, of a working person’s earn wages falls within the definition of “incomes” as the term is used in the Sixteenth Amendment.

JWK

Why have a written constitution, approved by the people, if those who it is meant to control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?

 

[cjm]

inb4 Sonny

 

[Sonny Tufts]

FACT #1: Wages were taxable before the 16th Amendment because SCOTUS held in 1881 that a tax on wages was not a direct tax.

FACT #2: Neither the 16th Amendment nor the Macomber case changed Fact #1. Macomber stated, "For the present purpose, we require only a clear definition of the term "income," as used in common speech, in order to determine its meaning in the amendment, and, having formed also a correct judgment as to the nature of a stock dividend, we shall find it easy to decide the matter at issue.

After examining dictionaries in common use (Bouv. L.D.; Standard Dict.; Webster's Internat. Dict.; Century Dict.), we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 (Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U. S. 399, 231 U. S. 415; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U. S. 179, 247 U. S. 185), "Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined..."

FACT #3: SCOTUS has repeatedly held that pay-for-work is taxable -- e.g., "There is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them....” Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111, 114 (1930); "[The tax code] is broad enough to include in taxable income any economic or financial benefit conferred on the employee as compensation, whatever the form or mode by which it is effected.” C.I.R. v. Smith, 324 U.S. 177 (1945).

FACT #4: SCOTUS has characterized the argument that wages aren't income as "frivolous" and an "incredible". In Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991), while the majority and dissenters disagreed on the issue of willfulness they all agreed that the argument that wages aren't income is nonsense.

From the majority opinion: "Cheek asserted in the trial court that he should be acquitted because he believed in good faith that the income tax law is unconstitutional as applied to him, and thus could not legally impose any duty upon him of which he should have been aware. Such a submission is unsound, not because Cheek's constitutional arguments are not objectively reasonable or frivolous, which they surely are, but because the Murdock-Pomponio line of cases does not support such a position... It was therefore error to instruct the jury to disregard evidence of Cheek’ s understanding that, within the meaning of the tax laws, he was not a person required to file a return or to pay income taxes and that wages are not taxable income, as incredible as such misunderstandings of and beliefs about the law might be.”

From the dissent: "...it is incomprehensible to me how, in this day, more than 70 years after the institution of our present federal income tax system with the passage of the Revenue Act of 1913, 38 Stat. 166, any taxpayer of competent mentality can assert as his defense to charges of statutory willfulness the proposition that the wage he receives for his labor is not income, irrespective of a cult that says otherwise and advises the gullible to resist income tax collections."

FACT #5: No one has ever avoided being taxed on their pay-for-work by arguing that such a tax is a direct tax or that pay-for-work isn't income. To the contrary, many who have made such claims have been fined by the courts for making frivolous arguments.

In addition to gullibility, one can add stupidity to explain the argument that a tax on pay-for-work is unconstitutional.

 

[jkr]

Ohio never certified

FACT

EAT IT

 

[johnwk]

What is, and what is not, taxable income under the Sixteenth Amendment

FACT #1

< cut for brefity >

Your post has nothing to do with what I actually wrote in the OP.


In any event, and with regard to the meaning of "incomes" as it appears in the Sixteenth Amendment, we find that meaning in Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920):


"After examining dictionaries in common use (Bouv. L. D.; Standard Dict.; Webster's Internat. Dict.; Century Dict.), we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 (Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 , 34 S. Sup. Ct. 136, 140 [58 L. Ed. 285]; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 [62 L. Ed. 1054]), 'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,' provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle Case, 247 U.S. 183, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 (62 L. Ed. 1054). Brief as it is, it indicates the characteristic and distinguishing attribute of income essential for a correct solution of the present controversy. The Government, although basing its argument upon the definition as quoted, placed chief emphasis upon the word "gain," which was extended to include a variety of meanings; while the significance of the next three words was either overlooked or misconceived. " Derived — from — capital;" — "the gain — derived — from — capital," etc. Here we have the essential matter: not a gain accruing to capital, not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value proceeding from the property, severed from the capital however invested or employed, and coming in, being "derived," that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal; — that is income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description."


