The latest bit of stupid and crazy from Bryan Fischer is his claim that the income tax is “flatly unconstitutional.” He says, “The only authority they have (the IRS) is to collect taxes on income, which is dividend income and capital gains income, that is all that is authorized by the 16th Amendment.” Hmmm. Let’s look at the text:
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.
Clearly false.
26 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort
April 20, 2012 at 12:07 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It’s in the Constitution, so it’s Unconstitutional!
Clearly Conservatives only use the Constitution like the use the Bible – ignore the parts they don’t like to push the parts they do like.
eigenperson
April 20, 2012 at 12:08 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I love that someone had the foresight to put that clause in there, just in case some idiot like Bryan Fischer were to happen along.
Gregory in Seattle
April 20, 2012 at 12:11 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Fischer proves, yet again, that he is an ignoramous.
Area Man
April 20, 2012 at 12:13 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
You’d be amazed at the neural pretzel twisting that some people go through to deny that the law requires us to pay taxes. Fischer’s take here is nothing new. Tax protesters have long been denying that the 16th amendment allows taxes on wages, that “income” means what we all think it means, or that the amendment was even properly ratified.
For a taste of the insanity, check this out:
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#repeal
juice
April 20, 2012 at 12:24 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
He’s just using the same dictionary that defines “not interstate commerce” to be the same as “interstate commerce”. Regardless, the 16th amendment needs to be repealed. It was a huge mistake.
theschwa
April 20, 2012 at 12:26 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Know what else is unconstitutional? Gun ownership. Worshiping whatever deity you like.
What is constitutional? Easy: Religious tests for office. Owning slaves.
Larry
April 20, 2012 at 12:33 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Go ahead, punk. Make my day. Don’t pay.
I’m sure your argument will work in court.
Doug Little
April 20, 2012 at 12:48 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It worked well for Kent Horvind, he had a slightly different approach to not paying taxes but the outcome would be the same.
Chiroptera
April 20, 2012 at 12:54 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Usually, they try to make a more suble argument, insisting that there were some obscure, little known procedural errors in the ratificiation of the 16th Amendment that invalidates it.
It is refeshing to see them use the old “let’s not even read it” approach.
busterggi
April 20, 2012 at 12:57 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Conservative nutjobs pull this argument out every few years & it always gets slapped right down for the same reason – its wrong.
I can’t decide if they’re repeating it because they’re crazy or stupid.
Skip White
April 20, 2012 at 12:59 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
For some reason, this reminds me of Sam Rohrer, running for U.S. Senate in PA. I heard an interview with him on the local NPR station a few days ago, stating that he disagrees with the 17th amendment and would like to repeal it. Yes, the guy who has to first be elected by the people of the state, per the 17th amendment doesn’t actually like the amendment which allows said people to elect him. Of course, he’s just another “I hate big government, so elect me to the government and I pinky-swear I’ll reduce the size of government” type.
In the same interview, he actually defended his vote for the so-called “midnight pay raise,” where in 2005, the PA legislature voted itself a pay raise without public review or input, passing the measure at 2AM.
He has been endorsed by Michele Bachmann and Hermain Cain.
Sometimes I hate this state.
LightningRose
April 20, 2012 at 1:06 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I like to encourage this belief amongst the Religious Reich that I meet. Also, the commonly held belief by the same crowd that all taxes are “voluntary”.
vmanis1
April 20, 2012 at 1:11 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
A lot of the anti-income tax stuff is so abstruse I can’t understand it. Here in Canada, there was a fellow who promoted some theory about how there was a difference between `natural citizens’ and `taxpayers’ (I’ve heard a similar theory espoused by Americans), and how `natural citizens’ didn’t have to pay income tax. He ran courses where he taught people this theory. The Canada Revenue Agency started by prosecuting the people who took these courses (and acted upon them) for tax evasion. Then they went after him for counselling tax evasion.
I think people would have a better chance disagreeing with the existence of gravity than with the ability of governments to impose income taxes.
