Tax Fraud

Don't ask me what I want it for (ah-ah, Mr Wilson)
If you don't won't to pay some more (ah-ah, Mr Heath)
--The Beatles

Doubt he took a cue from yesterday's missive, but Judge N lends additional historical context on the Sixteenth amendment during his monologue last night.

Prior to the Sixteenth Amendment, the federal government did not directly confiscate individual property (with the exception of Lincoln, who enacted an income tax to help pay for his war). As the judge notes, confiscationo of property without a jury trial was not permitted by the Constitution, specifically by the Fifth Amendment.

The judge provides some historical color around the Sixteenth Amendment ratification, which confirms some of the tidbits we extracted from the newspaper article sample. According to the judge, the Wilson administration was promising that the income tax would apply only to those earning $10,000/yr (the article said $5K) and that the rate of taxation would never exceed 3% (the article said 1%).

What this suggests is that politicians were telling US citizens that the income tax law would minimally impact them, if at all. Indeed, judge, Americans were sold a fraudulent bill of goods.

When the Eighteenth Amendment was enacted, few thought it possible that the constitutional amendment process could ever be reversed to repeal it. But it happened.

Hard not to imagine a repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment, and what it would take to get it done.