Posted on 12/21/2021 6:59:33 AM PST by EBH
Unlike the John Mellencamp lyrics from Jack and Diane, “Don’t actually hold onto 16 as long as you can.”
Context The first federal income tax was instituted in 1861 to pay for the Civil War, then repealed in 1872, a few years after the war’s end. After it was reimplemented in 1894, as the first peacetime national income tax, the Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional in the 5–4 decision Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Company, because it wasn’t apportioned according to the states’ populations as the Constitution at the time required. So how to ensure that a potential future federal income tax would be constitutional, without needing to apportion it by state population? By adding a constitutional amendment explicitly authorizing that possibility, which became the 16th Amendment in 1913.
Originally, it only applied to less than 1 percent of the population and taxed about 1 percent of their income. Since then, both of those numbers have skyrocketed, as the government’s expenditures have ballooned correspondingly. In 2019, the last pre-pandemic year, the federal income tax applied to 56 percent of households. While the tax rate itself varies considerably depending on the bracket, across all taxpayers, the average rate in 2018 was 13.3 percent.
What the proposal does
A constitutional amendment proposal would repeal the 16th Amendment, eliminating the federal income tax. If enacted, it would become the second constitutional amendment ever repealed, after 1933’s 21st Amendment ended Prohibition by repealing 1919’s 18th Amendment. It was introduced in the House on October 28 as H.J.Res. 61, by Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH8).
What supporters say
Supporters argue that the federal income tax tells Uncle Sam too much about individual Americans’ finances, and could be replaced with a tax on what Americans do rather than how much they earn.
“If you think about the 16th Amendment, they had to change the Constitution to begin taxing income. Initially, that was only going to target a handful of families in America. And now look at it,” Rep. Davidson said on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal.
“Not only is it a horrible, inefficient way to collect taxes, it’s a massive invasion of privacy. Frankly, the government shouldn’t need to know,” Rep. Davidson continued. “Did somebody pay you? Did you pay somebody? Did you get a gift that was too generous? Did you give a gift that was too generous? Did you buy yourself something? That’s what they collect on average, ordinary citizens.”
His alternative proposal? “I think if we simply tax consumption, we can raise revenue more equitably across our economy.” To replace the money lost from an eliminated federal income tax, the sales tax rate would have to rise to approximately 22 percent. (And sales taxes are inherently regressive, falling harder on people at the lower end of the income scale than the higher.)
What opponents say
The obvious opponents are Democrats who want the federal income tax to be, if anything, increased on the wealthiest Americans rather than repealed entirely. However, another source of opposition comes from an unlikely source: some anti-tax libertarians.
“Surely any champion of freedom wants to get rid of the income tax. And surely the way to really get rid of the income tax is to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Right?” Sheldon Richman, former editor of the Foundation for Economic Education’s The Freeman, wrote. “Wrong. Repealing the Sixteenth Amendment would be a waste of time because its disappearance would change nothing. Alas, Congress could continue to tax incomes (and anything else).”
“As the Anti-federalists warned in 1787 — and the courts have affirmed — the Constitution empowers Congress to tax whatever it wants,” Richman continued, citing 1937’s Supreme Court case New York v. Graves, which expanded the government’s tax-collecting abilities, a decision which still stands. “If we are ever to get rid of the income tax, we’ll have to do it by amending the real constitution — the one in the hearts and minds of the people.”
Odds of passage
Former Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX3) introduced versions of this constitutional amendment in 1996, 1997, 1999, 2001, and 2003. Although Johnson served until 2018, former Rep. Steve King (R-IA4) took up the mantle starting mid-decade, introducing versions in 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015, 2017, and 2019. None of those versions ever received a committee vote.
With Rep. King no longer in office, Rep. Davidson has now picked up the baton. His version of the legislation has attracted 10 cosponsors, all Republicans. It awaits a potential vote in the House Judiciary Committee. Odds of passage are low in the Democratic-controlled chamber.
For ratification, a constitutional amendment must pass with at least two-thirds of the House, two-thirds of the Senate, and three-quarters of the state legislatures (or 38 of the 50). — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
How about Term Limits for all the Critters
Sere tagline.
Only if it actually elimiates the wage tax that is illegally included as income now. wage taxes as direct taxes should only be lawfully collected and apportioned not as they are today.
“If you think about the 16th Amendment, they had to change the Constitution to begin taxing income. Initially, that was only going to target a handful of families in America. And now look at it,” Rep. Davidson said on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal.>>> this statement is wrong. The federal government can tax anything. Direct taxes must be apportioned. For the income direct tax the constitution was changed to get rid of the apportionment requirement. Wages were added by the courts in “Glenshaw Glass” which allowed direct taxes on appurtenances to wealth with out the apportionment. clearly unconstitutional and corrupt.
The reason the founders required a direct tax to be apportioned is that it would end up being a head tax. That even to this day is the only lawful enactment of any direct tax to a citizen of the several states. except for a tax on incomes derived from a source. 16th.
Income taxes pay for abortions, sex changes, bombing civilians, Wuhan bio-weapons development.
In short, they tax us to kill us.
It’s about time we do something about that.
Anyone who thinks this has a chance of happening is overdue for a reality check.
That has about as much of a chance of passing as Chris Christie has on becoming president, of anything.
Take away the money pot that motives political careers and term limits become irrelevant.
I would like to point out that the Fed Gov’t only gets about 50% of revenues from income tax and about 50% of what the govt does is unconstitutional. Start eliminating intrusive agencies. If some of the states like them, they can institute those agencies at the state level.
The 16th amendment was not to authorize a tax on income from wages and salaries. Wages and salaries are considered an excise and as such were already subject to direct taxation. Rather it was to allow taxation on capital, such as, capital gains, stock dividends and interest on bonds. Repeal the 16th amendment and your wages will still be taxed but Wall Street will not be.
The text of the 16th Amendment is as follows:
The Congress shall have the 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.
The year the first permanent federal income tax was levied.
What Did the 16th Amendment Accomplish?
The 16th Amendment allowed Congress to enact the first nationwide income tax, which is now the Federal government's largest source of revenue. Prior to that point, most Federal revenue came from tariffs.
I'm guessing this latest version won't get a committee vote either.
Good start but he 17th amendment is terrible and needs to go also.
How stupid Americans were to change the Constitution to authorize government theft.
I agree....it depends on bureaucrat politicians who are paid from the very taxes this effort would seek to abolish.
Going nowhere.
“How about Term Limits for all the Critters”
Who do you include with “Critters”?
It would need to include staffers and so forth too, else you’d just end up with a lot of people who are the “power behind the throne” of elected officials as they change “bosses” from election to election.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.