The Temporary Victory Tax ghost of 1943 lives on.

[johnwk]

.
In 1943, the decade of WWII, Congress decided to adopt the “Temporary Victory Tax of 1943”, and it was the first time our parents and grandparents were subject to a federal direct tax on the bread they earned from the sweat of their labor. Keep in mind that the Sixteenth Amendment does not read:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Additionally, our very own Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed that Article 1, Section 9, Clause 5, of our Constitution is still in effect which requires “direct” taxes, if laid by Congress, are to be apportioned among the States.

The last time our Supreme Court confirmed any direct tax must be apportioned was in the Obamacare case when Justice Roberts wrote: "The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States."

It is also important to note that after one reviews a wealth of pertinent and contemporary historical documentation (during and just after our Constitution was framed and ratified), they will find the type of federal tax put upon today’s wage earners would most certainly have been considered a direct tax by our Founders ___ essentially, it would have been considered a tax upon the property one has in their own labor ___ and would have to be apportioned among the States.

So, how did our federal government get around having to apportion the “Temporary Victory Tax” of 1943 on wage earners? Surprise! Walt Disney created a propaganda film clip to silence any opposition to the tax, especially any opposition having to do with it being apportioned, by portraying the tax as a patriotic duty to be paid by wage earners, even though they were not subject to an un-apportioned direct tax.

Here is a link to that Disney film clip:

The New Spirit (1942)





The sad fact is, today’s wage earners are still paying the type of direct tax imposed 80 years ago in 1943 called the “Temporary Victory Tax”.

BTW, with regard to our Constitution’s rules regarding apportionment, the two formulas which govern apportionment are:

States’ population
---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S FAIR SHARE
Total U.S. Population


Note also that each State’s number or Representatives, under our Constitution is determined by the rule of apportionment:


State`s Pop.
------------------- X House size (435) = State`s No. of Representatives
U.S. Pop.

The above formula, as intended by our founding fathers, is to ensure that each state’s share of a total amount being raised by Congress by a direct tax is proportionately equal to its representation in Congress, i.e., representation with a proportional financial obligation!

And if the tax is laid directly upon the people by Congress rather than Congress sending each state a bill for its apportioned share, then every taxpayer across the United States is to pay the exact same amount, i.e., one man, one vote, and, one vote, one dollar!

One final note which is important to consider.

With regard to the distinction between a direct and indirect tax, Oliver Elsworth, a delegate to the Convention of 1787 from Connecticut articulates the following characteristics distinguishing a direct tax from one which is indirect during the Connecticut ratification debates.


January 7, 1788. [On this Power of Congress to lay Taxes.]


”Direct taxation can go but little way towards raising a revenue. To raise money in this way, people must be provident; they must constantly be laying up money to answer the demands of the collector. But you cannot make people thus provident. If you would do any thing to the purpose, you must come in when they are spending, and take a part with them. This does not take away the tools of a man's business, or the necessary utensils of his family: it only comes in when he is taking his pleasure, and feels generous; when he is laying out a shilling for superfluities, it takes twopence of it for public use, and the remainder will do him as much good as the whole.”


Elsworth goes on to note:

“The experiments, which have been made in our own country, show the productive nature of indirect taxes. The imports into the United States amount to a very large sum. They never will be less, but will continue to increase for centuries to come. As the population of our country increases, the imports will necessarily increase. They will increase, because our citizens will choose to be farmers; living independently on their freeholds, rather than to be manufacturers, and work for a groat a day.”

”On the other hand, direct taxes are not voluntary, nor, in general, are they avoidable. And with respect to direct taxes, the anti-federalist minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania warned that direct taxation “…is a tax that, however oppressive in its nature, and unequal in its operation, is certain as to its produce and simple in its collection; it cannot be evaded like the objects of imposts or excise …” ___ See Connecticut ratification debates Elliot’s VOL II, page 191

So, a characteristic of an indirect tax is one which is voluntarily paid during the taxpayer’s consumption, and safe because no man is obliged to consume more than he pleases, and such a tax are costs added by government to things which individuals are free to acquired or reject, while direct taxes are those which are assessed to the individual by government, are oppressive, and not avoidable.



The bottom line is, a tax upon the property which a working person earns by the sweat of their labor was, most assuredly, considered to be a direct tax by our founders, and requires an apportionment if laid by the federal government, but the ghost of the Temporary Victory Tax lives on.

JWK

If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection [apportionment] could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895) JUSTICE FULLER

[johnwk]

.


Just for the record, the current federal tax levied on a working person’s earned wage is a "direct" tax and our Constitution commands that . . .

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States . . . "

and . . .

