US Income Tax - Unconstitutional

[Azselendor]

Atrocities, you forget the states and local governments can do pretty much whatever they want if the federal government hasn't claimed it.

The way it is phrased, the 16th amendment, when used under Article One of the United States Constitution at section eight or better known as the "Necessary-and-proper clause", clause 18 gives the government the power to tax any income as it would be an "Income Tax".

Now the states and local government under the 10th amendment pretty much have the right to abuse the people and tax them all they want -- which they routinely do. Down here in Orlando, we have several highways going in and out of town, but only one is toll free. That's the county nickel and dime'ing the locals. The city of orlando is constantly "tweaking" property appraisals which increase the taxation of property without a tax hike (ie, higher property values mean higher taxes). And the state of florida seems to be on the verge of dropping the low sales tax in favor of a steep services tax on small businesses and out of state distributors.

So really, is it the Income Tax being a burden or the States abusing their powers... again!

Mindi, your situation is insanity, hopefully you and richard both can get out of it or the situation changes soon.

[Mindi]

Thanks Azselendor, unfortunately I don't expect things to change around here anytime soon. We're just going to get to the point where we can move and try to move out into the country outside of city jurisdiction so we won't have to worry about being taxed twice..also much closer to Richard's full time job as commuting as much as he does is a royal pain in the you know where, lol.

[capnq]

Atrocities said: please don't attack me because I posted the information.

I apologize for snapping at you, but I was complaining about being accused of dismissing it as BS, not about you posting it.

I am too stressed out right now to pay any further attention to this thread.

[Atrocities]

I wish you well Capnq. Stress can be a killer.

[Baron Munchausen]

Phoenix-D said:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

All that says is the tax law can't vary from state to state.

The clause at issue is this:

Section 9, Article 4. No capitation, or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

<<"Capitation" means 'head tax' or tax on individuals. Supposedly this was altered by 16th Amendment, but a Supreme Court decision claims otherwise.>>

16th Amendment

Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.

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

Notice that the 16th Amendment does not mention "capitation" -- that is, direct taxes on individuals. So, maybe the Supreme Court was right?

[Atrocities]

Thank you Baron. I was looking for a way to explain the complexities of this issue and you cut right through and nailed the crux of it.

[Phoenix-D]

Baron: first, that was for another part of the argument, not the original post. See AT's post right above that one.

Second, read Amendment 16 again. "The congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever sources derived. That overrides Section 9 article 4 prett clearly, and I'd be curious to see the Court case that says otherwise.

[Atrocities]

The thing is, does this Amendment mean "lay and collect taxes on incomes whatever sources derived" for individuals for for cooperations? I don't believe the Amendment was clear in that regard and that is one of the reasons why the Supreme Court ruled that the Amendment did not give the Government the right to levy new taxes against individuals because up to that point only cooperations were being charged an income tax.

[Phoenix-D]

From whatever sources derived is pretty clear AT, and I have yet to see a Court decision that says otherwise.

[Baron Munchausen]

Yeah, after posting I considered the problem of context. Even the original clause doesn't prohibit the 'capitation' taxes, it just says they have to be proportioned according to the census. Implicitly, then, they are already allowed under that condition. So you can see how the SC would say 'the 16th Amendment didn't grant any new powers of taxation' (it just removed a restriction on how they are applied) and the angry people who thought it did wouldn't understand that it meant 'you don't have a case' rather than 'we agree with you'.