So Peter Schiff was discussing the whole "health care tax" thing today and brought up an interesting point. According to him (haven't verified it myself), the Supreme Court, shortly after the 16th amendment was passed, ruled that it was constitutional ONLY if the incomes were separated from the sources of the income. Which seems impossible, but they ruled that this could be done through the method of a corporate balance sheet. So essentially, the income tax was only constitutional if it was a profit tax rather than an income tax.
And, oddly enough, that's how it works for corporations but not for individuals. If Microsoft obtains 10 billion in revenues, but also spends 10 billion on expenses, they have a net profit of zero, and thus pay no income tax. For individuals; however, this is obviously not the case. You are taxed on your gross revenues, with zero regard for how much you actually spend. Why is this the case? Why is this tolerated and not pointed out? Why doesn't the left, who takes every POSSIBLE opportunity to demonize and villianize corporations, hammer this constantly?
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/