Cat Herder wrote:

---

But you and I have had this conversation before, haven't we?

---

I love your reasoning, Janey.  Which is exactly why this educator advocates education transitioning to a market enterprise instead of a government-funded and government-controlled system.

Janey wrote:

---

Really? Even though you're a teacher? When you say "private enterprise" are you talking about private schools?

---

The way to improve American education is to open the system to choice and competition. Give parents the freedom to send their children to schools that they choose. Get the dynamic and innovative for-profit sector looking for ways to deliver more education for less money. Let a thousand experiments bloom from charter schools to vouchers to tax credits to private management to full separation of school and state and let families and school systems emulate the successful ones.

But don't do any of this at the federal level. Don't reform education. Don't change the rules. Don't set up a demonstration project. Don't impose national standards. And by all means don't set up a national voucher plan. Even block grants to states, favored by some conservatives, have many problems: they continue the illusion that federal money is "magic money" that doesn't come from the people in the several states; they get state and local education agencies hooked on federal money; and they subsidize the very monopolies that need to be opened to competition.

Just eliminate the Department of Education, end its meddlesome subsidies and regulations, and return the $70 billion that the federal government spends annually on elementary and secondary education to the American people...The closer to the family we push the decisionmaking, the more dynamic, competitive, and innovative the educational system will be.

Congress should affirm the wisdom of the Founders in not granting the federal government any power over education and return the vital function of education to the states, localities, and families where it can be managed best.

The federal government of the United States imposes a progressive tax on the taxable income of individuals, corporations, trusts, decedents' estates, and certain bankruptcy estates. Some state and municipal governments also impose income taxes. The first Federal income tax was imposed (under Article I, section 8, clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution) during the Civil War, then again in the 1890s, and again after the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified in 1913. Current income taxes are imposed under these constitutional provisions and various sections of Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, including 26 U.S.C. § 1 (imposing income tax on the taxable income of individuals, estates and trusts) and 26 U.S.C. § 11 (imposing income tax on the taxable income of corporations).

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution (the "Taxing and Spending Clause"), specifies Congress's power to impose "Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises," but Article I, Section 9 requires that, "Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

In addition, the Constitution specifically limited Congress' ability to impose direct taxes, by requiring it to distribute direct taxes in proportion to each state's census population. It was thought that head taxes and property taxes (slaves could be taxed as either or both) were likely to be abused, and that they bore no relation to the activities in which the federal government had a legitimate interest. The fourth clause of section 9 therefore specifies that, "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

Taxation was also the subject of Federalist No. 33 penned secretly by the Federalist Alexander Hamilton under the pseudonym Publius. In it, he explains that the wording of the "Necessary and Proper" clause should serve as guidelines for the legislation of laws regarding taxation. The legislative branch is to be the judge, but any abuse of those powers of judging can be overturned by the people, whether as states or as a larger group.

The courts have generally held that direct taxes are limited to taxes on people (variously called "capitation", "poll tax" or "head tax") and property^[1]. All other taxes are commonly referred to as "indirect taxes," because they tax an event, rather than a person or property per se.^[2] What seemed to be a straightforward limitation on the power of the legislature based on the subject of the tax proved inexact and unclear when applied to an income tax, which can be arguably viewed either as a direct or an indirect tax.

Early Federal income taxes

In order to help pay for its war effort in the American Civil War, the United States government imposed its first personal income tax, on August 5, 1861, as part of the Revenue Act of 1861 (3% of all incomes over US $800; rescinded in 1872). Other income taxes followed, although an 1895 United States Supreme Court ruling, Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., held that taxes on rents from real estate, on interest income from personal property and other income from personal property (which includes dividend income) were direct taxes on property, and therefore had to be apportioned. Since apportionment of income taxes is impractical, this had the effect of prohibiting a federal tax on income from property. Due to the political difficulties of taxing individual wages without taxing income from property, a federal income tax was impractical from the time of the Pollock decision until the time of ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment.

Ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment

In response, Congress proposed the Sixteenth Amendment (ratified by the requisite number of states in 1913^[3]), which states:

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.

The Supreme Court in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1 (1916), indicated that the amendment did not expand the federal government's existing power to tax income (meaning profit or gain from any source) but rather removed the possibility of classifying an income tax as a direct tax on the basis of the source of the income. The Amendment removed the need for the income tax to be apportioned among the states on the basis of population. Income taxes are required, however, to abide by the law of geographical uniformity. Some tax protesters, conspiracy theorists, and others opposed to income taxes cite what they contend is evidence that the Sixteenth Amendment was never "properly ratified" (see Tax protester constitutional arguments).

Modern interpretation of the power to tax incomes

The modern interpretation of the Sixteenth Amendment taxation power can be found in Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co. 348 U.S. 426 (1955). In that case, a taxpayer had received an award of punitive damages from a competitor for antitrust violations, and sought to avoid paying taxes on that award. The Court observed that Congress, in imposing the income tax, had defined income to include:

gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service . . . of whatever kind and in whatever form paid, or from professions, vocations, trades, businesses, commerce, or sales, or dealings in property, whether real or personal, growing out of the ownership or use of or interest in such property; also from interest, rent, dividends, securities, or the transaction of any business carried on for gain or profit, or gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever.^[4]

The Court held that "this language was used by Congress to exert in this field the full measure of its taxing power", id., and that "the Court has given a liberal construction to this broad phraseology in recognition of the intention of Congress to tax all gains except those specifically exempted."^[5]

The Court then enunciated what is now understood by Congress and the Courts to be the definition of taxable income, "instances of undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion." Id. at 431. The defendant in that case suggested that a 1954 rewording of the tax code had limited the income that could be taxed, a position which the Court rejected, stating:

The definition of gross income has been simplified, but no effect upon its present broad scope was intended. Certainly punitive damages cannot reasonably be classified as gifts, nor do they come under any other exemption provision in the Code. We would do violence to the plain meaning of the statute and restrict a clear legislative attempt to bring the taxing power to bear upon all receipts constitutionally taxable were we to say that the payments in question here are not gross income.^[6]

Tax statutes passed after the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913 are sometimes referred to as the "modern" tax statutes. Hundreds of Congressional acts have been passed since 1913, as well as several codifications (i.e., topical reorganizations) of the statutes (see Codification).

Central Illinois Public Service Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 21 (1978), confirmed that wages and income are not identical as far as taxes on income are concerned, because income not only includes wages, but any other gains as well. The Court in that case noted that in enacting taxation legislation, Congress "chose not to return to the inclusive language of the Tariff Act of 1913, but, specifically, 'in the interest of simplicity and ease of administration,' confined the obligation to withhold [income taxes] to 'salaries, wages, and other forms of compensation for personal services'" and that "committee reports ... stated consistently that 'wages' meant remuneration 'if paid for services performed by an employee for his employer'".^[7]

Other courts have noted this distinction in upholding the taxation not only of wages, but also of personal gain derived from other sources, recognizing some limitation to the reach of income taxation. For example, in Conner v. United States, 303 F. Supp. 1187 (S.D. Tex. 1969), affd in part and revd in part, 439 F.2d 974 (5th Cir. 1971), a couple had lost their home to a fire, and had received compensation for their loss from the insurance company, partly in the form of hotel costs reimbursed. The court acknowledged the authority of the IRS to assess taxes on all forms of payment, but did not permit taxation on the compensation provided by the insurance company, because unlike a wage or a sale of goods at a profit, this was not a gain. As the Court noted, "Congress has taxed income, not compensation".

By contrast, other courts have interpreted the Constitution as providing even broader taxation powers for Congress. In Murphy v. IRS, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the Federal income tax imposed on a monetary settlement recovery that the same court had previously indicated was not income, stating: "[a]lthough the 'Congress cannot make a thing income which is not so in fact,' [ . . . ] it can label a thing income and tax it, so long as it acts within its constitutional authority, which includes not only the Sixteenth Amendment but also Article I, Sections 8 and 9." ^[8]

Similarly, in Penn Mutual Indemnity Co. v. Commissioner, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit indicated that Congress could properly impose the Federal income tax on a receipt of money, regardless of what that receipt of money is called:

It could well be argued that the tax involved here [an income tax] is an "excise tax" based upon the receipt of money by the taxpayer. It certainly is not a tax on property and it certainly is not a capitation tax; therefore, it need not be apportioned. [ . . . ] Congress has the power to impose taxes generally, and if the particular imposition does not run afoul of any constitutional restrictions then the tax is lawful, call it what you will.^[9]

The Internal Revenue Code (or IRC) (more formally, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended) is the main body of domestic statutory tax law of the United States organized topically, including laws covering the income tax (see Income tax in the United States), payroll taxes, gift taxes, estate taxes and statutory excise taxes. The Internal Revenue Code is published as title 26 of the United States Code (USC), and is also known as the internal revenue title.

class dismissed.