Monday Polly: Uncle Sam Has His Hands In My Pockets
Monday - January 14, 2008By: Charles "Cza" Sweet
Alright y'all, I hope that you've got your egg McJumpoff and some coffee to sip, or whatever your favorite early morning day starter is (I prefer granola myself, and/or a beer, but don't quote me) because we're getting it in like us IT guys (Intelligent Thugs) do it, heavy on the mind and heavy on the grind. I wanted to give you a basic rundown of what The Monday Polly is and more importantly, isn't.
What It Is: A forum where we're going to chop up good game about the current state of the world. Each episode has a main focus that we're going to speak about in depth, but unlike CNN or MSNBC, I'm a cat from the block who wants to bring y'all up on level ground, not dumb anything down, so what I lace you with can be taken straight to the bank.
I'm putting you up on what you may not know, but trust me son, it's trill because what we're pollyin' about is bigger than me, bigger than you, bigger than all of us, so don't sleep. I'm keeping' it one hundred with y'all at all times, and I expect y'all to do the same. Cool? Oh yeah, fair warning; this blog is BIASED AS SHIT. I make no excuses about what I care for and do not care for. Seeing that this is a discussion, I fully expect for some people to not feel the same way I do on certain things, and I invite you who don't to post up what you disagree with, and why you feel that way. That way, we can communicate effectively and come away with a better rounded scope of our own principles and morals. I'm a journalist, but I'm also a young, black, intelligent male with a voice I'm not afraid to use. Just like you. So use it.
What It Isn't: A fraudulent ass soapbox. I'm not writing this because I like to see my thoughts in print or my own personal agenda played out to you, the readers, in order to sway you one way or the other. I'm not trying to get famous from this; I'm verbalizing what I feel is important enough to talk about and sometimes put my idea of a solution to the problem at hand. Something else this blog isn't is a platform for racial prejudice. I'm not ever going to pull a single race card here. It's 2008, y'all. For the sake of the new year, that's rapidly approaching us. Let's step our game up. The "Man" is focused on more important things than just keeping a particular race down, how about a world populous? Maybe, but a particular race, no. Those bitch ass cops who decide to do those fucked up things are individuals who made a clear and certain choice to be like they are, there are plenty of good and lawful cops (I've met like... one) who only want to do their jobs and go home to their kids.
Now that we've got that little introduction out of the way, let's get to the topic we're chopping up today...
Why does Uncle Sam have his Gotdamn hands in my pockets?!?
Okay, ultra-secret government assassin hit squad; please don't come take me out in the middle of the night for saying something I shouldn't have. It's not that serious, seriously. Now that I have my disclaimer out of the way, the title above is talking about the annual federal income tax that we are "required" to pay every year. I'm all for the cats up in Washington, D.C. getting their bread, but I'm not making enough to feed us both and you're taking a nice chunk out of my check every other week that could've been another pair of J's or an Artful Dodger hoody.In a nutshell, way back in 1913, the states ratified the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that made it cool 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." That statement was limited by "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States...", and further reined in by "No Capitation, or other direct Tax, shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration..." Basically, direct taxes were supposed to be applied based on the rule of apportionment while indirect taxes used the rule of uniformity. According to that, anytime a tax was imposed by Congress, they had to follow either of those two guidelines. Still with me, cuzzo? It's about to get even better!
In 1895, the Supreme Court struck down the federal Income Tax Act of 1894, calling it unconstitutional and in 1916; two decisions were made about the Amendment. Jumping forward to 1980, those decisions were checked out in a Congressional Report Service (CRS) report and came up with the following: "The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White, first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution... Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes were still subject to the rule of uniformity."
That being said only reinforced that every tax given by the government was subject to fall into either the "direct" or "indirect" category. Then what exactly did the big Whigs really set up with this Amendment? Since the Amendment stated that income tax couldn't be applied as a direct tax, and by its wording, better suited as an indirect tax that must follow the rule of apportionment, the government can never directly tax the people of the United States. According to the rule of apportionment, you have to equally tax each state directly. The CRS came up with this to sum it all up: "Therefore, it can be clearly determined from the decisions of the United States Supreme Court that the income tax is an indirect tax, generally in the nature of an excise tax." An excise tax?
In 1989, they updated their findings and better defined what they meant by "excise tax": "An excise tax is a tax levied on the manufacture, sale, or consumption of a commodity or any various taxes on privileges often assessed in the form of a license or fee. In other words, it is a tax on doing something to property or on the privilege of holding some property or doing some act, not a tax on the property itself. The tax is not on the property directly, but rather it is a tax on the transaction."
Using what they said in their report, the income tax isn't actually a tax on income, but a tax on "privilege" MEASURED by income. What's the privilege that the tax itself is based on? They don't say. That's crazy right there. Taxed for a reason that WE don't know that is gauged by how much we make. Curiouser and curiouser. Matter of fact, go ahead and ask an IRS agent what the privilege is and chances are you'll be waiting on that answer forever. I know, because my dude did and NEVER heard from the agent again. There are numerous letters stating that the 16th Amendment gave them a new power to use a non-apportioned income tax directly on the people of the United States, even though that isn't what was written in the amendment at all. If anything, the power to tax was limited by it.
They really can't justify the income tax if they're basing it on the powers given by the amendment because of two things that would shut that idea down completely. First, in 1943, an analysis written by a former legislative draftsman in the Treasury Department was published in the Congressional Record. Here's a really good part: "The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by the income they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of the tax." By them publishing this, they even acknowledge that the tax isn't on the income. If it was a tax on income, like it is so aptly named, there wouldn't be anything to tax if all the money made that year was gone before the April 15th tax day, making the tax a waste of time because you wouldn't be liable for anything! Secondly, the report says: "Hitherto the previous year's income has been used as the basis. But the basis, as well as the rates, may be changed at any time." The tax is an indirect privilege tax and income is merely the measure of the tax meaning Congress can change the value of the privilege at any time and make it retroactive to the beginning of the new tax year.
So that's my reason for believing that Uncle Sam should go get his old ass a job at KFC or something and stop touching my papes. Bill Benson wrote a book called The Law That Never Was that claims that the ratification of the 16th Amendment never reached the 3/4 vote necessary and Secretary of State Philander Knox announced that it had fraudulently. While the tax IS voluntary (bet you didn't know that) I wouldn't suggest you just up and stop paying your taxes just yet, that is unless you want some MIB types peeping through your window blinds.
I appreciate y'all rocking with me on the first of many, many quests to find out what's really good. If you take anything away from this, I want that to be for you to just ask questions. I'm not saying that anyone is trying to pull one over on you, but at the same time, you should be concerned if someone should want to. Big shouts to Robert Greenslade, who did much of the legwork for this one. Couldn't have done it without you homie. Tell me what y'all think, hit me up at themondaypolly@gmail.com and use the reply form below so we can keep it moving. Uno Bravado!
GO BACK TO SITE