So, we now learn that all money that comes in is not “income” within the meaning of the 16th Amendment, but only that portion which represents a “profit” or “gain”. Keep in mind also that “profits“ or “gains, are calculated by deducting all necessary expenses and outlay from gross receipts …the remaining portion being “profit” and or “gain“!

It seems to be self-evident that a wage earner does in fact invest capital in pursuit of earning a wage, e.g., the cost of transportation to and from work; the cost of food which fuels the wage earners body during working hours; the costs involved with housing, medical needs, and even clothing are all expenses incurred by the wage earner and are necessary expenses and outlays which makes one’s labor possible. And this does not even take into account the “investment” of eight hours of life itself which the wage earner makes available to their employer, and that is in addition to the actual physical and mental labor invested by the wage earner, which is also made available to their employer.

So, the question to be answered here is, why is the capitalist allowed, and rightly so, to deduct their capital investments from money coming in, to arrive at their taxable income as per Eisner, while the wage earner is not?



Let us now note that the income from an illegal business was held subject to income tax in United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259. Nevertheless, it was necessary to determine what that income was, and the cost of an illegal purchase of liquor was subtracted from proceeds of the illegal sale of the liquor in order to arrive at the gain from the illegal transaction which were then subjected to income tax in that case .

And, in Sullenger vs. Commissioner the Court allowed the business owner [who made illegal purchases of meat] to deduct the cost of meat purchased at a higher price then set by the Office of Price Administration, which he then resold for profit. The “income” from those sales was being taxed and was at issue in the case. The Court went on to cite Sullivan and concluded: “No authority has been cited for denying to this taxpayer the cost of goods sold in computing his profit, which profit alone is gross income for income tax purposes.”

The point being, not only does todays capitalist get to deduct, and rightfully so, their necessary expenses and outlays to arrive at a “taxable income”, but even crooks engaged in illegal and criminal activities are allowed to make such deductions ___ and with the Courts’ blessing ___ when computing their taxable “profit” or “gain”. But today’s lowly wage earner who, although invests in a number of ways, and makes countless outlays to earn a wage, is told to follow a different set of rules which do not recognize the wage earners’ various investments and outlays when calculating a profit or gain from selling the property each has in their own labor.

JWK



The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

 

[dannno]

I believe that income gained from the sale stocks/bonds/property (rental, sale/etc.) is income earned. There is a leftist talking point that you "aren't doing anything" when income comes in passively from these types of investments, even Tim Pool holds this view to an extent and I disagree.

I earned the money to buy the stock/bond/property and I am taking the risk that I might lose it. That is money that I earned that could be completely lost. Conversely, if I make money on those investments that I chose to invest in based on personal research into the investments, I earned it.

I think one reason a lot of people, particularly on the left complain about it is because at times there is excessive amounts of money earned in this manner. This can be blamed on the federal reserve keeping interest rates artificially low. That pushes people and large organizations in particular to take out more loans than they would normally be able to take out in order to invest rather than earning the money to invest. That tends to push the value of these investments upward and artificially inflates the amount earned on these investments for some people and organizations at the expense of the value of the dollar, as well as those holding the investments when the inevitable crash occurs.

So don't demonize the investor, demonize the Fed.

 

[johnwk]

I believe that income gained from the sale stocks/bonds/property (rental, sale/etc.) is income earned. There is a leftist talking point that you "aren't doing anything" when income comes in passively from these types of investments, even Tim Pool holds this view to an extent and I disagree.

I earned the money to buy the stock/bond/property and I am taking the risk that I might lose it. That is money that I earned that could be completely lost. Conversely, if I make money on those investments that I chose to invest in based on personal research into the investments, I earned it.

I think one reason a lot of people, particularly on the left complain about it is because at times there is excessive amounts of money earned in this manner. This can be blamed on the federal reserve keeping interest rates artificially low. That pushes people and large organizations in particular to take out more loans than they would normally be able to take out in order to invest rather than earning the money to invest. That tends to push the value of these investments upward and artificially inflates the amount earned on these investments for some people and organizations at the expense of the value of the dollar, as well as those holding the investments when the inevitable crash occurs.

So don't demonize the investor, demonize the Fed.

