About taxation, Napolitano writes that it “violates natural property rights.” So true, as government is ultimately about force, and while we hand over a lot of what we earn to the government, many of us don’t do so because we want to. Worse, as evidenced by the federal government’s ability to raise and lower our taxes, Napolitano sees within this a governmental presumption that it has the right to take as much of our income as it wishes. Scary stuff, and a reminder of how much better a simple national sales tax would be for the latter allowing Americans to choose through their consumption how much of their income they’d like to share with the feds.

As it stands now, Napolitano writes that “The government decides what it will take from you and what you may keep from it.” The Founders cannot have envisioned this over 200 years ago. Indeed, it seems we have it backwards now whereby we pay the vast majority of our taxes to the federal government, and less to the local governments under whose laws we should mostly live. Justice Brandeis’ view of states as “laboratories” of ideas has been perverted in the worst of ways.

The legal ‘right’ to income taxation was made with the 16’th Ammendment.

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.

However, earlier, we find this: Article I Section 9.

(No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.)

Well ‘income tax’ is not proportional. Thus, the 16’th Amendment should have been found to be illegal. Why was it not?

To find out, you need to find the justification of the Supreme Court, who of course arrogated the un-constitutional power of Judicial Review in the first place. The 16’th doesn’t merit a place here

First off, was the ‘law’ promulgated by Congress even legal? This chap certainly doesn’t think so: Bill Benson

The plot thickens:

What is not widely known about the Brushaber decision is the essence of the ruling. Contrary to widespread legal opinion which has persisted even until now, the Supreme Court ruled that taxation on income is an indirect tax, not a direct tax. The Supreme Court also ruled that the 16th Amendment did not change or repeal any part of the Constitution, nor did it authorize any direct tax without apportionment. To illustrate the persistence of wrong opinions, on a recent vacation to Montana, I had occasion to visit the federal building in the city of Missoula. On the wall outside the Federal District Court, Room 263, a printed copy of the U.S. Constitution is displayed in text which annotates the 16th Amendment with the following statement:

Clearly that is incorrect. The income tax is a direct tax.

Unfortunately for Justice White, most of the language he chose to write the majority’s opinion, and the resulting logic contained therein, are tortuously convoluted and almost totally unintelligible, even to college-educated English majors. In his wonderful tour de force entitled Tax Scam, author Alan Stang quips that Justice White:

… turned himself into a pretzel trying to justify the new tax without totally junking the Constitution

The case and the decision are found here.

Advertisements