but the answer to the "who sez?" question is the 16th Amendment:
Amendment XVI
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.
That seems fairly straight forward and after having read the links sited in other posts I was prepared to concede that the taxing of personal income was within the law and constitutional provisions. However after having read the following I will reserve my judgment yet again.
Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 states: "Representative and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers," and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 states: "No capitation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in apportionment to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."
These basic sections of the Constitution
have never been repealed or amended. The Constitution still forbids the direct taxation of individuals, their property, and their rights, unless the tax is apportioned to the State governments for collection.
And Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 states: "No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marquee and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility."
This Clause in the Constitution is why NEITHER the Federal, nor the State governments have any authority, either OVER, or TO UNILATERALLY ALTER, PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS.
Well, you say the 16th Amendment as cited by B.Lahey above changed everything right?
Not according to the SCOTUS, they ruled in Brushaber vs Union Pacific R.R. Co. and in Stanton vs Baltic Mining Co., that since the provisions of Article I, requiring that direct taxes be apportioned, were not repealed, they are still in full force and effect. And, that since the language of the 16th Amendment specifies that the income tax is to be a tax without apportionment, then it cannot be a direct tax, because otherwise the Constitution would inherently contradict itself, which cannot be allowed to happen. Article I cannot prohibit direct taxation unless apportioned, while the 16th Amendment grants the power to lay direct taxes without apportionment, because then the Constitution would inherently contradict itself and could no longer serve as a valid foundation for our Law. So, to specifically prevent the Constitution from contradicting itself,
the Supreme Court ruled that since the 16th Amendment provides for an income tax without apportionment, then the income tax cannot be a direct tax.
There are only two major classes of taxation authorized in the Constitution; direct taxes and indirect taxes. So, if the income tax cannot be a direct tax, then it must be an indirect tax. Indirect taxes are classified into three minor categories in the Constitution: imposts, duties and excises. The income tax started in 1861 as an Income Duty and a Federal employee "kickback," imposed only on foreign imports and Federal employees, which was contained and allowed within the Constitutional category of duties. As a duty it was only imposed on the flow of foreign goods into America, NOT DOMESTIC GOODS, NOR DOMESTIC INCOME.
Obviously today, the income tax is not currently being enforced as a duty, so the questions are: "Did the 16th Amendment create a new congressional power to tax directly ?", and; "How did the 16th Amendment change the income tax ?". The answer to the first question was supplied by the Supreme Court in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 US 112 (1916), stating:"...by the previous ruling, it was settled that the provisions of
the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged.."
The Supreme Court clearly states that the 16th Amendment DID NOT create a new power to tax the People in a direct fashion without apportionment, AS IS FRAUDULENTLY CLAIMED BY THE IRS.
