From time to time the Supreme Court rules on a question of whether our income tax is constitutional. They always rule it as constitutional, no matter what argument is presented. They always imply that the supplicant is a little goofy or not really serious, and generally they are correct.
The latest was that the 13th Amendment, which freed the slaves that the Emancipation Proclamation failed to include, was relevant because it made taxpayers give up their labor involuntarily. They ruled it not relevant because the 16th Amendment was passed after the 13th Amendment, and that the framers of the 13th could not have possibly meant to prohibit something, that wasn't heard of at the time.
Contact information ( * required )
Well, let's find an argument that was in place before the 13th and has been invoked over and over. Since only about a third of the population pays any income taxes, the burden of paying for 100 percent of the expenses falls onto them. This is unequal protection under the law. Has anyone ever presented this argument? Equal protection is a real reason to void the income tax and find a new "constitutional tax" to finance government spending.
I am sure the Supreme Court would find that frivolous also, because if they ever got serious about it about 100 million people who oppose any change in the Marxist 16th Amendment would drum them and any politician who supported them out of town. Twenty million get a direct benefit from the filing and paying of the income tax, and with their extended family and friends it mounts to the 100 million I mentioned.
Wilton Jere Tidwell