29 votes

Income tax is NOT constitutional.

First post on this matter : http://www.dailypaul.com/... .
After that I've done more research.
And now, I'm convinced, that income tax from earnings within the US is NOT constitutional.
And I bow to the genius of the Founding Fathers.

Everybody is very welcome to refute or add to what I'm about to write. But please be exact, quote laws, constitution, judge verdicts and so on.
And also, I'm challenging "constitutionality" of the income tax, not the subsequent laws, or that "everybody pays it".

The best explanation I've seen to this day

This document also addresses the laws and history of this matter. But it's very long, difficult and boooooring.
Big thanks to "THE BULL LION"

The best point is about the powers of the congress and the taxes:

US Constitution 1.8

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

LICENSE TAX CASES, 72 U.S. 462 (1866)

"No interference by Congress with the business of citizens transacted within a State is warranted by the Constitution, except such as is strictly incidental to the exercise of powers clearly granted to the legislature."

BAILEY v. DREXEL FURNITURE CO., 259 U.S. 20 (1922)

"Grant the validity of this law, and all that Congress would need to do, hereafter, in seeking to take over to its control any one of the great number of subjects of public interest, jurisdiction of which the states have never parted with, and which are reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment, would be to enact a detailed measure of complete regulation of the subject and enforce it by a socalled tax upon departures from it. To give such magic to the word 'tax' would be to break down all constitutional limitation of the powers of Congress and completely wipe out the sovereignty of the states. "

That means, that if the Congress lays tax on trade, or services within a state, it would also regulate that trade or service.
For example, if Congress does not like "shoe polishing", it can lay a 99% tax on it.
But the constitution does not give the congress the power to regulate "shoe polishing", or any other service or trade within a state.

I believe the "Commerce among the states", is mostly covered by US Constitution 1.9 :

"No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."

As I understand it, the main goal of The Founding Fathers, was that internal commerce within the US would flourish, and companies from outside of the US, would be very motivated to move their business to the US to avoid the income tax, and so bring more and more capital to the US.

That also means, that the 16th amendment changed nothing on the constitutionality of the income tax. It is still constitutional on foreign trade, and not on commerce within the US.

WILLIAM E. PECK & CO. v. LOWE , 247 U.S. 165 (1918)

"The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects, but merely removes all occasion, which otherwise might exist, for an apportionment among the states of taxes"

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Are you people tired of fighting the "Income Tax" ?

Here is your answer: Read the links in this article as well:


Once you read this, you will finally come to understand why you are being hounded with the ever dreaded income tax, and how to cut that chain from around your neck for ever.

In Liberty.

The South

Who cares? Endless war

Who cares? Endless war without a decaration of war from the congress isn't constitutional either.

In case you haven't noticed nobody besides us cares.

It doesn't matter.

The constitution literally does not matter. At all. Almost all laws are unconstitutional. The constitution either allows it all (loose interpretation), or is powerless to stop it. It's a piece of paper. There is no republic to restore. You can't give the government this "moral legitimacy" and then expect them to obey the rules. We've been duped. Fooled into believing that government is a necessary evil, and that if we could only control it we'd be fine. It can't be controlled. It's a feeding trough. People act in their own interests. Government is a pillaging tool for the ruling class, and it will always be that way. Research stateless alternatives for yourselves and free your minds.

'The Anarchists are simply unterrified Jeffersonian Democrats. They believe that “the best government is that which governs least,” and that which governs least is no government at all.'
-Benjamin Tucker

In regards to your last sentence...Everyone should do this!

In Itunes - search for Hans-Hermann Hoppe and download every single one of his lectures for free. He has become my favorite economist and speaker - I have grown to even enjoy listening to him more than Tom Woods. At first I couldn't understand his accent, but I have grown to love everything about the guy and his accent. His dry humor, his genius and vigorous logic, etc.

After I arrived to the voluntarist conclusion philosophically - realizing that violence and taxation on any level is wrong, Hoppe really helped me fine tune it on an economical level. To the point of where having a monopoly on court, police and laws makes zero freaking sense, is chaotic and scary. Make sure not to miss his excellent 'Protection and the Market for Security' lecture.


