4 ms·

You mean the IRS pays for wars. "The roots of IRS go back to the Civil War when President Lincoln and Congress, in 1862, created the position of commissioner o

You mean the IRS pays for wars. "The roots of IRS go back to the Civil War when President Lincoln and Congress, in 1862, created the position of commissioner of Internal Revenue and enacted an income tax to pay war expenses." https://www.irs.gov/about-irs/brief-history-of-irs https://www.irs.gov/about-irs/brief-history-of-irs > You are the middle class! I'm helping you!" What do you expect someone working for the IRS to say? They are unconstitutionally robbing the middle class blind?

X6S1x6Okd1st 8y ago
> They are unconstitutionally robbing the middle class blind? What part of the constitution are they violating?
- apengwin 8y ago
  surely not the 16th amendment
- liftbigweights 8y ago
  https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/09/income-tax-constitutional.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/09/income-tax-const... The original constitution.
  - skj 8y ago
    Did you know that the original Constitution had provisions for amending it, and such has happened many times? Amendments trump the original.
  - munk-a 8y ago
    This is a false statement, the constitution has provisions for amendments in it, stating that income tax wasn't accounted for in the original version of constitution and amendments is accurate, but stating that it violates the constitution is incorrect.
  - X6S1x6Okd1st 8y ago
    But it was amended (amendment 16) which is constitutional given Article V > The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. EDIT: for those wondering the part that was unconstitutional was that the income tax is not apportioned with respect to representation.
  - avs733 8y ago
    This is a really fun version of original-ism...I mean it's wrong, but it's fun too!
Aloha 8y ago
There was specifically an amendment to the constitution to allow for the collection of income tax. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_Uni... Though part of me wonders if we would not have a more equitable system by apportioning the federal tax burden out to the states to collect for it. It'd certainly simply the lives for a bunch of Americans.
- wahern 8y ago
  > apportioning the federal tax burden out to the states to collect for it Under the Articles of Confederation the Federal government was funded (or not funded, as was the case) by the states directly. It's the biggest reason we ended up with a self-funded Federal government under the subsequent Constitution.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  That sounds like what was tried under the Articles of Confederation, and it didn't turn out well.
- jcranmer 8y ago
  Fun fact: the Sixteenth Amendment does not give Congress the right to tax income; Congress already had that right. The sole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment is to override the Supreme Court's Pollock decision, which held that a tax on rental income was effectively a tax on property, and as a property tax, it needed to be apportioned to the states in accordance with population. So the Sixteenth Amendment isn't "we can collect income tax", it's "we can do whatever we want with collected income tax." Which makes the tax protestors' arguments that the Sixteenth Amendment wasn't actually properly passed utterly hilarious.
sctb 8y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18115894 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18115894.
smileysteve 8y ago
But we should agree; half the U.S. budget is going to Defense spending.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
There is nothing unconstitutional about income taxes.

X6S1x6Okd1st 8y ago

> They are unconstitutionally robbing the middle class blind? What part of the constitution are they violating?

apengwin 8y ago
surely not the 16th amendment
liftbigweights 8y ago
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/09/income-tax-constitutional.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/09/income-tax-const... The original constitution.
- skj 8y ago
  Did you know that the original Constitution had provisions for amending it, and such has happened many times? Amendments trump the original.
- munk-a 8y ago
  This is a false statement, the constitution has provisions for amendments in it, stating that income tax wasn't accounted for in the original version of constitution and amendments is accurate, but stating that it violates the constitution is incorrect.
- X6S1x6Okd1st 8y ago
  But it was amended (amendment 16) which is constitutional given Article V > The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. EDIT: for those wondering the part that was unconstitutional was that the income tax is not apportioned with respect to representation.
- avs733 8y ago
  This is a really fun version of original-ism...I mean it's wrong, but it's fun too!

Aloha 8y ago

There was specifically an amendment to the constitution to allow for the collection of income tax. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_Uni... Though part of me wonders if we would not have a more equitable system by apportioning the federal tax burden out to the states to collect for it. It'd certainly simply the lives for a bunch of Americans.

wahern 8y ago
> apportioning the federal tax burden out to the states to collect for it Under the Articles of Confederation the Federal government was funded (or not funded, as was the case) by the states directly. It's the biggest reason we ended up with a self-funded Federal government under the subsequent Constitution.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
That sounds like what was tried under the Articles of Confederation, and it didn't turn out well.
jcranmer 8y ago
Fun fact: the Sixteenth Amendment does not give Congress the right to tax income; Congress already had that right. The sole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment is to override the Supreme Court's Pollock decision, which held that a tax on rental income was effectively a tax on property, and as a property tax, it needed to be apportioned to the states in accordance with population. So the Sixteenth Amendment isn't "we can collect income tax", it's "we can do whatever we want with collected income tax." Which makes the tax protestors' arguments that the Sixteenth Amendment wasn't actually properly passed utterly hilarious.

sctb 8y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18115894 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18115894.

smileysteve 8y ago

But we should agree; half the U.S. budget is going to Defense spending.

s73v3r_ 8y ago

There is nothing unconstitutional about income taxes.