“No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”

Those two commands require our federal government, if it should decide to lay a tax on ordinary working peoples’ earned wages___ a kind of levy which falls within the meaning of a direct tax, e.g. Capitation, Poll, Head or tax upon property ___ it must first determine each State’s apportioned share of a total sum being raised under the tax, and then each taxpayer across the United States would pay the exact same dollar amount, which turns out to be in harmony with . . . one man, one vote, and, one vote, one dollar . . . a just principle commanding Representation with equal taxation!

Let us not forget that even Justice Roberts stated in the Obamacare case dealing with what is called “The shared responsibility payment”:

“The payment is also plainly not a tax on the ownership of land or personal property. The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States.” SOURCE

.
Are we to pretend that the bread which working people earn by the sweat of their labor is not their property, and as such, if federally taxed, the tax must be apportioned?

JWK

“The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands; and to hinder him from employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property.” ___ Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1884)

[johnwk]

.
.
With reference to the Temporary Victory Tax of 1942-3 mentioned in the OP, I just came across the following interesting article on that tax. See: How World War II Still Determines Your Tax Bill


Quote:

“When the modern income tax was introduced in 1913, it was constructed as a tax merely on the very top earners and was essentially irrelevant to most Americans.”

In fact, the 16th Amendment was intended to have those receiving un-earned income contribute a small portion of that un-earned income, to help finance the functions of our federal government and relieve the working poor who "...groan beneath the burdens of tariff taxes ..." as stated during the 1909 Congressional Debates on the adoption of the 16th Amendment SOURCE page 4414, lower left of page.

Also see at the above link,

Mr. HEFLIN. "An income tax seeks to reach the unearned wealth of the country and to make it pay its share." page 4420.

So why are today's wage earners having a federal tax imposed on their earned wages when the tax was intentionally designed to be imposed on "unearned incomes"?

JWK

[Sonny Tufts]

You haven’t learned a thing, have you?

The income tax isn’t a direct tax; it’s an excise upon the receipt of income. However, even if, for the sake of argument, the income tax is viewed as a direct tax, it still needn’t be apportioned because the 26th Amendment, in unambiguous language, says that Congress may impose income taxes without apportionment.

As far as the Founders’ views are concerned, consider Hamilton’s argument in the Hylton case (quoted in Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586, 598 (1881)), in which he said that direct taxes are only “capitation or poll taxes, and taxes on lands and buildings, and general assessments, whether on the whole property of individuals or on their whole real or personal estate. All else must, of necessity, be considered as indirect taxes." (emphasis added). Since the income tax isn’t a capitation, a tax on land, or a tax on one’s whole estate, it’s an indirect tax.

Regarding Chief Justice Roberts’s majority opinion on the Obamacare case, it’s too bad you didn’t have the honesty to quote more of his comments on direct taxes:

Even when the Direct Tax Clause was written it was unclear what else, other than a capitation (also known as a “head tax” or a “poll tax”), might be a direct tax. See Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586, 596–598 (1881). Soon after the framing, Congress passed a tax on ownership of carriages, over James Madison’s objection that it was an unapportioned direct tax. Id., at 597. This Court upheld the tax, in part reasoning that apportioning such a tax would make little sense, because it would have required taxing carriage owners at dramatically different rates depending on how many carriages were in their home State. See Hylton v. United States, 3 Dall. 171, 174 (1796) (opinion of Chase, J.). The Court was unanimous, and those Justices who wrote opinions either directly asserted or strongly suggested that only two forms of taxation were direct: capitations and land taxes. See id., at 175; id., at 177 (opinion of Paterson, J.); id., at 183 (opinion of Iredell, J.).

That narrow view of what a direct tax might be persisted for a century. In 1880, for example, we explained that “direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate.” Springer, supra, at 602. In 1895, we expanded our interpretation to include taxes on personal property and income from personal property, in the course of striking down aspects of the federal income tax. Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601, 618 (1895). That result was overturned by the Sixteenth Amendment, although we continued to consider taxes on personal property to be direct taxes. See Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 218–219 (1920).

While it’s true that the 16th Amendment was intended to overturn the Pollock case and to subject investment income to the income tax, it doesn’t follow that wages and salaries weren’t subject to an income tax. Both the original income tax passed during the Civil War and the Tax Act of 1913 reached wages and salaries, contrary to your claim that “In 1943, the decade of WWII, Congress decided to adopt the “Temporary Victory Tax of 1943”, and it was the first time our parents and grandparents were subject to a federal direct tax on the bread they earned from the sweat of their labor.“ As the Supreme Court later explained,

Moreover, in addition, the conclusion reached in the Pollock case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone, and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it. Nothing could serve to make this clearer than to recall that, in the Pollock case, insofar as the law taxed incomes from other classes of property than real estate and invested personal property -- that is, income from "professions, trades, employments, or vocations"-- its validity was recognized; indeed, it was expressly declared that no dispute was made upon that subject, and attention was called to the fact that taxes on such income had been sustained as excise taxes in the past. Id., p. 158 U. S. 635. The whole law was, however, declared unconstitutional on the ground that to permit it to thus operate would relieve real estate and invested personal property from taxation, and "would leave the burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vacations, and in that way what was intended as a tax on capital would remain, in substance, a tax on occupations and labor" (id., p. 158 U. S. 637) -- a result which, it was held, could not have been contemplated by Congress.

