Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: taxtruth

We need to end the incometax

True:

"A hand from Washington will be stretched out and placed upon every man's business; the eye of the federal inspector will be in every man's counting house....The law will of necessity have inquisical features, it will provide penalties, it will create complicated machinery. Under it men will be hauled into courts distant from their homes. Heavy fines imposed by distant and unfamiliar tribunals will constantly menace the tax payer. An army of federal inspectors, spies, and detectives will descend upon the state."
-- Virginian House Speaker Richard E. Byrd, 1910, predicting the consequences of an income tax.

I discussed the importance of abolishing the income tax because of its tendency to form a habit of servility in the souls of a people that accepts it.

Servility of soul is bad not only in itself, it is also an open door through which will soon walk the abuses of ambitious government power.

Leaders who find themselves with governmental power over a servile people will be quick to conclude that such a people exist to serve them.

Alan Keyes 1999

 

and not replace it with anything.

***POOF*** all gone.

And just how do you propose to get this magical thing done through Congress?

 

James Madison, Elliots Debates Vol 3 p128:

Federalist #12:

 


We need no head taxes at all because they are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

If you are speaking of "Poll" taxes that are made a requirement for voting, that is true by the XXIV Amendment.

However, a general "Head" tax otherwise known as capitation taxes are allowed under the Constitution if applied by the rule of apportionment and the right to vote is not predicated on their payment.

head tax
: a tax that imposes the same amount of tax on every individual in a class or group

 

Constitution for the United States of America:

Article I Section 2 clause 3: "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers"

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

OTOH I would submit there are perfectly good reasons for no "head taxes" even if they are technically possible under the Constitution. In fact superior alternatives to such abound and is why"head taxes" are no longer used by the national government:

[Montesquieu wrote in Spirit of the Laws, XIII,c.14:]

Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention June 12, 1788:

Federalist #12:

Since, head and other direct (e.g. land) taxes are not the only taxes authorized under the Constitution.

Constitution for the United States of America:

Article I Section 8: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,
to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;
but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; "

Hylton v. United States(1796), 3 U.S. 171

  • "A general power is given to Congress, to lay and collect taxes, of every kind or nature, without any restraint, except only on exports; but two rules are prescribed for their government, namely, uniformity and apportionment: Three kinds of taxes, to wit, duties, imposts, and excises by the first rule, and capitation, or other direct taxes, by the second rule. "
  • "the present Constitution was particularly intended to affect individuals, and not states, except in particular cases specified: And this is the leading distinction between the articles of Confederation and the present Constitution."
  • "Uniformity is an instant operation on individuals, without the intervention of assessments, or any regard to states,"
  • "[T]he DIRECT TAXES contemplated by the Constitution, are only two, to wit, A CAPITATION OR POLL TAX, simply, without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance; and a tax on LAND."
  •  

    KNOWLTON v. MOORE, 178 U.S. 41 (1900)

    BROMLEY v. MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929)

    Tyler v. U.S. 281 U.S. 497, 502 (1930)

    laid principally upon the activities and transactions of commerce:

    The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787
    (Farrand's Records)
    James Mchenry before the Maryland House of Delegates.
    Maryland Novr. 29th 1787--
    Appendix A, CXLVIa, page 149, S9.

    "Convention have also provided against any direct or Capitation Tax but according to an equal proportion among the respective States: This was thought a necessary precaution though it was the idea of every one that government would seldom have recourse to direct Taxation, and that the objects of Commerce would be more than Sufficient to answer the common exigencies of State and should further supplies be necessary, the power of Congress would not be exercised while the respective States would raise those supplies in any other manner more suitable to their own inclinations --"

    A LAW DICTIONARY
    by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:

    "COMMERCE, trade, contracts
    .
    The exchange of commodities for commodities; considered in a legal point of view, it consists in the various agreements which have for their object to facilitate the exchange of the products of the earth or industry of man, with an intent to realize a profit. Pard. Dr. Coin. n. 1. In a narrower sense, commerce signifies any reciprocal agreements between two persons, by which one delivers to the other a thing, which the latter accepts, and for which he pays a consideration; if the consideration be money, it is called a sale; if any other thing than money, it is called exchange or barter. Domat, Dr. Pub. liv. 1, tit. 7, s. 1, n. "

    A LAW DICTIONARY
    by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:

    DUTIES.
    In its most enlarged sense, this word is nearly equivalent to taxes, embracing all impositions or charges levied on persons or things;

    A LAW DICTIONARY
    by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:

    EXCISES.
    This word is used to signify an inland imposition, paid sometimes upon the consumption of the commodity, and frequently upon the retail sale.


    37 posted on 05/09/2004 11:07:07 AM PDT by ancient_geezer (Equality, the French disease: Everyone is equal beneath the guillotine.)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]


    To: ancient_geezer
    We will not sink AG as you think.We will hold steadfast.You are not an AMERICAN PATRIOT,You are a political NO NOTHING.You stand for zero in the 50 states.
    We make no deals with uncle sammy but YOU DO.They are liars and cheaters that have lied to the American people.
    Are you on THEIR side ag?The tables have turned ag.

    40 posted on 05/09/2004 1:00:30 PM PDT by taxtruth
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

    Free Republic
    Browse · Search
    News/Activism
    Topics · Post Article


    FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
    FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson