I am having trouble understanding a few parts of the constitution and the laws of today. Specifically , taxation,the 16th amendment and the supreme court ruling of 1895 Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co.
Seriously , as a look into this, I find some severely fucked up shit.
Section 9 of article 2 states
"No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken"
Followed by
"No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."
Now as I read this, it seems clear that both income tax and many sales taxes are void.
Income tax and sales tax being a direct tax and that is to say nothing about things the states export to one another and get taxed on.
Allegedly the 16th amendment supersedes article to section 9
"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."
Reading up on all this I came across this website,
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/16thb.htm
"Because an income tax was declared unconstitutional before the adoption of the 16th Amendment in a case called Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1894), on reh’g 158 U.S. 601 (1895), and because the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, protestors conclude that the income tax must still be unconstitutional.
This conclusion is false. The short answer is that, while the Supreme Court did hold that the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, the amendment relieved the pre-existing power to tax incomes from the constitutional requirement of apportionment. Therefore, the previous problem with the income tax was removed and the income tax is now constitutional."
Now my brain starts to boggle because this law website says that the 16th only relieved the pre-existing power to tax incomes from the constitutional requirement of apportionment.
But this power was not pre-existing!
Thats why it was ruled unconstitutional in the first place!!!
Apportionment has little to do with it since we all earn money. Whether we beg on the street or work for a fortune 500 company the government considers any form of money coming into your hands INCOME and theirfor taxable. It applies to every us citizen that earns even one cent from picking it up off the ground.
How is this not considered a direct tax?
Now whats worse is because of the lack of apportionment the common man is taxed more then the rich man or corporation. As we have seen with several companies that are able to pay ZERO income taxes and even in some cases are entitled to tax refunds. This is not because they are exempt , for no US citizen or entity is exempt. The corporations have merely been allowed to retain lawyers to provide "write offs and tax deductions" on such a massive scale that it equals fraud.
The Government currently seems to tax everyone whatever amount they want.
If your poor then you will pay more in taxes and if you are rich you can pay nothing if you jump the the loopholes not afforded to the poor.
AND THEN their is the matter of exported articles being non taxable.
IF a Florida farmer exports oranges to Missouri the oranges are not supposed to be taxable as they came from another state. And yet Missouri taxes them and all foods.
Where this has much more serious implications is with online transactions.
Many folks that use ebay and craigslist are resellers. Buying something here and selling it there. Recently many states are attempting to pass internet transaction taxes. Again this goes against the constitution and what it prohibits regarding state to state exports.
How is all this unconstitutional stuff being held up as valid?
All this IRS BS seems more like a scam to me.
Why the hell aren't we using a flat tax system...