This is the text of the Amendment:

"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."

It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense -- an authority already possessed and never questioned -- or to limit and distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another, but that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived. Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co, 240 U.S. 1, 16-18 (1916) (emphasis added)

The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on income, ‘from whatever source derived’ without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had the power to tax all incomes. But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be ‘direct taxes’ within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. [cites omitted] The Amendment relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes ‘from whatever source derived.’” [i]Bowers, Collector v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co.[i], 271 U.S. 170, 173-174 (1926) (emphasis added)

Nor is the income tax a tax on the property one has in one’s personal compensation. There is a clear distinction between a tax on the ownership of property and one on the receipt of property. The former is a tax that can be imposed more than once, such as an annual tax on real estate. But a tax on the receipt of a given item of income occurs only once. A tax on ownership is a direct tax (which is why an unapportioned wealth tax would be unconstitutional), but a tax on receipt is not.

While taxes levied upon or collected from persons because of their general ownership of property may be taken to be direct, Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U. S. 429, 158 U. S. 158 U.S. 601, this Court has consistently held, almost from the foundation of the government, that a tax imposed upon a particular use of property or the exercise of a single power over property incidental to ownership is an excise which need not be apportioned... Bromley v. McCaughn, 280m U.S. 124, 136 (1929)

If the gift of property may be taxed, we cannot say that there is any want of constitutional power to tax the receipt of it, whether as the result of inheritance, Stebbins v. Riley, 268 U. S. 137, or otherwise, whatever name may be given to the tax, and even though the right to receive it, as distinguished from its actual receipt and possession at a future date, antedated the statute. Receipt in possession and enjoyment is as much a taxable occasion within the reach of the federal taxing power as the enjoyment of any other incident of property. Fernandez v. Wiener, 326 U.S. 340, 353 (1945)

[johnwk]

You haven’t learned a thing, have you?

.

I've learned you are a master of deflection and distraction. Nothing I have written in the OP is inaccurate.

[johnwk]

.
See: Hamill: Fairness of new tax bill is in the eye of the beholder

FEBRUARY 27TH, 2023

There are numerous silly things in the proposal . . . The proposal also says that if the 16th Amendment is not repealed within seven years of the Fair Tax enactment, the Fair Tax will also be eliminated.

Now where have we heard that kind of crap before? Seems to me it’s the same crap told to us when the Temporary Victory Tax of 1942-3 imposed an un-apportioned, un-constitutional, direct tax on the bread which working people earn by the sweat of their labor. See: STAFF OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL REVENUE TAXATION, DECEMBER 8, 1943, page two

“The Victory tax is a temporary tax which will expire after the war period.”


.
Did our government not lie to us then, as they continue to lie to us today?

.

JWK

Why have a written constitution, approved by the people, if those who it is meant to control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?

[Snowball]

john, from your first post, you should have placed this in bold.. as it reads: "without apportionment among the several States".

here's the bottom line. the courts have ruled and the operational jurisprudence says they DO constitutionally implement Federal income tax.

Were you around when Aaron Russo made a big stink with his documentary, Dave vonKleist made "Show Me The Law" a popular song, and all the patriot movement supported tax deniers like the Browns up in New Hampshire? Alex Jones went up there. Brown is in jail.

There are ways one may circumvent, ignore, and refuse to pay, but none of those ways involve a legal challenge that refuses to admit the constitutionality of the Federal income tax.

[johnwk]

john, from your first post, you should have placed this in bold.. as it reads: "without apportionment among the several States".

here's the bottom line. the courts have ruled and the operational jurisprudence says they DO constitutionally implement Federal income tax.

Were you around when Aaron Russo made a big stink with his documentary, Dave vonKleist made "Show Me The Law" a popular song, and all the patriot movement supported tax deniers like the Browns up in New Hampshire? Alex Jones went up there. Brown is in jail.

There are ways one may circumvent, ignore, and refuse to pay, but none of those ways involve a legal challenge that refuses to admit the constitutionality of the Federal income tax.

I get the impression you are implying that I have stated, or suggested, a "Federal income tax", or to be more accurate, a federal tax on incomes, is unconstitutional. Is that what you are suggesting?

[Sonny Tufts]

I get the impression you are implying that I have stated, or suggested, a "Federal income tax", or to be more accurate, a federal tax on incomes, is unconstitutional.

