Comments on: Is the Income Tax Unconstitutional?

By: tbrew

tbrew — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 18:23:08 +0000

I think a consumption tax is a far better way to go.

By: tbrew

tbrew — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 17:59:43 +0000

One of the founders said basically that you can’t tax a person on their labor. The money one earns from the expenditure of their own energy or life force isn’t what I would define as “income”- I should rather think that it would be understood as “compensation”. It’s too democratic and unfair for the people and the behemoth of big government to ride on the coat-tails of the industrious.

By: MickeyG

MickeyG — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 21:29:04 +0000

All this taxation is killing the host. The only redeeming qualities of fiat money and a democracy is, the all eventually die.

By: Christopher Muir

Christopher Muir — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 01:28:47 +0000

Mihmz, have you never gone to the doctor, and taken the prescription he’s written for your ailment? The study of basic human anatomy, much less pharmacology, requires an ability to analyze and use language far beyond anything said on this site. Article 1, Section 8 is pretty clear on this matter (though parts of the Constitution don’t read so easily). But your fear of conceptual complexity is common, if not entirely warranted. If an idea or the language used to express that idea seems scary, ask what possible motivations led the author to use such language. In this case, the author has done a remarkable job of hiding his true motivations if you think he’s simply an apologist for the I.R.S. In truth, the ideas behind direct and indirect taxation, the source of much of the confusion regarding the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the U.S. Government’s ability to tax incomes, was fuzzy when the Framers went about writing up the Constitution. It remains fuzzy for a few of the above posters, apparently. Sometimes, only complicated ideas and abstruse wording can properly define the issue at hand… .

By: GG

GG — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 12:19:46 +0000

Isn’t it the real argument that the taxes paid on income don’t go to the government, but instead it goes to pay the interest accumulated on the money borrowed from the federal reserve?

By: Even If There Was A Fire

Even If There Was A Fire — Mon, 30 May 2011 14:38:39 +0000

@Mihmz – This article was well written and there was nothing that can be seen as misleading or “brain washing”. Your comment “If you cannot use common well understood language then you cant be trusted” is ignorant. You assume that anything over your comprehension level is a threat. That’s not the author brain washing you, that’s your lack of education. Your fault, not his. This country has been dumbed down enough as it is, we don’t need it to go any further just because you don’t understand big words.

By: Mihmz

Mihmz — Mon, 30 May 2011 05:32:40 +0000

after rereading it it seems like some kind of brainwash he is pushing , from this article alone I do not trust this site already,
If you cannot use common well understood language then you cant be trusted

By: Mihmz

Mihmz — Mon, 30 May 2011 05:29:50 +0000

You know what I just stumbled onto this site
The author of this is using trickery and terminology that could not be understood by over 50 percent of the population
this tells me he does not speak for us , that he is speaking down to us.

By: Context Matters

Context Matters — Sun, 29 May 2011 23:47:51 +0000

Re: Anthony Holt

If you actually read the decision that you cite (Peck & Co. v. Lowe) it affirms Congress’s general income taxation power. The reference to “new or excepted subjects” is a reference to certain exports that couldn’t be taxed for various reasons. But, a full quote from the holding of the case validates a general income tax:

“The tax in question is unlike any of those heretofore condemned . . . On the contrary, it is an income tax laid generally on net incomes. And while it cannot be applied to any income which Congress has no power to tax (see Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., supra, 240 U. S. p. 113, 36 Sup. Ct. 278, 60 L. Ed. 546), it is both nominally and actually a general tax. It is not laid on income from exportation because of its source, or in a discriminative way, but just as it is laid on other income. . . . If articles manufactured and intended for export are subject to taxation under general laws up to the time they are put in course of exportation, as we have seen they are, the conclusion is unavoidable that the net income from the venture when completed, that is to say, after the exportation and sale are fully consummated, is likewise subject to taxation under general laws.
For these reasons we hold that the objection urged against the tax is not well grounded.”

By: awoor667

awoor667 — Thu, 05 May 2011 02:47:44 +0000

@Rosco1776: It wasn’t passed on Christmas Eve. It was passed on July 2, 1909 and ratified on February 13, 1913. While I would submit to the argument that the time that passed between passage and ratification is indicative of some level of disagreement over the amendment, the fact is, it was neither passed nor ratified on or near Christmas, Easter, Thanksgiving, or anything else. Unless you consider a preoccupation with Independence Day or St. Valentine’s Day to be the reason it passed, your argument fails.