Posted by KatNip on September 30, 1998 at 16:26:36:
via NEWSGROUP: misc.taxes
m singh wrote:
> I'm baffled by all this tax protester debate. I thought that the Supreme
> Court ruled in a case in the 1920's or 30's that the 16th amendment
> granted the congress "no new powers". If income taxes were
> unconstitutional before the 16th amendment how can they be constitutional
> now if the 16th amendment granted the congress "no new powers".
As originally enforced, the income tax was one rate on the earnings of
federally chartered corporations - thus a constitutional excise tax.
Brushaber made the mistake that the Union Pacific R.R. was a "state
chartered" corporation, when in fact, it was a federally chartered.
That made the tax legal.
The fraud is when a State corporation is taxed as if it was Federally
chartered.
The later graduated employee wage tax was created by the "voluntary"
application for the Social Security number, and the Public Employees'
Tax Act of 1939 - which was a kickback "Return of income" tax.
Coincidentally, Government employees covered by Fed pensions,
didn't need to get "Social Security numbers" until the 1970's, if I recall.
This was in accordance with the bankruptcy of the United States corporation
to foreign banking interests.
============================================================
|Jeff Ganaposki mailto:jgmail@bellsouth.net
|404-361-9972 http://www.freeyellow.com/members/living-word
============================================================