It's more accurate to say that your claim is that a tax on the pay one receives for work is a direct tax and must therefore be apportioned.

This claim is incorrect for two main reasons. First, no court in the history of the country has ever held that a tax on pay-for-work is a direct tax. To the contrary, such a claim has been uniformly and consistently rejected, beginning with the Springer case in 1881. You undoubtedly think the decision was wrong, but your opinion isn't the law; that of the Supreme Court is.

Second, the 16th Amendment makes it clear that a tax on incomes does not have to be apportioned. Accordingly, unless you're operating under the delusion that pay-for-work isn't income (another claim that has been uniformly and consistently rejected by the courts), it's patently obvious that a tax on pay-for-work needn't be apportioned even if it were considered a direct tax.

Incidentally, Oliver Ellsworth isn't the authority on the meaning of "direct tax" as that term is used in the Constitution. The view that became law wasn't Ellsworth's, but was that of the Justices in the Hylton case, who opined that the only direct taxes under the Constitution were capitations and taxes on land. And this characterization, with the addition of the category of taxes on real and personal property that was added by the Pollock case, remains the law today as explained by Justice Roberts's quote I cited. Btw, the Justices who thus opined were also involved in the ratification of the Constitution -- Justice Paterson was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, and Justices Chase and Iredell were members of their states' ratifying conventions. So your cherry-picking of Ellsworth as the authority regarding the meaning of "direct tax" is disingenuous.

Your argument boils down to nothing more than bitching about how all the courts have gotten it wrong and that the 16th Amendment doesn't mean what it says.

[Snowball]

I get the impression you are implying that I have stated, or suggested, a "Federal income tax", or to be more accurate, a federal tax on incomes, is unconstitutional. Is that what you are suggesting?

Actually, I misread some of your post. I believe the Federal income tax is Constitutional. That doesn't mean I don't think it violates the spirit of being American, or infringe upon a philosophical cornerstone of the Founders. I am against it, but admit it is legal. I believe resistance and adjustment is the best road to countermand it, not a legal challenge. You support a legal challenge? I believe it is settled law. There are plenty of settled laws I don't agree with.

[Anti Federalist]

Income "withholding", the idea that government takes it's share before you even see it, is also a WWII throwback.

You've got a better chance of seeing God, before government gives up that perq.

[johnwk]

It's more accurate to say that your claim is that a tax on the pay one receives for work is a direct tax and must therefore be apportioned.

This claim is incorrect for two main reasons. First, no court in the history of the country . . . Your argument boils down to nothing more than bitching about how all the courts have gotten it wrong and that the 16th Amendment doesn't mean what it says.

Thank you for your personal opinions, and even altering my words which you then assert are incorrect. Now, let us review some actual facts relevant to the Sixteenth Amendment.

The fact is, the Sixteenth Amendment reads as follows:

”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.”

So, in fact, the Sixteenth Amendment does not read:

”The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

Keep in mind that on June 17th, 1909, Senator Brown offered the following Joint Resolution (S. J. R. 39) to amend the Constitution relative to TAXES ON INCOMES:

”Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of both Houses concurring), That the following section be submitted to the legislatures of the several States, which, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the States, shall be valid and binding as a part of the Constitution of the United States:

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes without apportionment among the several States according to population." CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ___ SENATE, June 17, 1909, Page 3377

Later, the reference to the all-inclusive direct taxes was replaced with “taxes on incomes” which is how it now appears in the Sixteenth Amendment:

”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.”


And to this very day, as repeatedly stated by our Supreme Court, the constitutional command that “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken” is still binding upon Congress when laying and collecting taxes. The last time this was confirmed was by Justice Roberts in the Obamacare case dealing with what is called “The shared responsibility payment”:

“The payment is also plainly not a tax on the ownership of land or personal property. The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States.” SOURCE

Are we to now pretend that the bread which working people earn by the sweat of their labor is not their property, and as such, if federally taxed, must be apportioned?

JWK

“The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands; and to hinder him from employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property.” ___ Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1884)

[Sonny Tufts]

Keep in mind that on June 17th, 1909, Senator Brown offered the following Joint Resolution (S. J. R. 39) to amend the Constitution relative to TAXES ON INCOMES:

”Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of both Houses concurring), That the following section be submitted to the legislatures of the several States, which, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the States, shall be valid and binding as a part of the Constitution of the United States:

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes without apportionment among the several States according to population." CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ___ SENATE, June 17, 1909, Page 3377

Later, the reference to the all-inclusive direct taxes was replaced with “taxes on incomes” which is how it now appears in the Sixteenth Amendment:

”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.”

Indeed. And did you ever wonder why Brown's version was rejected? Could it be that it implicitly supported Pollock's faulty reasoning* that a tax on the income from property was a direct tax?