D. C. Sessions
April 20, 2012 at 1:14 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ed, you’re reading the wrong Constitution. Fisher is referring to the Real Constitution, the one handed down by Jesus.
unbound
April 20, 2012 at 1:20 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The most authoritative response I know of – http://www.irs.gov/irb/2005-14_IRB/ar11.html
Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort
April 20, 2012 at 1:23 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@DC Sessions:
You mean this one?
Marcus Ranum
April 20, 2012 at 1:40 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Actually, it’d be awesome if they collected tax only on dividends and capital gains. But somehow I doubt that the boots Fischer licks would be very happy about that…
D. C. Sessions
April 20, 2012 at 2:23 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Sorry, Marcus, but you pushed one of my buttons.
Personally, I’d be delighted if we got rid of the income tax entirely and raised more or less all of our revenues from a wealth tax. The US net personal wealth is around $50 trillion, so we could cover a normal year’s spending with about a 6% tax. Leave SS based on payroll (for the usual reasons) and we could balance the budget with about a 4% tax.
By taxing wealth, we’d actually incent investment — push resources towards productive use — because of the increased cost of just parking them in reserves. The tax itself, without any adjustments, would be vastly more progressive than any practical income tax. Just as a for-instance, I’m 60 and just barely in the “99%,” and a 6% tax would be close to a wash for me after building up resources over most of a well-paid career.
My kids? Much lower (as in, damn near nothing) taxes, allowing them to get started more readily.
Ain’t gonna happen, of course. But still, worth thinking about.
Doug Little
April 20, 2012 at 3:19 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
To add to what DC is saying, I have never understood the argument that taxing the wealthy at a higher rate is a deterrent to actually becoming wealthy in the first place. The people making this argument must think that individuals sole motivating factor to become successful is enrichment.
mauriletremblay
April 20, 2012 at 3:24 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
He’s sort of right, in a way, even though he’s exactly wrong at the same time.
The point of the 16th Amendment was to authorize federal taxes specifically on dividends and interest (and rent). The point of the 16th Amendment was not to authorize federal taxes on ordinary income such as wages . . . because such taxes were already authorized before the 16th Amendment was passed.
(Article 1, Section 8 allows Congress to collect taxes. A couple other provisions say that “direct” taxes must be apportioned among the states in proportion to their populations. The Supreme Court said that taxes on dividends and interest were “direct” taxes, but taxes on wages were not. So unapportioned federal taxes on dividends and interest — but not wages — were disallowed until the 16th Amendment was passed.)
Area Man
April 20, 2012 at 3:47 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
There’s really not much to understand. It comes down to a belief in the power of words. They think that if they can change the name of something, then the application of the law will magically change to follow suit. So they are constantly trying to declare themselves or their income as being somehow categorically different than normal people or incomes, and hence the law doesn’t apply. Needless to say, this shit never, ever works. But it’s fascinating how they delude themselves into thinking it will. It’s almost like a ritual incantation — names and words are imbued with magical, mystical powers that bend nature, and all you have to do is say the right words and reality will change.
juice
April 20, 2012 at 5:55 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I think a better system would be that the federal government can only collect internal revenue from the states themselves and never from the people.
Azkyroth, Former Growing Toaster Oven
April 21, 2012 at 12:27 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
What.
Azkyroth, Former Growing Toaster Oven
April 21, 2012 at 12:28 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“What.” on stilts.
Azkyroth, Former Growing Toaster Oven
April 21, 2012 at 12:30 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Even if it is, the tax rates allow for plenty of enrichment. You’d have to propose that people would rather throw the entire pie out the window rather than share part of it.
Sadly, this is sometimes the case.
Azkyroth, Former Growing Toaster Oven
April 21, 2012 at 12:31 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
By the way, I’m continually surprised that Fischer has white hair. I read what he says and I’m expecting a 20-something with a fauxhawk and a resentful expression.
How does someone that dumb get to be that age without stepping in front of a bus and attempting to browbeat it into stopping for him?