When the government takes a percentage of money out of your paycheck the more you make the more they take this is called what?

Answer 1

This is called progressive taxation. What is not clear about the particular tax described in the question is what the subject of the tax is. Why is any percent of a persons check being deducted? The form of taxation is a progressive taxation but form is not subject and what is the subject of this tax? Is it people, property or activities? Is it a direct tax, or an indirect tax? The name of the tax that is being deducted from an employees check is called the "Personal Income Tax Law". Should we surmise then, that the subject of the tax is income? Just because the laws name has personal income in it does that mean it is naming the subject of the law that was written? If we look at the name, "The Patriot Act", should we surmise the subject of this law is/are patriots? "The Leave No Child Behind Act" is another law that does not name any subject of that law. Does the Leave No Child Behind Act" criminalize children left behind or make liable those who left them behind? What does the name of that act have to do with the law that was written. The same question should be asked about the so-called "Personal Income Tax Law."

Let's be clear, Congress has the power to tax whatever is taxable and income is certainly taxable. Is income what is being taxed when a percentage of your money is deducted from your paycheck? The Supreme Court says no. Lower courts can't make up their mind and don't really appreciate it when people before the court point out that The Supreme Court has ruled consistently ever since the 16th Amendment was passed that income is not the subject of the tax, it is merely what is measured to decide how much is owed. Lower courts will and have asserted that the Supreme Court has consistently upheld that the 16th Amendment allowed Congress to pass an un-apportioned tax. Lower courts have and will continue to assert that starting with the Brushaber ruling, the supreme court has settled that income is a direct tax without regard to apportionment. When the lower courts make this assertion they are in error.

The primary case law involved in all of this confusion is Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. which was hearing arguments as to the unconstitutionality of the 16th Amendment. The appellant, a stockholder with Pacific R.R. Co. argued that the Constitution is clear on what is required of Congress when laying taxes. It is well settled by earlier Supreme Court Rulings that there are two great classification of taxes in the Constitution. The first is a direct tax upon people or property and must be apportioned amongst the states, the second is an indirect tax laid upon certain activities and must be uniform across the states. The appellant argued that the subject of the tax was income and as such is a direct tax upon property and must be apportioned, and the Sixteenth Amendment can not alter or change what was written in the Constitution.

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the Court and dismissed the appellants arguments as being wholly without foundation. White said that the 16th Amendment does not change the Constitution, nor does it grant Congress any new power Congress didn't all ready have. The Supreme Court acknowledged Congress' complete and plenary right to tax income before the 16th Amendment was passed and instructed that it was because of the ruling given in Pollack v Farmers Loan and Trusts Co. which had struck down the entire portion of revenue laws of 1895 in regards to income tax as unconstitutional. The Pollack court had viewed this income tax as a direct unapportioned tax and as such unconstitutional. The 16th Amendment was written to prevent the courts from ever viewing an unapportioned tax on income as a direct tax again, and as such the 16th Amendment works in perfect harmony with the Constitution.

What the hell does all of this mean? It means that income is not the subject of the tax taken out of your paycheck. So then, what is the subject of the tax? All unapportioned taxes are indirect taxes and all indirect taxes are specific activities. Is the act of earning income the subject of the tax? Is it the specific kind of work you do that is being taxed? Don't you know? Didn't you know that you are as a matter of course, presumed to know the law? Have you even bothered to look at Title 26 of the Revenue laws? It is a daunting task to be sure, but what would you rather have happen? I go on and on and on for pages of paragraphs explaining the Internal Revenue Code and it's circumlocution of definitions? I can't make any one of us come to know the law, that is up to each of you all on your own. I do insist however that if you don't at the very least take the time to read Brushaber to learn a thing or two about the tax that has so insinuated itself into the lives of us all, you will have done yourself a great disservice.

I have avoided quoting the above mentioned court cases, the Internal Revenue Code and the Constitution because if you want that, there are plenty of patriot websites dedicated to educating the public about the personal income tax and they love to quote. I am of the mind that if you want to know what the hell is going on, you're just going to have to find out for yourself. Don't let the ambiguous nature of the Code intimidate you. You are not stupid! You've read this far and you did so because you want to know more about this issue. So go learn!! Look at the websites both pro and con, but don't you dare stop there. Look at the law. You are quite capable of interpreting laws. If the law is unclear and hard to understand, the problem isn't you, the problem is the law itself.