And to this very day, as repeatedly stated by our Supreme Court, the constitutional command that “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken” is still binding upon Congress when laying and collecting taxes. The last time this was confirmed was by Justice Roberts in the Obamacare case dealing with what is called “The shared responsibility payment”:

“The payment is also plainly not a tax on the ownership of land or personal property. The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States.” [/b]

Roberts's quote doesn't support your erroneous claim that the Direct Tax Clause applies to ALL federal taxation. Great Caesar's Ghost, man, can you not understand the language of the 16th Amendment? Suppose the income tax, or if you want to narrow it down a tax on pay-for-work, is a direct tax. So what? The 16th Amendment says it doesn't have to be apportioned. Read again what Roberts wrote: "In 1895, we expanded our interpretation to include taxes on personal property and income from personal property, in the course of striking down aspects of the federal income tax. Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601, 618 (1895). That result was overturned by the Sixteenth Amendment, although we continued to consider taxes on personal property to be direct taxes."

Are we to now pretend that the bread which working people earn by the sweat of their labor is not their property, and as such, if federally taxed, must be apportioned?

JWK

“The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands; and to hinder him from employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property.” ___ Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1884)

I've pointed out to you before that the income tax isn't a property tax. It's a tax on the receipt of income, not its mere ownership. Moreover, I've also pointed out that the dictum from the Butchers' Union case is from an antitrust case having nothing whatsoever to do with taxation. In addition, it's not from the majority opinion but rather from the concurring opinion of a single Justice who, by the way, voted to uphold the Civil War income tax just 3 years earlier. In that case, Springer v. United States, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the tax was not a direct tax but was in the nature of a duty or excise. In actuality, the quote in the Butchers' Union concurrence was from Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations. Mr. Springer also tried to use Smith to support his claim that the income tax was a direct tax, but the Court didn't buy it.

* Not just my opinion. The Court itself later recognized that Pollock was wrongly decided: "by the previous ruling [Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R.], it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived -- that is, by testing the tax not by what it was, a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed." Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112-113 (1916) (emphasis added)

[Sonny Tufts]

Income "withholding", the idea that government takes it's share before you even see it, is also a WWII throwback.

Withholding was actually first introduced in the 1913 Tax Act. It wasn't popular, so it was eliminated after a few years.

[Anti Federalist]

Withholding was actually first introduced in the 1913 Tax Act. It wasn't popular, so it was eliminated after a few years.

Yes, that's right and it was re-introduced as a "wage control" during WWII and it still lives on to this day.

Alan Keyes was correct when he noted that we are worse off than medieval serfs.

At least the feudal lord allowed a man to put food on the table and a roof over his family's head before demanding his cut.

And what's worse is that AmeriCunts by the millions let Uncle Sucker hold billions of overpaid tax dollars every year, for free.

[johnwk]

Roberts's quote doesn't support your erroneous claim that the Direct Tax Clause applies to ALL federal taxation.

I never made the claim that "the Direct Tax Clause applies to ALL federal taxation'. You are the one who continually exaggerates and misrepresents what I post and then argues against your own exaggerations and misrepresentations.


What I have asserted is any federal tax which takes the form of a direct tax, must be apportioned, and has been repeatedly stated so by our very own Supreme Court.



In Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), which ruled on a tax asserted by Congress to be an income tax, the tax was struck down as being a direct tax and requiring an apportionment. The Court stated:

"Thus, from every point of view we are brought irresistibly to the conclusion that neither under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder. The Revenue Act of 1916, in so far as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment."

And in BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929), the Court found the tax there to be an "excise" tax. but emphatically stated “As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.”


And let us not forget that even Justice Roberts stated in the Obamacare case dealing with what is called "The shared responsibility payment":

"The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States."

The fact is, it is irrelevant what one calls a specific tax, i.e., impost, duty, excise or income tax. If the tax takes the form of a direct tax, it must be apportioned as repeatedly commanded by our Constitution and our Supreme Court.






Finally, once again, I appreciate you posting your unsubstantiated opinions, but that is exactly what they are, unsubstantiated.

[Sonny Tufts]

In Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), which ruled on a tax asserted by Congress to be an income tax, the tax was struck down as being a direct tax and requiring an apportionment. The Court stated:

"Thus, from every point of view we are brought irresistibly to the conclusion that neither under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder. The Revenue Act of 1916, in so far as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment."

You might want to actually read the Eisner case. The majority held that a stock dividend wasn't income at all but rather capital and could therefore not be taxed under the income tax statute as if it really were income. Since in its view a tax on capital would be a direct tax, it would have to be apportioned.

As repeatedly held, this [the 16th Amendment] did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income. Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U. S. 1, 240 U. S. 17-19; Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U. S. 103, 240 U. S. 112 et seq.; Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 U. S. 165, 247 U. S. 172-173.