I too do not demonize the investor. I follow the rule of law, and not what some pretend it means.

Having said that, and to confirm what you say above about the investor allegedly not doing anything to earn a profit, see the following defining “profit” which is found in my 1925-26 Bouviers Law Dictionary:

"This is a word of very extended signification. In commerce, it means the advance in the price of goods sold beyond the cost of purchase. In distinction from the wages of labor, it is well understood to imply the net return to the capital of stock employed, after deducting all the expenses, including not only the wages of those employed by the capitalist, but the wages of the capitalist himself for superintending the employment of his capital or stock. Adam Smith, Wealth of Nat. b. i. c. 6 and M’Culloch’s Notes; Mill, Polit. Econ. C. 15"


That quote inspired my thinking a long time ago about the wage earner's investments and outlays made, that make the wage earner's labor possible when selling the property each has in their own labor. Should we not apply the same rules for deductions to compute a wage earner's profit as the capitalist rightfully uses to arrive at a profit, and or gain?

JWK

 

[oyarde]

You guys need to quit speculating in taxable assets and use those that are not.

 

[cjm]

You guys need to quit speculating in taxable assets and use those that are not.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to oyarde again.

 

[Swordsmyth]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to oyarde again.

Covered.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Ohio never certified

FACT

EAT IT

Learn some history. The income tax was authorized by Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the original Constitution. That's why the Civil War income tax was upheld by a unanimous Supreme Court 32 years before the 16th Amendment. The only reason the 16th Amendment was needed was to overturn the 1895 Pollock case which had held that a tax on investment income such as interest and dividends was a tax on the property producing the income and therefore a direct tax that had to be apportioned. The case went out of its way to note that taxes on other kinds of income, including pay-for-work, were excises that don't have to be apportioned.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

So, the question to be answered here is, why is the capitalist allowed, and rightly so, to deduct their capital investments from money coming in, to arrive at their taxable income as per Eisner, while the wage earner is not?

The short answer is that the Supreme Court and every other court in the country have consistently held that wages, without any reduction for living expenses, are income for purposes of the federal income tax. Your apparent belief that a 99 year old legal dictionary has more authority than SCOTUS decisions is really something.

I've previously cited you the Reading case in which the court explained why wage earners can't deduct living expenses as if they were comparable to the cost of goods sold deduction, and I've also explained how incredibly difficult it would be to allocate living expenses between income-producing activity and leisure activity, not to mention the need to capitalize certain expenses. I suggest you review that material again. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...-communist-progressive-income-tax-alive/page7

 

[jkr]

Learn some history. The income tax was authorized by Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the original Constitution. That's why the Civil War income tax was upheld by a unanimous Supreme Court 32 years before the 16th Amendment. The only reason the 16th Amendment was needed was to overturn the 1895 Pollock case which had held that a tax on investment income such as interest and dividends was a tax on the property producing the income and therefore a direct tax that had to be apportioned. The case went out of its way to note that taxes on other kinds of income, including pay-for-work, were excises that don't have to be apportioned.

YOU learn some history

Ohio

never

ratified

there is no standing law to create a professional thief class in this nation

your friends are breaking the law

learn some history asshole...wow

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

FACT #1:

FACT #2:



FACT #3:

FACT #4:


FACT #5:

Fact #6: You are paid to post on this forum.

 

[mrsat_98]

FACT #1: Wages were taxable before the 16th Amendment because SCOTUS held in 1881 that a tax on wages was not a direct tax.

Whose wages are you refering to ?

Evidence in this record establishes the income of a vast majority of the people in this state consist only of wages, salaries, and commissions. It would indeed be difficult to think these people, in adopting the Constitution, understood a tax on such earnings is NOT an income tax.

http://https://law.justia.com/cases/louisiana/supreme-court/1987/87-ca-0378-1.html#:~:text=Evidence%20in%20this%20record%20establishes%20the%20income%20of%20a%20vast%20majority%20of%20the%20people%20in%20this%20state%20consist%20only%20of%20wages%2C%20salaries%2C%20and%20commissions.%20It%20would%20indeed%20be%20difficult%20to%20think%20these%20people%2C%20in%20adopting%20the%20Constitution%2C%20understood%20a%20tax%20on%20such%20earnings%20is%20not%20an%20income%20tax.