Everyone who wants to start learning about market alternatives and have your mind blown and crack up at his dry humor must do this!

No one can find a safe way out if society is sweeping towards destruction. Everyone,in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. None can stand aside with unconcern; the interests of everyone hang on the result. - LvM

If you like...

...voluntarists that focus on economic reasoning instead of philosophical arguments, I'd recommend David Friedman. His book "The Machinery of Freedom" is an excellent read (funny at times), and available free as a PDF:

This gives the best arguments I've seen for why anarchism won't produce gang warfare or any of the other common accusations that will get thrown your way.

'The Anarchists are simply unterrified Jeffersonian Democrats. They believe that “the best government is that which governs least,” and that which governs least is no government at all.'
-Benjamin Tucker

To Restore Constitutional Government . . .

we need Article V, but more than that, we need to become the masters.

"The people of the United States
are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts,
not to overthrow the Constitution,
but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

September 17, 1859, speech in Cincinnati, OH

Here is a real plan to restore constitutional government through Article V, the codification of "alter or abolish".


Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

Not only unconstitutional, but immoral!

Taxation is theft!

The only difference between the Mafia and the IRS is the Mafia doesn't pretend they have legitimacy.

Theft, armed robbery, and extortion are always wrong.

You wouldn't put up with a street gang threatening you if you didn't give them a portion of your property, so why put up with the State.

There is no difference, no one has the right to steal from anyone else, and no one has the right to designate someone else to steal on their behalf.

Your money is YOUR PROPERTY!

Anyone who takes your property by force is a thief.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com

"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Mafia's home town is in Sicily, Italy.

The Internal Revenue Headquarters is in Puerto Rico. A wholly owned United States office is located in Delaware.

Similar, but there are some observable differences.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Income Tax is 100% ~ Rounded up.

That's correct. Rounded up your money. The Fed: Loaning you blind, since 1913.

IRS: Fed' collection Agency, since 1913.

U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1913-2011 (Nominal and Inflation-Adjusted Brackets)

Round'em up. Roll'em out. RAWHIDE!

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Income Tax is 100% constitutional

Yes, it is true.

The problem with income tax is that it is misapplied. In other words, there is only a small number citizens of the State of the Union (Americans) on whom the tax has been imposed.

Briefly summarizing (there is more to this), income tax has been imposed on:

1) Officers and employees of the United States.
2) Officers and employees of a State government that has agreed to participate in Social Security.
3) Persons working in federal possessions or territories.
4) American citizen or domestic entity that is part of a financial “pipeline” through which U.S. source income flows to its foreign destination.
5) Aliens working in the United States.

How many of you fit into one of the above categories?

My guess is that most of Americans do not fall into any of the above categories. Yet, they pay income tax.

It is critical to understand on whom income tax has been imposed, and then not to participate in it. It is not difficult.

Of course, the government and the IRS went out of their way to hide the truth by writing the regulations in very complex manner and then spread pieces of it across different statutes.

However, there is not enough space here to accurately describe all the court cases and laws with proper background.

Fortunately, there is a book that puts everything into one place. The book is "Income Tax: Shattering the Myths" by Dave Champion.

Dave Champion has studied the income tax for 20 years and is the most knowledgeable person on this subject.

The book can be purchased here: http://incometaxtruth.com/

A free PDF sample of the book can downloaded from:

I am sure there are many skeptics, but before you start criticizing the information here, or the information in the book, read the book first!

Once you read it, and you can prove that some part of it is inaccurate, present your documentation and facts for a discussion.

This book is the truth about income tax. It is the red pill.

16th ~ Not ratified. Never ~ A fiction. A sordid tale.

No argument with what you write. Did it occur to you that the 16th was never ratified? Search: "The law that never was."

[Coffee sets cooling. Hammock begins to swing on back porch.]

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

You're Wrong! The 16th Amendment IS Constitutional, but...

The 16th Amendment is Constitutional, but it “DOES NOT” apply to your Wage, Salary, Labor, or Tips, and never has!

Amendment 16 says: "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". This Amendment thus places this tax under the “Indirect Tax” classification of the Constitution.

The 16th Amendment is Constitutional because it does not tax your labor, salary, wages or tips. Those are the “sources” from which any income derived (made), would be taxable under that Amendment.

There is a clear distinction in the use of the words “FROM” and “ON” in that Amendment and the high Courts have made that distinction clear. The definition of Income doesn’t really matter. What the Congress “can” tax is what matters. The 16th Amendment states that the Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, “FROM” whatever source derived, not “ON” whatever source derived. If the income tax was on your labor, then making labor would be income, but it’s not. Since the 16th Amendment and Title 26 (IRS Code) only tax income “FROM” your labor, you must first have labor and then derive income from that labor, like investing it in a CD, or savings account. The interest on that labor (the source), not the labor, would be income. Sounds completed but it’s not.

Here’s a perfect example. Just like a capital gains tax, the tax on a property purchased for $100,000 and sold for the same amount is zero. Why? No gain. The capital gains tax is not “ON” the property itself, it’s “FROM” the gain on the property. You see? The capital gains tax on a property purchased for $100,000 and sold for $150,000, has a capital gains tax of $50,000. No gain, no tax. So in this example the capital gains tax is just like the income tax, the tax is derived “FROM” the gain on the property, not “ON” the property itself. So the property in the above example is the same as the property, being your labor. Your labor is not taxed, any gain from your labor is subject to the taxing power of the 16th Amendment.

It doesn’t matter what meaning is given to income. What matters is that, according to the 16th Amendment itself, the income tax is laid on all incomes “FROM” the source, not “ON” the source. I have listed 5 high appellate court cases, including the United States Supreme Court, which bears me out.

Now, go try and sell this argument to the government and see how far you get. Unfortunately, “might makes right” in this case. They have the might, so we lose a right. Or, do you feel like standing up for your rights yet?

Oliver v. Halstead, 86 S.E. Rep 2nd 859 (1955):
"There is a clear distinction between `profit' and `wages', or a compensation for labor. Compensation for labor (wages) cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word `profit', as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment -- a different thing altogether from the mere compensation for labor."

Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930):
"The claim that salaries, wages, and compensation for personal services are to be taxed as an entirety and therefore must be returned by the individual who has performed the services which produce the gain is without support... it is not salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services that are to be included in gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services."

Conner v. U.S., 303 F Supp. 1187 (1969):
"... whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient. This was true when the 16th Amendment became effective, it was true at the time of Eisner v. Macomber, it was true under Section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1938, and it is likewise true under Section 61(a) of the I.R.S. Code of 1954. If there is not gain, there is not income ... CONGRESS HAS TAXED INCOME NOT COMPENSATION."

Edwards (vs) Keith, 231 F110, 113 (1916):
"The phraseology of form 1040 is somewhat obscure .... But it matters little what it does mean; the statute and the statute alone determines what is income to be taxed. It taxes only income "derived" from many different sources; one does not "derive income" by rendering services and charging for them... IRS cannot enlarge the scope of the statute."

Lauderdale Cemetary Assoc. v. Mathews, 345 PA 239; 47 A. 2d 277, 280 (1946):
"... reasonable compensation for labor or services rendered is not profit."

Jayprakash....Your welcome!

Jayprakash....Your welcome! Im glad you watched it. I told you it was boring!!....Haaa

They passed an amendment to the constitution:

"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."

Doesn't this just add to the whole stigma - you guys are crazy - when you say stuff like this. Not trying to be a downer, but they passed an amendment saying they can collect taxes on incomes.. Where am I wrong?

Never Ratified! ... The Law That Never Was. - 16th Fairy Tale.

Show me the massive support for an income tax. Who supported such an insidious tax in 1913?
Schooled!... Please study what our public schools hide.

Show me how a state can rightfully authorize the federal government to abscond with tax receipts that pay little beyond the National Debt? An unamortized loan made of thin air. 98 year lie.. Twice the time between Jubilees. Show me where the money goes?
1913. A year that will live in infamy. The World War Tax.

Show me some compassion. But I digress.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

You are wrong in that what a

You are wrong in that what a man makes, what we call a "wage", or a "salary", or even "tips", are completely different than what "income" is. However, they tax a mans wages, salary, and tips, as if it were an "income". Everyone should do their due diligence regarding this matter, and more importantly, understand the words and definitions of those words more thoroughly.

Do you have any quotes or

Do you have any quotes or writings from the framers of the 16th amendment that would indicate that the meaning really was what you say, and that it was not intended to allow Congress to apply an income tax as it now does? I mean, a huge part of the argument by Ron Paul and his supporters is that the founders did not intend for certain clauses (General welfare, interstate commerce, necessary and proper, etc) of the Constitution to authorize all the stuff that Congress does. Contortion of those words without regard for the original meaning is what has allowed all these laws and programs to be approved. So in a discussion on the meaning of the 16th Amendment, shouldn't we likewise refer to what the people who wrote the amendment meant for it to mean?

I'm not going to pretend I'm a linguist or constitutional

scholar here, but according to Merriam-Webster, the definition of income is "a gain or recurrent benefit usually measured in money that derives from capital or labor; also : the amount of such gain received in a period of time ".

Sounds like a salary or wage to me.. At it's face it is completely Constitutional. I'm not necessarily for it, but I'm just saying all this talk about it not being Constitutional just seems like another argument that hurts the Liberty movement.

What are you saying "income" means then? The onus of diligence is on the people who claim otherwise when it is so blatantly obvious in the Constitution.

Your right for the wrong reason timwix...

Read the definition you quoted from Merriam-Webster. It states that Income is gain or recurrent benefit... "FROM" capital or labor, not "ON" capital or labor. So if you make gain from your labor, that gain is taxable. The labor is the source of the gain from which the tax is taken. The source is not taxable. Please refer to my reply above in this post for a more detailed explanation. Thanks


Please don't mistake my intentions here, just trying to help..

The difference...

Wages are an even trade. I trade my time and labor for compensation. I gain nothing from the transaction as I've lost an equal amnount of time. Think of this as barter.

Income is anything made from an activity... or profits. If you make a product that costs x to produce and you sell it for y then y-x='s your profits or income. Philisophically, this can be taxed as you are making money from the American people and through the market that the government is regulating (old definition) via tax money.

Keep in mind that the current definition of income is irrelevant as the dictionary alters definitions every year to mirror popular usage. What matters is the definition of the time. One of the greatest tools the government uses to change the constitution is the perversion and evolution of our language.

The Supreme Court has also stated that the 16th amendment granted no new taxing powers to the government.

NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.

It is perfectly fine, timwix.

It is perfectly fine, timwix. I too, am trying to help. However, when researching bills, laws, amendments, or anything that was published during a certain time or period, it is important to look at the interpretation, or definition of those words with dictionaries from that time, or perhaps even further back in history. With time, it is commonly known that definitions are reinterpreted or redefined in order to suit an agenda, or for other purposes. Some words, as you know, are even newly introduced to the dictionary, and as well, are even removed from the dictionary. There are plenty of words that you might read in an article from 1776 that are no longer in current dictionaries, and therefore, one would go back to a dictionary from that time to gather what the intent of the author was. This same method is applied to words we still commonly use today that just so happened to have different definitions in the past and therefore, different intent and meaning. In this case, you are quoting a Merriam-Webster dictionary most likely published within the last twenty years, and therefore, when talking about something published in 1913, I would consider it misinterpreted, as you are not quoting a dictionary from 1913. Hope this helps. :)

1913. A year that will live in infamy. The World War Tax.

Federal Reserve dreamed up by bankers to send your hard earned money into the abyss.

Federal Income Tax dreamed up to collect your hard earned money for pending World War, & other purposes.

President Reagan "Grace Commission" Flight of the Income Tax Submitted by Mark Twain, 2010

President Reagan asked innocently, "Where do all our income tax payments go?" He created the 'Grace Commission' to find out.

Your Income Tax payments are spirited away! "In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government."
--- 'Grace Commission' under President Ronald Reagan, 1985

U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1913-2011 (Nominal and Inflation-Adjusted Brackets)

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

The income tax is pure stupidity

Compliance cost are almost half a trillion and they only collect a trillion per year by todays numbers..

Even worse in a so called free society it's none of the govts business how much money you have or make

America would be much more honest and productive if tax industry was shut down and those whom work and lobby for it had to get real jobs

Government is supposed to protect our freedom, our property, our privacy, not invade it. Ron Paul 2007

100% pure. Yet, adulterated. Infinitely so.

Most of income tax collection goes to pay the mythical National Debt interest.

Now that I have your interest, you might not notice that National Debt was funded without principal. It was funded out-of-thin-air. The rapscallions that created National Debt are not principled either.

President Reagan "Grace Commission" Flight of the Income Tax
Submitted by Mark Twain on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 10:54. Permalink

Submitted by Mark Twain on Mon, 09/06/2010 - 01:08.

President Reagan asked innocently, "Where do all our income tax payments go?" He created the "Grace Commission" to find out.

Brief summary: Your Income Tax payments completely disappear.

    "In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government.

    - 'Grace Commission' under President Ronald Reagan"

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Or you can just ask them directly

To prove that you are a "taxpayer" under federal law and they will reveal that they have no facts, witnesses, or evidence to prove that you are. Their whole argument is based on assumptions.


One witness. Secretary of the Treasury signs Fed Reserve notes.

As witness, the United States Secretary of the Treasury signs Federal Reserve Notes... Promissory notes.... National Debt receipts. Liquidity. He works for the Immaculate Money Fountain (aka: IMF; International Monetary Fund; International Bankers).

Look as the bottom of your cash (make-believe money; monopoly money)... Your promissory note. Your promise to pay. Agent & witness of each back note... promissory note... is printed for all to see.

Turbo Tax Timmy G., Secretary of the Treasury. Witness-in-Chief. Attends to IMF, council of Foreign Relations, etc.

The United States Treasurer acts as our United States governmental agent. Currently she is: Rosie Rios. Her biographical information is buried @ http://www.treasury.gov/about/organizational-structure/Pages... She used to be prominent on Treasury web pages. Now she is relegated to her biographical page which states nothing she has done for the United States government. Just our cash-signing agent perhaps.

    Rosie Rios serves as the 43rd Treasurer of the United States. She has direct oversight over the U.S. Mint, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing and FortKnox and is a key liaison with the Federal Reserve. In addition, the Treasurer serves as a senior advisor to the Secretary in the areas of community development and public engagement. She is especially passionate about supporting Women in Finance and issues of Main Street in the economic recovery.

    Prior to her confirmation as Treasurer, Rios worked at MacFarlane Partners, where she was Managing Director of Investments. Working with MacFarlane Partners’ development and global capital partners, Rios played a central role in facilitating equity transactions for large mixed-use development projects in major urban areas. In November of 2008, Rios took a leave of absence from MacFarlane Partners to serve on the Treasury/Federal Reserve Transition Team and is a graduate of Harvard University.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Taking without permission is

theft. Threatening prison if you do not cowardly submit to criminal theives is extortion. Extorted theft called income tax, immoral claims of false national debts used to justify immoral extorted theft called tax. They need not money, the Rothschild central bank so called Federal Reserve Bank Corporation can digitize unlimited quanitities and does. They already own everything hidden under layers of corportion. So again they do not need money so why the immoral extorted theft called tax?

A control mechanism, those who do not submit can be punished or killed. Immoral extorted theft called tax used to identify the oposition.

Enlightened disengagement, the new American dream, earn as little as possible so as to not submit to the theives liars and mass murdering warmongers. Keep your debt issue fiat counterfit false compounding debt money, keep your liar corporations. Me ill grow my garden raise a few animals keep a low profile, earn as little as possible so I do not have to become either a submitting coward to theives nor a prisioner.

My final answer is no!


Sorry, but with these magic

Sorry, but with these magic words, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes...", it opened the floodgates and they've never been able to shut them, except for us constantly telling Congress "oh, no you DON'T"!