26 Mar 09
Originally posted by no1marauderThe Revenue Act of 1894 was ruled unconstitutional. That federally chartered bank (2nd bank of the US) was privately owned.
McCullough voided a STATE tax on a Federally chartered bank. The issue was federalism, not the amount of the tax. I know of no case since the demise of substantive due process in the 30's where the Supreme Court asserts the power to decide that any level of taxation is unconstitutional.
There has never been a 90% or 70% tax on anything. T ...[text shortened]... x rates are marginal; the highest rates only apply to income over a certain (very high ) level.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2893/is_2_23/ai_112585998
The 16th amendment changed all of that even though no constitutional amendment repealed [article 1 section 2] which stated taxes must be apportioned. The 16th amendment also was not ratified by 3/4 of the states as it should have. It is arguably illegal.
26 Mar 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Metal BrainIn POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429, aff'd on reh'g, 158 U.S. 601 (1895) the income tax was ruled unconstitutional. The 16th Amendment overruled that decision and rendered nugatory the "apportionment" clause of Article 1, Section 2; an amendment need not specifically say "this supersedes Art X, Section Y" if the wording of the amendment has that effect.
The Revenue Act of 1894 was ruled unconstitutional. That federally chartered bank (2nd bank of the US) was privately owned.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2893/is_2_23/ai_112585998
The 16th amendment changed all of that even though no constitutional amendment repealed [article 1 section 2] which stated taxes must be apportioned. The 16th amendment also was not ratified by 3/4 of the states as it should have. It is arguably illegal.
It is a common argument from tax evaders that the 16th Amendment wasn't properly ratified. Don't not pay your taxes and expect to not go to prison if you believe this frivolous claim.
26 Mar 09
Originally posted by no1marauderI would never not pay my taxes. I'm well aware what would happen.
In POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429, aff'd on reh'g, 158 U.S. 601 (1895) the income tax was ruled unconstitutional. The 16th Amendment overruled that decision and rendered nugatory the "apportionment" clause of Article 1, Section 2; an amendment need not specifically say "this supersedes Art X, Section Y" if the wording of the amendme ...[text shortened]... not pay your taxes and expect to not go to prison if you believe this frivolous claim.
The fact does remain though. The 16th amendment was not ratified by 3/4 of the states. Wasn't the income tax supposed to be a temporary tax to pay for WW1?
26 Mar 09
Originally posted by Metal BrainThe argument that 3/4 of the States didn't ratify the 16th Amendment has been constantly rejected by the courts. Factually, it seems incorrect:
I would never not pay my taxes. I'm well aware what would happen.
The fact does remain though. The 16th amendment was not ratified by 3/4 of the states. Wasn't the income tax supposed to be a temporary tax to pay for WW1?
Reason 2: Enough states approved the amendment.
Other legal authorities have no doubt that the federal income tax amendment was ratified by a sufficient number of states and in the proper manner -- including Kentucky, notwithstanding Becraft’s concern. A spokesperson for the commonwealth reports that Kentucky approved the amendment, but subsequently reversed that decision when someone pointed out that the wording had been altered. However, a second -- properly worded -- amendment ultimately met with legislators’ approval.
Erik M. Jensen, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, allows that there may have been some punctuation changes in the proposal that came before certain state legislatures. However, given that law required three-quarters of all states to approve the measure that was ratified by Congress, that would mean that more than 12 states would have to have approved substantially different proposals to invalidate the process. But 42 of 48 states approved the measure between 1909 and 1913. Only Rhode Island, Connecticut and Utah rejected the amendment outright. Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia didn't act on it.
“Even if there are arguable differences in some states, that still leaves plenty to make up the necessary three-fourths of the states,” Jensen says.
http://moneycentral.msn.com/articles/tax/basics/6195.asp?Printer
The 16th Amendment was proposed in 1909 and ratified in 1913. The US didn't enter WWI until 1917. Thus, the answer to your last question is: NO.