 

[johnwk]

The short answer is that the Supreme Court and every other court in the country have consistently held that wages, without any reduction for living expenses, are income for purposes of the federal income tax. Your apparent belief that a 99 year old legal dictionary has more authority than SCOTUS decisions is really something.

I've previously cited you the Reading case in which the court explained why wage earners can't deduct living expenses as if they were comparable to the cost of goods sold deduction, and I've also explained how incredibly difficult it would be to allocate living expenses between income-producing activity and leisure activity, not to mention the need to capitalize certain expenses. I suggest you review that material again. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...-communist-progressive-income-tax-alive/page7

In regard to the question (". . . why is the capitalist allowed, and rightly so, to deduct their capital investments from money coming in, to arrive at their taxable income as per Eisner, while the wage earner is not" ) you say the Supreme Court and every other court in the country . . . cut for brevity.

Your answer ignores how one arrives at taxable income as stated in Eisner by our Supreme Court:


"After examining dictionaries in common use (Bouv. L. D.; Standard Dict.; Webster's Internat. Dict.; Century Dict.), we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 (Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 , 34 S. Sup. Ct. 136, 140 [58 L. Ed. 285]; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 [62 L. Ed. 1054]), 'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,' provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle Case, 247 U.S. 183, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 (62 L. Ed. 1054). Brief as it is, it indicates the characteristic and distinguishing attribute of income essential for a correct solution of the present controversy. The Government, although basing its argument upon the definition as quoted, placed chief emphasis upon the word "gain," which was extended to include a variety of meanings; while the significance of the next three words was either overlooked or misconceived. " Derived — from — capital;" — "the gain — derived — from — capital," etc. Here we have the essential matter: not a gain accruing to capital, not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value proceeding from the property, severed from the capital however invested or employed, and coming in, being "derived," that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal; — that is income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description."

.

The bottom line is, wage earners, who work for their money, do make capital outlays and various kinds of investments and other outlays, which are essential to make their labor possible, and reading through the Eisner case, those who have money working, as opposed to those who work for their money, get to deduct from money coming in as quoted above. What is the reasoning as to why the same rules do not apply to the wage earner who works for their money?

.

 

[oyarde]

Please keep in mind supreme court is made up of judges who were once lawyers. Who basically have a proven track record of being so dim they cannot understand the most simple of sentences. Like " shall not be infringed". These are the same type of people who would randomly decide an income tax is not a direct tax. How much more direct could it possibly be ? Current US economic system should be in complete total failure and abandonment sometime in the next 2 or 2 1/4 decades at most. It is in the best interest of young people to do everything they can to keep the most of income possible to prepare for the grim future.

 

[ClaytonB]

YOU learn some history

Ohio

never

ratified

there is no standing law to create a professional thief class in this nation

your friends are breaking the law

learn some history $#@!...wow

Amen. I've done the rounds with Sonny "Brickhead" Tufts. Good luck cracking through that skull, hopefully he donates it to science so they can research how to make an impenetrable vibranium shield from it.

The 16th Amendment was illegally "passed". It was illegally certified, just like our heisted 2020 election was. The crooks behind the architecture of globalist oppression and tyranny have been working at this project for a very long time, on the order of centuries, not decades. And their light-fingered methods are second to none.

No matter what "Brickhead" Tufts claims, the US Constitution makes it very clear that the only taxes which the Federal government may levy in Congress must be apportioned to the 50 States. That's exactly the same apportionment as the House of Representatives and the electors. Article I, Section 2: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union..." Like, if you can read, you know what that means. No PhD required. No law-degree required. No SCOTUS opinion required. It literally just says, "Direct taxes shall be apportioned." BOOM. And in case a later Congress might read this as "this is how direct taxes SHALL be laid, but it doesn't say how they SHALL NOT be laid", the Framers anticipated that serpentine maneuver, as well: "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken." (Art. 1, Sect. 9) In short: No taxation without representation. Article 16 directly contraverts one of the founding principles of the United States. But it technically passed, by one vote, under suspicious circumstances, so have some good old-fashioned DeMoCrAcY right up your ying-yang, America!!

