Comment: Yes, I know the arguments you are talking about ...

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: That's (see in situ)

Yes, I know the arguments you are talking about ...

... but those are irrelevant to this disucssion.

You said, "Even if the 16th conferred new power of taxation to Congress, which SCOTUS has ruled it doesn't, it would not take away power from States ie overrule the 10th."

It's not a matter of "overruling the 10th." I am looking at it from the standpoint of keeping in mind the 10th.

The states do not have powers that are delegated to the feds. Period. The 16th gave the power to tax incomes to the feds, so it follows that the states do not have that power.

And actually if you look at history, you will find that what we think of as the income tax today was NOT instituted by the states prior to 1913. They just jumped on the band wagon.

There were "income taxes" of a sort before the 16th Amendment (the feds, too), but they were not what we think of as "income tax" because that concept has evolved over time. Back then, they taxed income from ownership of property, and even then most of the states did not do that for most of the time betwen 1791-1913.

So, there is some evidence that the income tax as we know it was really not considered lawful at all (or necessary). It only became "necessary" when the progressives were pushing the communist ideology of progressive income tax in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Our system is EITHER/OR. EITHER the feds have a particular power within a particular jurisdiction OR the states do. Period.