The Supreme Court, of the corporate United states, hands down Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, purportedly overturning Burgess v. Salmon: The Federal income tax does not violate the Article V of Amendment prohibition against the taking of property “without due process of law”; nor does the retroactive nature of the income tax constitute an ex post facto law, prohibited by Article I, Section 9 [Clause 3]. This complex often times conflicting decision affirms the personal income tax as lawful, yet claims the 16th amendment did not overturn Pollock v. Farmer’s Trust and Loan (II): “the whole purpose of the [16th a]mendment was to relieve all income taxes whence imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source when the income was derived.” In other words, the 16th amendment is intended to allow a direct tax (“a tax exacted directly from the person on whom the ultimate burden of the tax is expected to fall, such as property, income, gift, inheritance, and poll taxes.”——Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary) to be applied as if it were an Indirect tax (“a tax exacted indirectly from a person other than the one on whom the ultimate burden of the tax is expected to fall.” [Such as tariffs on imports, or excises]——Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary).
NOTES:
- The Court promises this decision will not do away with either of the two great protections of
that indirect taxes on manufactured goods be uniform throughout the States, and direct taxes on people be assessed against the States—based on their representation in the House of Representatives. (That brilliant compromise that makes representation balanced by levies, the dual purpose of the decennial census.)
- The decision is cumbersome and difficult to read. At one point a 215 word sentence reaffirms Pollock decision (II), which declared the income tax to be unlawful—a tax that the Court declared to be lawful by an amendment that it said has no bearing on the income tax:
We say this because it is to be observed that although from the date of the Hylton [v. united States] case because that statements made in the opinions in that case it had come to be accepted that direct taxes in the constitutional sense were confined to taxes levied directly on real estate because of its ownership, the [a]mendment contains nothing repudiating or challenging the ruling in the Pollock case that the word direct had a broader significance since it embraced also taxes levied on personal property because of its ownership, and therefore the [a]mendment at least impliedly [sic] makes such wider significance a part of the Constitution—condition which clearly demonstrates that the purpose was not to chance the existing interpretation except to the extent necessary to accomplish the result intended, that is, the prevention of the resort that sources from which a taxed income was derived in order to cause a direct tax on the income to be a direct tax on the source itself and thereby to take an income out of the class of excises, duties, imposts and place it in the class of direct taxes.
- This is the further realization of plank number one of the “Communist Manifesto” by Karl Marx.
Questions:
- What is the true nature of the income tax?
- Is it a direct tax that must be paid, or is it an indirect tax that can be avoided by not buying that product that is taxed?
[restored 6/11/2022] Thanks to Jim Lorenz for his contributions to this entry.
Subsequent Events:
Authority:
“Law of the Jungle”
ccc-2point0.com/preface
References:
Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1, 13, 14, 19, 20, 197 (1916).
Calvin D. Linton, ed., The Bicentennial Almanac: 200 Years of America, 1776-1976, (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 1975), 288.
Irwin A. Schiff with Peter Schiff, The Great Income Tax Hoax: Why You Can Immediately Stop Paying This Illegally Enforced Tax, (Las Vegas, Nevada: Freedom Books, 1985), 182-83, 185.
Current U.s. National Debt:
