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

[jmdrake]

Got news for you: The Supreme Court, not Investopedia, decides what a direct tax (as that term is used in the Constitution) is, and it has said that the only direct taxes are capitations and taxes on the ownership of real and personal property.

Yeah....the Supreme Court upheld "separate but equal" until it didn't. Same for abortion. Regardless of the Supreme Court or the constitution, demanding people tell the government how much money they make each year is immoral.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Got news for you: The Supreme Court, not Investopedia, decides what a direct tax (as that term is used in the Constitution) is, and it has said that the only direct taxes are capitations and taxes on the ownership of real and personal property.

Got news for you, paid troll. Investopedia is not crackpot and I'm not aware that they are tax protesters.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Got news for you, paid troll. Investopedia is not crackpot and I'm not aware that they are tax protesters.

Unless the editors at Investopedia are knuckle-dragging cretins, its article that you quoted isn't using "direct tax" in the constitutional sense. However, the editor who let the following blunder get through must've been abysmally ignorant of history:

This antiquated verbiage [the Direct Tax Clauses] created a situation in which the federal government could not impose many direct taxes, such as a personal income tax, due to apportionment requirements. However, the advent of the 16th Amendment changed the tax code and allowed for the levying of numerous direct and indirect taxes.

The Civil War income tax was upheld by a unanimous Supreme Court 32 years before the 16th Amendment. It wasn't until the 1895 Pollock case that taxes on investment income (but not other types of income, such as pay-for-work) were held to be direct taxes requiring apportionment.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Unless the editors at Investopedia are knuckle-dragging cretins, its article that you quoted isn't using "direct tax" in the constitutional sense. However, the editor who let the following blunder get through must've been abysmally ignorant of history:



The Civil War income tax was upheld by a unanimous Supreme Court 32 years before the 16th Amendment. It wasn't until the 1895 Pollock case that taxes on investment income (but not other types of income, such as pay-for-work) were held to be direct taxes requiring apportionment.

You asked the question by whose definition?
I gave you answer that upset your so-called crackpot theory.

btw, the author is correct. Constitutionally encoding meant that more roadblocks were averted and further cemented these taxes. Nice try, though.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Yeah....the Supreme Court upheld "separate but equal" until it didn't. Same for abortion. Regardless of the Supreme Court or the constitution, demanding people tell the government how much money they make each year is immoral.

Paid troll Tufts thinks that disagreeing with the judges makes one a "crackpot."

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Why is Sonny Tufts spending so much time here during busy tax season?

 

[Sonny Tufts]

btw, the author is correct. Constitutionally encoding meant that more roadblocks were averted and further cemented these taxes. Nice try, though.

He's wrong in saying Congress couldn't impose an unapportioned income tax before the 16th Amendment. The fact is it could and it did.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

He's wrong in saying Congress couldn't impose an unapportioned income tax before the 16th Amendment. The fact is it could and it did.

Paid troll,

The author didn't say that.

 

[Occam's Banana]

[...] shill

[...] Paid troll [...]

[...] paid troll [...]

[...] paid troll [...]

[...] paid troll [...]

Paid troll [...]

Paid troll [...]

Per this post, please stop doing this.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Paid troll,

The author didn't say that.

I suggest you read it again:

This antiquated verbiage [the Direct Tax Clauses] created a situation in which the federal government could not impose many direct taxes, such as a personal income tax, due to apportionment requirements. However, the advent of the 16th Amendment changed the tax code and allowed for the levying of numerous direct and indirect taxes.

The author was obviously oblivious to the Springer case, which rejected the claim that the personal income tax was a direct tax.