A proper regard for its genesis, as well as its very clear language, requires also that this amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes upon property, real and personal. This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.

In order, therefore, that the clauses cited from Article I of the Constitution may have proper force and effect, save only as modified by the amendment, and that the latter also may have proper effect, it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not "income," as the term is there used, and to apply the distinction, as cases arise, according to truth and substance, without regard to form. 252 U.S. at 206

So it's clear that all direct taxes, other than taxes on income, must be apportioned.

I realize that you think that a tax on income was considered a direct tax when the Constitution was adopted. Most scholars disagree, but one who shares your view in this regard is Professor Eric Jensen. But even he recognizes that due to the 16th Amendment the Direct Tax Clause doesn't apply to a tax on income:

Here in essence is what I think. (1) By requiring direct taxes to be apportioned among the states on the basis of population, the founders intended the Direct-Tax Clauses to have real effect in limiting the national tax power. (2) The Supreme Court’s early gutting of the Clauses in Hylton, with dicta limiting the category of “direct taxes” to easily apportionable taxes and, more specifically, to capitation and real-estate taxes, was wrong. (3) The Court did a much better job when it reinvigorated the Clauses a century later in Pollock.28 (4) Because of the validity of the Court’s result (if not all the reasoning) in Pollock, the Sixteenth Amendment was critical in making the modern income tax (but only the income tax) possible. The bottom line: any tax that is a direct tax but not a “tax on incomes” must be apportioned to be valid, and the universe of taxes potentially subject to apportionment isn’t trivial...(emphasis added) https://core.ac.uk/reader/217203850

Accordingly, unless you're prepared to argue that pay-for-work isn't income, your suggestion that a tax on pay-for-work must be apportioned is totally without merit.

[johnwk]

You might want to actually read the Eisner case.

Indeed. You ought to actually read the Eisner case which confirms direct taxation, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment, requires an apportionment of the tax:


The Revenue Act of 1916, in so far as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment." ___ Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)

The fact is, it is irrelevant what one calls a specific tax, i.e., impost, duty, excise or income tax. If the tax takes the form of a direct tax, it must be apportioned as repeatedly commanded by our Constitution and our Supreme Court.


The Sixteenth Amendment does not read . . .

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes without apportionment among the several States according to population."

Therefore, the tax in "incomes" must be indirect in order to avoid the rule of apportionment considering our constitution commands:

“No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”

.

[Snowball]

16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Federal Income Tax (1913)

Citation: The 16th Amendment, March 15, 1913; Ratified Amendments, 1795-1992; General Records of the United States Government; Record Group 11; National Archives.

Passed by Congress on July 2, 1909, and ratified February 3, 1913, the 16th amendment established Congress's right to impose a Federal income tax.

Far-reaching in its social as well as its economic impact, the income tax amendment became part of the Constitution by a curious series of events culminating in a bit of political maneuvering that went awry.

The financial requirements of the Civil War prompted the first American income tax in 1861. At first, Congress placed a flat 3-percent tax on all incomes over $800 and later modified this principle to include a graduated tax. Congress repealed the income tax in 1872, but the concept did not disappear.

After the Civil War, the growing industrial and financial markets of the eastern United States generally prospered. But the farmers of the south and west suffered from low prices for their farm products, while they were forced to pay high prices for manufactured goods. Throughout the 1860s, 1870s, and 1880s, farmers formed such political organizations as the Grange, the Greenback Party, the National Farmers’ Alliance, and the People’s (Populist) Party. All of these groups advocated many reforms (see the Interstate Commerce Act) considered radical for the times, including a graduated income tax.

In 1894, as part of a high tariff bill, Congress enacted a 2-percent tax on income over $4,000. The tax was almost immediately struck down by a five-to-four decision of the Supreme Court, even though the Court had upheld the constitutionality of the Civil War tax as recently as 1881. Although farm organizations denounced the Court’s decision as a prime example of the alliance of government and business against the farmer, a general return of prosperity around the turn of the century softened the demand for reform. Democratic Party Platforms under the leadership of three-time Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan, however, consistently included an income tax plank, and the progressive wing of the Republican Party also espoused the concept.

In 1909, progressives in Congress again attached a provision for an income tax to a tariff bill. Conservatives, hoping to kill the idea for good, proposed a constitutional amendment enacting such a tax; they believed an amendment would never receive ratification by three-fourths of the states. Much to their surprise, the amendment was ratified by one state legislature after another, and on February 25, 1913, with the certification by Secretary of State Philander C. Knox, the 16th amendment took effect. Yet in 1913, due to generous exemptions and deductions, less than 1 percent of the population paid income taxes at the rate of only 1 percent of net income.

