Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldenboy219   It figures you have no comprehension on what part of the constitution allows for an income tax. Imagine that, a person employed to enforce the law doesnt even have moderate knowledge of the constitution... |
Unfortunately, he's right and you're wrong.
Quote:
|
Guess what Jeff, article 1 section 8 isnt it. That just allows for things such as a sales tax, excise, tariffs, etc. Ever wonder why there wasnt a true federally sponsered income tax until 1913???
|
Wrong. Federal income taxes did exist before the ratification of the 16th amendment - they were just subject to more stringent regulation in that they were considered excise taxes and were treated differently based on how the income was earned. The 16th amendment simply removed those restrictions and allowed the government more leeway in shaping tax policy. See
Pollock v. Farmer's Loan for a discussion of how the federal income tax was handled pre-1895.
Quote:
|
The 16th amendment is IMHO illegal only due to the fact it was ratified in an unlawful manner.
|
This is also completely false. It's a conspiracy theory spouted by tax protesters who don't know what they're talking about and has no basis in reality.
Quote:
|
This notion is constantly bounced back between congress and the Supreme Court to no avail.
|
If by "bounced back between Congress and SCOTUS" you mean completely ignored by the court system and unaddressed by the legislature, then yea.
Quote:
|
Some interesting precedents: "Brushaber v Union Pacific Railroad",
|
Uh, Brushaber completely validated the 16th amendment and confirmed the constitutionality of the income tax.
Redfield was a minor case occurring nearly 80 years ago that in no way indicated anything beyond its limited holding. Furthermore, see
Department of Revenue v. Clark for an instance where the Court specifically declines to extend Redfield beyond its original reach.
Quote:
|
and "Jack Cole v Commissioner"...
|
It's actually
Jack Cole v. MacFarland. And if you'd done your research, you'd know
a) This case only distinguished the way legislatures could classify taxes, not the ability to levy taxes in general
b) It doesn't matter either way, because Cole was overturned anyways.
For someone who was so eager to mock others for supposedly not knowing what they were talking about, you don't seem to have much of an idea of how this works.