But it’s pretty clear to me that (a) our Founders well understood the power to tax is the power to destroy, (b) they hated tax as much as any of us, and (c) that ‘tax’ is only mentioned in the Constitution explicitly as cited.

That Congress has criminally overstepped is clear, creating whole cloth tax laws that are not Constitutional. This is a criminal act but no one possesses the power to make them stop. Courts bow in accordance. The military bows its head in obedience. Everyone seems okay with taxes, except those few of us who believe the Constitution as it was written and originally interpreted. Everybody else profits from this conspiracy.

“The only law that is Law is of God. Everything else is just rules made by Man to enforce his will usurping the title and appearance of law but being in every particular the act of men in their own self-interest”. – Daniel Geer, Jr. Ph.D.

What part of Erie, Brubaker, Pollock, Baltic Mining et al inter-alia do you not understand?

That is a serious question, and not snarky.

http://www.constitutionalincome.com/

oh yeh, the unions and “poor people” don’t get any tax breaks.

oh yeh, I get it.

Sheez, what a fool.

This country is simply too big and the tax code too complex for massive one-time changes, even if the change is arguably principled.

The enactment of principles shouldn’t ruin peoples’ lives.

The essence of conservatism is caution, not jump-off-the-cliff ideology.

That’s why it’s lunatic to massively overhaul the Health Care system. The unintended consequences would be immense, and many people would suffer. Ditto for every other aspect of the Moron’s agenda. Also ditto for revoking Social Security and Medicare, which are socialist programs, but too imbedded to be reversable. The point to draw the line is at new socialist programs.

And making a change as significant as eliminating the mortgage decuction is just as dangerous. The unintended, as well as intended consequences would do great harm to many people.

Likewise for the flat tax and any other huge change.

Incremental and gradual change is the only reasonable solution. That’s what the Constitution encourages and that’s what makes sense.

Any ‘church’ that has 501(c)3 protection, has defiled their relationship with God by bowing the knee to The State. It’s wrong on every count. But … if we’re going there, then we also have to blast Congress for passing Lyndon Johnson self-serving Title 26 tax code violation of the free speech clause of the Constitution, where he got a a provision passed to prevent free speech in 501(c)3 churches. Meaning, pastors and ministers couldn’t preach the Gospel against his socialist state he was determined to build.

In short, it’s all upside down, inside out and backwards, and this Is Not a free country.

http://www.firebuilders.org/501c3.html

After all, America’s Revolution was preached from the pulpit.

http://www.christianitytoday.c.....0h010.html

There is no such thing as debt-free homeownership so long as you must pay your annual rent to the government in the form of property tax.

If people could realize the right to own property, then homeownership would have real value regardless of the loopholes, deductions, tax-breaks, etc…it takes to get it.

And quit looking to The State to be daddy.

Let’s review. What’s in the Constitution concerning taxes? Direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states. Imposts and Excise taxes to pay the debts of the federal government. No capitation or direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to the Census. The infamous 16th Amendment – The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived – [1] Poll taxes barred.

And that’s it. See anything about mortgage deductions?

The federal government involved in the private sector of housing, loans, construction and any other facet of home ownership is unConstitutional prima facia. Usurpation via the unchallenged power to write law they want written.

Virtually everything done by Congress since the time of the Civil War has been not just unConstitutional, but egregiously unConstitutional.

But so many many people get paid this way, so it’s best not to speak the Truth in these matters. The vast majority of Americans have their tin cup in hand loving every drop of squeezins that Congress allows to flow their way.

There should be no mortgage [2] deduction because Congress Constitutionally cannot be involved in the private affairs of it’s citizens.

[1] let’s rely on the Supreme Court to straighten it out for us.

In 1920, the Supreme Court said:
Eisner vs Macomber 252 U.S. 189 at 205 (1920). “The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the Amendment was adopted.”

But, before this, in 1916, there were two landmark Supreme Court cases that also helped to clear up the confusion. The first was:

Brushaber vs Union Pacific R.R. Co 240 U.S. 1 at 10-11 (1916).
It states “The various propositions are so intermingled as to cause it to be difficult to classify them. We are of opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the Sixteenth Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation, that is, a power to levy an income tax which although direct should not be the subject of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it, …”

Let’s continue with this Brushaber case at pg 11-12:
“But it clearly results that the propositions and the contentions under it, if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another, that is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned. Moreover, the tax authorized by the Amendment, being direct, would not come under the rule of uniformity applicable under the Constitution to other than direct taxes , and thus it would come to pass, that the result of the Amendment would be to authorize a particular direct tax, not subject either to apportionment or to the rule of geographic uniformity, thus giving power to impose a different tax in one State or States, than was levied in another State or States. This result, instead of simplifying the situation, and making clear the limitation on the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have been intended to accomplish, would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion.”

The contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax, although it is relieved from apportionment, and is necessarily therefore, not subject to the rule of uniformity, as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is wholly without foundation…” Brushaber at page 18

Continuing: ” The conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income, was in its nature, an excise, entitled to be enforced as such…”

Stanton vs Baltic Mining Co. 240 US 103, at 112 (1916) “By the previous ruling, it was settled that the Sixteenth 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…”

Congress agrees with this: House Congressional Record 3-27-1943 page 2580
“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 reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax.”

From a report by The Congressional Research Service. Report No. 84-168A, 784 / 725 titled “Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws”, dated May 25, 1979 and updated Sept. 26, 1984

“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, quoted above. Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes were still the subject of the rule of uniformity. Rather, the Court found that the Sixteenth Amendment sought to restrain the Court from viewing an income tax as a direct tax because of its close effect on the underlying property.” (pg 5)

etc

[2] Mortgage – Latin; death pledge