Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Nat'l Journal: Republicans Close to Violating the Constitution [View all]jmowreader
(53,284 posts)43. Have you heard the best tax protester argument?
Apparently the people who wrote the Sixteenth Amendment didn't intend that "wages and salaries" be considered as income.
See http://www.simpleliberty.org/tait/the_camels_nose_grows.htm, if you can get through it all. Take this enlightening paragraph:
The 1913 law was intended to tax wealthy business professionals, proprietors, corporations, and certain passive unearned investments. The amount of tax owed was to be measured by net income.[1] This is obvious by examining an income tax return from 1913. The tax return of 1913 functioned similarly to the modern Schedule C. Although including a graduated progressive surtax, the minimum tax rate was a whopping 1 percent of individual and corporate net income in excess of the exemption amount.
Okay, let's do that: Let's examine an income tax return from 1913. Happily, the Internal Revenue Service has posted the form on their website:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/1913.pdf
Flip to page 2 and we'll find that under "Description of Income," the first line is "total amount derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service of whatever kind and in whatever form paid." And the very first Internal Revenue Code specifies that wages are income.
The most irritating part of the tax protester is their reliance on the works of the Founding Fathers and their demand that the US be operated exactly as the Founders wrote, or exactly as how they think the Founders wrote. Yes, the Founders were smart men. Yes, they gave us a good system of government. But the Founding Fathers weren't oracles. They built a government for a largely agrarian, non-technological society spread across thirteen states clustered on the Atlantic coast. They didn't foresee airplanes, automobiles, electronic communications, complex financial transactions, $9 billion warships, thirteen metropolitan areas with population higher than the entire population of the United States at the moment General Cornwallis surrendered, wheat farms the size of Delaware, a sea on our western frontier, or a state in the middle of the ocean. How, then, do we keep the spirit and intent of the Founders while facing the reality that a perfect government for three and a half million people collapses when it's asked to govern a hundred times that?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
54 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Because while the President would be obeying the 14th amendment, he would be breaking
stevenleser
Oct 2013
#40
K&R!! I'm sure most Re/Teapuke have committed several crimes for which they should've been arrested.
hue
Oct 2013
#10
Everyone knows the only REAL part about the Constitution is to have guns, guns
joeybee12
Oct 2013
#11
The Constitution. In GOP circles, it's better known as "that g/ddamn piece of paper."
blkmusclmachine
Oct 2013
#24
So who would have standing to take them to court, and what would be the punishment of violating
Agnosticsherbet
Oct 2013
#26