Direct taxes are taxes on people. The U.S. Constitution requires direct taxes to be apportioned among the several states in proportion to each state’s representation in congress. States pay direct taxes to the federal government.

The other forms of taxes are imposts, duties (from foreigners) and excise taxes (taxes on government privileges). There are careful safeguards to assure that excise taxes do not tax people.

In 1895 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Pollock v. Farmers Loan (first case 157 US 429, second case 158 U.S. 601) that income tax was unconstitutional.

… being a direct tax, within the meaning of the constitution, and therefore unconstitutional and void, because not apportioned according to representation, all those sections, constituting one entire scheme of taxation, are necessarily invalid. “

After the 16th Amendment was “ratified” the Supreme Court ruled in Eisner v. Macomber 40SCt192 (1920), 252 U.S. 189 (1919):

The 16th Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution” … “this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects”

The globalists that have overthrown the United States government used deceptive means in 1913 to ratify the 16th Amendment. Many deceived people like to tell us that the 16th Amendment authorizes direct taxation. But the Supreme Court ruled, “… the 16th amendment conferred no new powers of taxation” in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. 240 US 103. They had a very good reason to say this.  They said this BECAUSE THE 16TH AMENDMENT DOES NOT CONFER NEW POWERS OF TAXATION.

The Supreme Court case Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR Co. 240 U.S. 1 (36 S.Ct 242 & 243) (1916) made it theoretically possible to have an indirect tax on income (profits), while a direct tax on wages remained unconstitutional unless apportioned. This important case clarifies that a tax on income (profit) is an indirect tax as long as income was separated from the source:

  • “The Amendment … was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution” …
  • “a direct tax on the income, [would] be a direct tax on the source itself, and thereby take an income tax out of the class of excises, duties, and imposts and place it in the class of [unconstitutional unless apportioned] direct taxes.”


The Supreme Court keeps ruling that the power to tax is the power to destroy. Congress did not gain the power to destroy “the most sacred and inviolable” right to your labor, which is “the original foundation of all other property”.

U.S. Supreme Court in Butcher’s Union v. Crescent City 111 U.S. 746:

The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. … to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property.”

Do you still have “the most sacred and inviolable” right to your labor, which is “the original foundation of all other property”? Or did you wave your right to earn wages, thereby making your wages taxable?  If you do not own the rights to your own labor, you do not own your own body. You are a slave earning a take-home allowance. If they have a right to legally take 25% of your wages, then Congress can legally vote to take 100% or more.*

Recommended video: America: Freedom to Fascism by Aaron Russo.

Also see my other essays:

*Here is the official policy on your take-home living allowance. Penn Mutual Indemnity Co.  v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 277 F.2d 16 (1960):
“Deductions from a tax are a matter of legislative grace and if the grace is not sufficient to leave something over for the taxpayer, he has no legal grounds for complaint, whatever the hardship may be. The mere fact of intake being less than outgo does not relieve the taxpayer of an otherwise lawfully imposed tax.”

For more information on how you waived your right to earn wages, read my book The Citizen Cannot Complain.