Should Amendment XVI be repealed?

[KelleyNice]

Income Tax

It is the 16th Amendment that gives the Federal Government the money to conduct endless wars and maintain armies in half the countries of the world.

By withholding from the States the money the federal government collects from the income tax, the 16th Amendment that gives the Federal Government the power to dictate to the States the laws they must pass. Without the power to force states to accept uniform laws, states would be forced to compete with other states because people could vote with their feet and move from high tax states to low tax states. That is a limited amount that anyway but not nearly to the extent it would be if most of the taxes individual and corporations paid was collected by the states.

[abc3643]

This isn't quite correct. And people DO move from state to state for different tax rates. It's one reason why I moved in 2011 - but the Federal Government had nothing to do with it; it was the cost of living between the state I lived in and the state that I moved to.

First, the 16th Amendment, ratified in 1913, has to do with INCOME taxes.

As explained by the National Archives:
Passed by Congress on July 2, 1909, and ratified February 3, 1913, the 16th amendment established Congress's right to impose a Federal income tax.

The 16th Amendment:
=====
Amendment XVI
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
=====

The 16th Amendment was created in response to the US Supreme Court stating that income taxes were unconstitutional since they violated the Article 1 Section 9 Clause 4 on the limits of legislation:
=====
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
=====

A capitation tax is a poll tax or a "headcount tax". Basically, you have to pay a fixed amount no matter what your economic status. This screwed over poorer people in rural states because they were having to pay the same tax as rich persons in the manufacturing states. Guess which states ratified the amendment first and which last... or not at all...

Yes, the creation of a Federal income tax enabled the Federal Government to become more effective at doing its job - and preventing or mitigating crises.

But, the Federal Government isn't omnipotent even under the 16th Amendment because the 10th Amendment protects states:

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


So, the Federal Government can't dictate a state to do something, but it can be coercive such as withholding funding to a state. However, it has to be RELEVANT... This is very important.

For instance...

Suppose the "United States" (legalese for the Federal Government) allocates money to the states for highway repair.

Unfortunately, there are too many young drunk drivers so the insurance industry is unhappy and they lobby Congress to make the minimum drinking age be 23. The lobbyists are working in the states as well. Some states play along and raise the drinking age.

But some states hold out and refuse. Congress says "OK, unless your state makes the drinking age be 23, the US will withhold highway repair funds. The choice is yours."

The State of Pennsyltucky is one of those states so they go to federal district court. Pennsyltucky says "The US is violating our rights under the Tenth Amendment."

Ultimately, the Court sides with the US because the US has a vested interest in raising the age to 23... After all, drunks cause accidents on roads... and those roads need to be repaired because of those accidents... and repairs cost money... some of that money coming from the US.

Now, suppose instead, Congress said "OK, unless your state makes abortion legal, the US will withhold highway repair funds. The choice is yours."

Pennsyltucky sues the US... and wins! This is because highway funds and abortion are completely unrelated topics. The coercion by US, in this case, is an unconstitutional violation of the 10th Amendment.

I made this example from what actually happened with the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 and the subsequent federal case South Dakota v. Dole (Elizabeth Dole who was then Secretary of Transportation)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/483/203/

Notice that the 16th Amendment is irrelevant here. The Federal Government can be coercive with or without the 16th Amendment.

===

It's a balancing act and that's the nature of living in a federation.

Back to the 16th Amendment, without it, the United States would soon come to an end, period.

This is because other powerful nations - nations not subject to the Constitution - will do whatever they want to accomplish their objectives - which may include destroying the United States.

So, remember that: The power given to the Federal Government by the 16th Amendment is very important for enabling it to do its job per the Preamble...

... to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...

[BCA6010]

Your opening paragraph is misleading; the 16th amendment gives the government the authority to levy an income tax. It has nothing to do with maintaining a military presence overseas. If your sole objective is to deprive the federal government of money under the impression that it'll prevent them from spending money that doesn't exist, well then you're barking up the wrong tree entirely because spending money it doesn't have has been a standard since long before you were born.

People DO vote with their feet, and the 16th amendment doesn't prevent or discourage them from doing so. This is a huge reason why there's a massive migration of citizens from states like New York and California into Texas and Florida as well as the flyover states.

Now that said, I would love to see the federal income tax, and others abolished forever. You have to keep in mind though that the federal government, even in constitutional conservative utopian lala land, would still need money to function. Given the direction government is pushing, chances are very good that the solution would be considerably worse.

[Snsl153]

I had to look it up.

God yes, get rid of it! As I interpret it, it basically allows the federal government to do whatever it likes.

[N192K001]

Oh, HELL to the YES！！！

Maybe, even the 17th Amendment, so the Senate returns to representing the State-governments, who Washington has unilaterally lorded-over ever since.

The very reason the 16th Amendment exists is because the Supreme Court declared income-taxes unConstitutional otherwise via Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company (1895), so they had to make it legitimate with the amendment.

After that, the Federal Government needs significant budget-slashing & -reform, preferably via zero-based budgeting.

[SixFootSexy]

I think if we repeal that one, let's repeal the XIX amendment as well. It would help the country look more like a democratic republic (focused on individual responsibility) than a democracy (focused on equality).

[Dargil]

The issues you name can be controlled by legislation. We need an income tax to maintain infrastructure beyond what states can afford alone. And we need a strong military of only for deterrence and defense.

[Guy13]

Your are not seeing the whole picture or simply thinking of first step or in Emotion. Work out What Ifs; given it is repealed. What would be the effect given man is in charge?

[OddBeMe]

No, it gives congress a right to levy income tax. You do like roads and police, right?

[shortster]

Yes.