This document settled the constitutional question of how to tax income and, by so doing, effected dramatic changes in the American way of life.

https://www.archives.gov/milestone-d...16th-amendment

[johnwk]

16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Federal Income Tax (1913)

Citation: The 16th Amendment, March 15, 1913; Ratified Amendments, 1795-1992; General Records of the United States Government . . . . .

I’m wondering why you posted that opinion piece considering it does not deal with what makes a tax on incomes a direct tax, as contrasted from a tax on incomes which is indirect.


JWK

[Snowball]

I’m wondering why you posted that opinion piece considering it does not deal with what makes a tax on incomes a direct tax, as contrasted from a tax on incomes which is indirect.


JWK

It's not an "opinion piece". It's from the federal government website. Just for the historical information. I still don't get your point. Both the Federal government and the State government, and thirdly, your municipal government, have the right to tax your income if that's what they legistlate. Direct or Indirect doesn't matter.

[johnwk]

It's not an "opinion piece". It's from the federal government website. Just for the historical information. I still don't get your point. Both the Federal government and the State government, and thirdly, your municipal government, have the right to tax your income if that's what they legistlate. Direct or Indirect doesn't matter.

The piece most certainly voices opinions. Aside from that, I’m still wondering why you posted it considering it does not deal with or provide any insight as to what makes a tax calculated from incomes a direct tax, as contrasted from a tax calculated from incomes which is indirect and has been the "point" under discussion.

What are the characteristics which distinguishes an indirect tax on incomes and requires no apportionment, from a direct tax on incomes and would require adherence to the rule of apportionment?

.

BTW as per what you wrote: Both the Federal government and the State government, and thirdly, your municipal government, have the right to tax your income if that's what they legistlate. Direct or Indirect doesn't matter. That is utter nonsense. Whether a tax on incomes is allowed under state authority depends on the state's constitution. Here in Florida, we have no income tax.

[Sonny Tufts]

Indeed. You ought to actually read the Eisner case which confirms direct taxation, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment, requires an apportionment of the tax

It did just the opposite. I'll quote from Eisner again:

As repeatedly held, this [the 16th Amendment] did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income. Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U. S. 1, 240 U. S. 17-19; Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U. S. 103, 240 U. S. 112 et seq.; Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 U. S. 165, 247 U. S. 172-173.

A proper regard for its genesis, as well as its very clear language, requires also that this amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes upon property, real and personal.

It seems you have difficulty in reading and understanding these passages. To suggest that if a tax on a certain type of income is a direct tax then it has to be apportioned is to be deaf, dumb, and blind. It is to ignore not only what the plain language of the 16th Amendment says (i.e., Congress can tax incomes from whatever source without apportionment) but also to ignore the language from other cases.

"This is the text of the Amendment:

"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."

It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense -- an authority already possessed and never questioned -- or to limit and distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another, but that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived." Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co, 240 U.S. 1, 16-18 (1916) (emphasis added)

"The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on income, ‘from whatever source derived’ without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had the power to tax all incomes. But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be ‘direct taxes’ within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. [cites omitted] The Amendment relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes ‘from whatever source derived.’” [i]Bowers, Collector v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co.[i], 271 U.S. 170, 173-174 (1926) (emphasis added)

So keep wallowing in your ignorant fantasyland where an income tax has to be apportioned. In connection with pay-for-work in particular, such nonsense never has been and is not now the law.

[johnwk]

It seems you have difficulty in reading and understanding these passages.

What the court stated in its written opinion is crystal clear, does not require your personal interpretations, and confirms our Constitution's provisions, article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, which require “direct” taxes to be apportioned, are still the law of the land “. . . notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment."


“The Revenue Act of 1916, in so far as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment." ___ Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)



BTW, I noticed you relied upon dicta stated in Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170 (1926), and that dicta is irrelevant in answering whether or not the 16th Amendment repealed the provisions of article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution as applied to taxing incomes.

In Bowers the only question before the court was “. . . whether the difference between the value of marks measured by dollars at the time of payment to the Custodian and the value when the loans were made was income.” The court was not deciding if a tax levied upon incomes which takes the form of a direct tax, must then be apportioned.

So, once again you fail.

[Snowball]

The piece most certainly voices opinions. Aside from that, I’m still wondering why you posted it considering it does not deal with or provide any insight as to what makes a tax calculated from incomes a direct tax, as contrasted from a tax calculated from incomes which is indirect and has been the "point" under discussion.

What are the characteristics which distinguishes an indirect tax on incomes and requires no apportionment, from a direct tax on incomes and would require adherence to the rule of apportionment?

.

BTW as per what you wrote: Both the Federal government and the State government, and thirdly, your municipal government, have the right to tax your income if that's what they legistlate. Direct or Indirect doesn't matter. That is utter nonsense. Whether a tax on incomes is allowed under state authority depends on the state's constitution. Here in Florida, we have no income tax.

