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Context The first federal income tax was instituted in 1861 to pay for the Civil War, then repealed in 1872, a few years after the war’s end.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 If enacted, it would become the second constitutional amendment ever repealed, after 1933’s 21st Amendment ended Prohibition by repealing 1919’s 18th Amendment.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). — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Considering many go to congress as middlebor slightly more income and leave as multi-millionaires even as billionaires, this is never going to happen. This is all due to indirect residuals from income tax revenues.
“How about Term Limits for all the Critters”
Base term limits on a balanced budget. If the budget isn’t balanced in a given year, you cannot run for reelection. Same thing with the debt. If the nations debt doesn’t decrease, you cannot run for reelection.
I would like to see this as a referendum.
Also the 22nd
Also the 22nd.. think about it
I am of the opinion that federal taxes should be assessed to the states based on their representation.
Start with the projected spending, and divide equally into two parts - Senator tax (ST) and Representative tax (RT). The ST is further divided by 100 and becomes the tax assessed per senator in congress for that state. The RT is likewise divided by the total number of representatives and is the amount assessed per representative for that state.
To enforce payment by the state, if the state falls 60 days behind in payments, escrow the salaries of all state legislators and Governor, prohibit the representatives from voting in any committee meeting.
If the State falls 90 days behind, escrow the senator and representative salaries, prohibit voting on the floor.
If the State falls 120 days behind, Then the Sec of Treasury will appoint a commissioner to approve all State spending and require the suspension of any non essential services.
“Odds of passage are low in the Democratic-controlled chamber.”
Low?? How about negative?
The only way to curb giverment spemding waste is to starve the beast.
In the oilfield we once used reserve pits for waste water. These were sometimes an acre in size and feet deep. They always filled with waste liquid that had to be hauled and disposed at great expense. The pits were always filled. Out of frustration with pollution and cost I first cut the pit size by 1/3. You could hear the screams of protest for miles. Waste management improved though. I then cut the pit size to half the original. Screams of protest came again and waste management improved again. Fluid disposal costs went down again. Eventually most waste pits on drilling locations disappeared but waste is still hauled to disposal at high cost but not nearly as much waste is generated as before.
I was certainly not alone in my waste reduction effort. We were also forced to manage better by environmental decree.
Starve the beast.
Yeah ... I won’t be following this useless symbolism ... too much reality going on for that!
Term limits for GS 12 and above, limit to 8 years.
RIGID enforcement of private/public sector separation.
Life time imprisonment for abuse of office.
How stupid Americans were to change the Constitution to authorize government theft.No offense but the stupid one is you for thinking they were stupid.
They knew exactly what they were doing.
13 times this idiocy has been introduced, and 13 times dead without a committee vote.
How about work on something that could happen?
I like it.
But I will not bet on it going anywhere...
The 16th amendment allowed for the creation of the income tax, every source seems to say that but you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution.
How stupid Americans were to change the Constitution to authorize government theft.
Great point! And I will rewrite my comment:
How horribly devious and criminal Americans were to change the Constitution to authorize government theft.
Yep, income was from investments. Wages were earned from labor.
Govt just changed definition of income to include wages.
16th still doesn’t include Wages. Thete was a guy who fought the taxes in late 80 or early 90s. Jury found him not guilty. Govt went after him again, cause each years taxes was a separate case. Too bad this hasn’t been fought more.
Was it really ratified? Prove it.
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.