And then we had a century (and counting) of total war. Totally unconnected, of course!

 

[johnwk]

What is and what is not a direct tax

Whose wages are you refering to ?

I believe the poster is referring to the often cited case Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1881) which upheld a tax on "income" as not being direct.


But the fatal flaw in citing Springer as confirmation that a tax on income could not have been considered a direct tax by our Founders, and thus requiring apportionment, is found in Justice Swayne's own words:


"The very elaborate researches of the plaintiff in error have furnished us with nothing from the debates of the State conventions, by whom the Constitution was adopted, which gives us any aid. Hence we may safely assume that no such material exists in that direction . . . "


Well, the assumption was wrong! In fact, there is evidence in the State ratification debates which do articulate characteristics which distinguish a direct tax from one which is indirect.

As an advocate in adopting the Constitution, James Wilson (who was also a prominent delegate to the Constitutional Convention) pointed out during Pennsylvania’s ratification debates that:

“In this Constitution, a power is given to Congress to collect imposts [an indirect type of tax], which is not given by the present Articles of Confederation. A very considerable part of the revenue of the United States will arise from that source; it is the easiest, most just, and most productive method of raising revenue; and it is a safe one, because it is voluntary. No man is obliged to consume more than he pleases, and each buys in proportion only to his consumption." Elliots VOL II, page 467 Wilson


And this very characteristic identifying an indirect tax as a voluntary payment when buying articles of consumption, is again articulated, and more in depth during the Connecticut State Ratification debates by Oliver Ellsworth, who provides the following characteristics distinguishing a direct tax from one which is indirect.


January 7, 1788. [On this Power of Congress to lay Taxes.]

”Direct taxation can go but little way towards raising a revenue. To raise money in this way, people must be provident; they must constantly be laying up money to answer the demands of the collector. But you cannot make people thus provident. If you would do any thing to the purpose, you must come in when they are spending, and take a part with them. This does not take away the tools of a man’s business, or the necessary utensils of his family: it only comes in when he is taking his pleasure, and feels generous; when he is laying out a shilling for superfluities, it takes twopence of it for public use, and the remainder will do him as much good as the whole.”

Ellsworth goes on to note:

“The experiments, which have been made in our own country, show the productive nature of indirect taxes. The imports into the United States amount to a very large sum. They never will be less, but will continue to increase for centuries to come. As the population of our country increases, the imports will necessarily increase. They will increase, because our citizens will choose to be farmers; living independently on their freeholds, rather than to be manufacturers, and work for a groat a day.”

”On the other hand, direct taxes are not voluntary, nor, in general, are they avoidable. And with respect to direct taxes, the anti-federalist minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania warned that direct taxation “…is a tax that, however oppressive in its nature, and unequal in its operation, is certain as to its produce and simple in its collection; it cannot be evaded like the objects of imposts or excise …” ___ See Connecticut ratification debates Elliot’s VOL II, page 191

So, a few characteristics of an indirect tax are, it is voluntarily paid during the taxpayer’s consumption, and safe because no man is obliged to consume more than he pleases, and such a tax are costs added by government to things which individuals are free to acquired or reject, while direct taxes are those which are assessed to the individual by government, are oppressive, and not avoidable.

The bottom line is, the poster who pretends a tax on earned wages is not a direct tax which requires apportionment defies the very words of those who framed our Constitution and participated in its ratification debates.

The question is, why are there so many who pretend that the bread which working people earn when selling the property each has in their own labor, is not a direct tax and requires an apportionment?

JWK

“The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands; and to hinder him from employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property.” ___ Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1884)

 

[Snowball]

the US Constitution makes it very clear that the only taxes which the Federal government may levy in Congress must be apportioned to the 50 States.

The 16th Amendment, like ALL amendments, supercedes Congress.
Since it was ratified by the States as an amendment, it, as an AMENDMENT, AMENDS the Constitution.

The Amendments are the most powerful resource States have to affect Federal change.
You and john just don't like that change. Neither do I, but it's the LAW. LEGALLY.