I didn't say they must levy income taxes, I said they "have the right" to. Florida has the right to tax your income.
If you don't believe that, go read the Florida Constitution. Section VII, Article I retains the right. Section VII, Article 5 even expresses its maximums.

Florida could enact a State Income Tax tomorrow without touching one single word of its Constitution. Regarding munis and counties, about a third of states allow local munis and counties to impose their own income taxes: https://www.thebalancemoney.com/citi...-taxes-3193246

CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Constitution#A7

Also, read these. Income Tax is settled law. Has been for over a century. NO APPORTIONMENT.
The first article describes why a targeted "wealth tax" would, potentially, have a problem without apportionment, but a wealth tax is not an income tax.
Moreover, your thread title is a red herring, because the Victory Tax was nothing more than a new implementation of existing law.

An Unapportioned Wealth Tax Has Constitutional Problems
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/t...ed-wealth-tax/

Apportionment of Direct Taxes: the Foul-up in The Core of The Constitution
https://law.utexas.edu/faculty/calvi.../directtax.pdf

[johnwk]

I didn't say they must levy income taxes, I said they "have the right" to. Florida has the right to tax your income.
If you don't believe that, go read the Florida Constitution. Section VII, Article I retains the right. Section VII, Article 5 even expresses its maximums.

Florida could enact a State Income Tax tomorrow without touching one single word of its Constitution.

No. The Florida Legislature does not have the authority to tax my "income". See: Florida’s Tax Structure


"Florida’s constitution prohibits lawmakers from implementing a personal income tax. "

In regard to the rest of your post, Congress is still required to apportion any "direct" tax and has authority to levy a direct tax.

JWK


If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection [apportionment] could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895) JUSTICE FULLER

[Snowball]

No. The Florida Legislature does not have the authority to tax my "income". See: Florida’s Tax Structure


"Florida’s constitution prohibits lawmakers from implementing a personal income tax. "

In regard to the rest of your post, Congress is still required to apportion any "direct" tax and has authority to levy a direct tax.

JWK


If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection [apportionment] could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895) JUSTICE FULLER

Just. Plain. Wrong.

The article you linked, written anonymously by someone for the Mercatus Center at George Mason University in 2015, is plainly incorrect. Whomever wrote it was so biased in their predispositions that they didn't even bother to consult or reference the actual Florida Constitution. I provided you the Section and Articles that clearly spell out the legal retention Florida has that makes income tax possible, if it is legislated to occur:

SECTION 1. Taxation; appropriations; state expenses; state revenue limitation.—
(a) No tax shall be levied except in pursuance of law. No state ad valorem taxes shall be levied upon real estate or tangible personal property. All other forms of taxation shall be preempted to the state except as provided by general law.

SECTION 5. Estate, inheritance and income taxes.—
(a) NATURAL PERSONS. No tax upon estates or inheritances or upon the income of natural persons who are residents or citizens of the state shall be levied by the state, or under its authority, in excess of the aggregate of amounts which may be allowed to be credited upon or deducted from any similar tax levied by the United States or any state.
(b) OTHERS. No tax upon the income of residents and citizens other than natural persons shall be levied by the state, or under its authority, in excess of 5% of net income, as defined by law, or at such greater rate as is authorized by a three-fifths (3/5) vote of the membership of each house of the legislature or as will provide for the state the maximum amount which may be allowed to be credited against income taxes levied by the United States and other states. There shall be exempt from taxation not less than five thousand dollars ($5,000) of the excess of net income subject to tax over the maximum amount allowed to be credited against income taxes levied by the United States and other states.
(c) EFFECTIVE DATE. This section shall become effective immediately upon approval by the electors of Florida.
History.—Am. H.J.R. 7-B, 1971; adopted 1971.


If you still believe Florida cannot implement an income tax without modification of its constitution, then please provide the prohibition.
Your secondary comment was addressed in both the links I provided, neither of which did you consult. Good Day.

[johnwk]

Just. Plain. Wrong.

.

Yup, you are wrong. Stop the gaslighting. There is no personal income tax in Florida, and, it would take a constitutional amendment to allow a personal income tax in Florida. There have been attempts to adopt a personal income tax, but they have all failed.

Stop the gaslighting

[Snowball]

Yup, you are wrong. Stop the gaslighting. There is no personal income tax in Florida, and, it would take a constitutional amendment to allow a personal income tax in Florida. There have been attempts to adopt a personal income tax, but they have all failed.

Stop the gaslighting

Proving you wrong is not gaslighting. Which I did.

Goodbye.

[johnwk]

Proving you wrong is not gaslighting. Which I did.

Goodbye.

According to you.