Today in Supreme Court History: July 12, 1909

7/12/1909: 16th Amendment is submitted to the states.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

New York Times Co. v. Jascalevich, 439 U.S. 1304 (decided July 12, 1978): Marshall denied stay pending certiorari application as to subpoena requiring reporter Myron Ferber to hand over documents in murder trial; stay inappropriate while trial was in progress and in camera review pending; Marshall pointed out if reporter refused to comply he could raise his arguments again in resulting contempt proceeding. The day before, White had denied a stay as to subpoena to testify as witness. The stay was vacated by the Court on October 6, 1978, for unknown reasons, perhaps mootness. No record as to whether cert petition was ever filed.

Note: This was the trial of Mario E. Jascalevich, the "Dr. X" in articles by Ferber which noted patients dying after simple operations and which attracted the attention of prosecutors. Ferber decided to disobey the subpoenas and spent 40 days in jail and the Times was fined $286,000. Jascalevich was acquitted and moved his practice to Argentina. In 1982 New Jersey Gov. Byrne pardoned Ferber and ordered part of the fines returned.

[Mr. Bumble]

That would be Democrat governor Brendan Byrne, father of NJ's income tax.

[Dan Schiavetta]

"The man who couldn't be bought". Unusual in New Jersey in those days.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Unusual in New Jersey in those days."

Not really. Contrary to the claim he could be bought and nothing much has changed; it is still one of the most highly taxed states thanks to a succession od Dem and RINO governors.

[Dan Schiavetta]

"he could be bought"

Citation needed.

[Mr. Bumble]

""The man who couldn't be bought"."

This is based on the wiretapped conversation of mobster Sam "the plumber" DeCavalcante. Nothing like a mobster for the source of an endorsement.

"he could be bought " is my opinion, since he was a politician and all politicians are bought one way or another.

He also pushed for and signed the law approving gambling in Atlantic City; lots of money made there but it is still a shithole almost 50 years later.
rship of our string of Dem and Rino governors
Thanks to the leadership of our string of Dem and Rino governors, NJ went from a state with no sales or income tax to one with both plus casino gambling and a state lottery all with the promise of reducing high property taxes. After decades it still
has some of the highest (if not the highest) property taxes in tha country and another moron Dem governor.

[Dan Schiavetta]

In other words he couldn’t be bought. And the mobster speaking in confidence is a pretty damn good testimonial.

[Mr. Bumble]

I tend to think he couldn't be caught.

Glad you think so highly of mobster testimonials.

[Frank Drackman]

Of course! who could be against a top bracket of 7% for those rich bastards making over $500,000 ($14million in todays $$)?????
Oh yeah, rate went up to 77% during WW1,
But hey, someone's gotta pay for Sleepy's 747 to fly to Saudi Arabia to beg MBS to pump more "Texas Tea" (Jeez, can't they do a video conference or something)

Frank

[Martinned]

If only there was some kind of democratic avenue to decide what tax money should be spent on, and what the level of taxes should be!

[Michael P]

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury."

[Martinned]

Except they cannot, and one way or another voters tend to discover that too. In any event, voters voting for high taxes on poor, vulnerable rich people who lack the influence to defend themselves isn't a lack of democracy, just a lack of prudent politicians.

[Michael P]

Ah, ipse dixit, how I missed you!

The current US inflationary regime is caused in large part by Congress voting for largesse from the public treasury to be distributed across the people, and the public voting for politicians who promised more of that.

[Martinned]

I'm not sure that I entirely agree with your premise, but assuming that's true, voters are now discovering the consequences of their decisions. (And, if polls are to be believed, switching to the other party as a result.)

[Jerry B.]

Nah. They just vote for the people who'll promise them even more largesse, even as it buys less and less.

[Martinned]

If that was how democracy worked, every US election should be won by either a left-wing Democrat or a Trumpist. And that doesn't seem to be what's happening.

[Michael P]

Democrats used to be more responsible and less uniformly far-left. That's what has changed. It's the "until" part of Tyler's quote.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Anti-government cranks -- disaffected, isolated, paranoid, antisocial, backward, usually faux libertarian -- are among my favorite culture war casualties.

[Martinned]

That's why I wrote the modifier "left-wing" before Democrat, in recognition that many Democrats aren't meaningfully left-wing, at least for the purposes of a conversation about government taxation, deficits, etc.

[Brett Bellmore]

Unfortunately, while "no more!" might temporarily win, "go back to less" really stands no chance, and we've been at unsustainable spending levels for better than a decade now.

The problem is that, the longer you spend beyond your means, the longer and deeper you must spend beneath your means to recover from it. If you've just been borrowing for a little bit, a small amount of austerity can get you back in the black.

But as the debt accumulates, the cost of carrying it keeps growing, and it isn't enough to stop spending more than revenue, you have to spend so little that you can cover the interest, too, just to stop from going deeper into debt. (I got very familiar with that dynamic after my first wife left me all her debts while leaving with all my savings, resulting in my having to literally eat road kill just to slow down the rate at which I fell deeper into debt.)

An individual or small group might muster the determination to bite that bullet and tough it out, a country basically never can. The dynamic plays out until you stop borrowing only because people won't lend to you anymore.

I think we're not far from that point, now.

[Mr. Bumble]

Of course a large part of the problem is the expansion of the government into areas where it has no legitimate purpose (this applies to government at all levels).

It's great to be able to spend other people's money to convince voters that you're their BFF.

[bernard11]

The dynamic plays out until you stop borrowing only because people won't lend to you anymore.

I think we're not far from that point, now.

Why? Even with the recent inflation 10-year treasuries are yielding 3% today. That's hardly the sign of a market that thinks we are on the verge of default.

Of course, if the GOP's financial illiterates get their way and block increases in the debt ceiling, that might cause havoc, but they haven't done that yet, and I suspect it's all a bluff, albeit an extremely risky one, that could in itself have a negative effect on US credit.

[bernard11]

It is Brett, not I, who thinks we are on the verge of default.

Edit function, please.

[Martinned]

The Federal government can always borrow money from the Federal reserve. It will literally never run out of dollars.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, at the sad end of a hyperinflation, with the Mint's employees gone home to scrounge for scraps, the Secretary of the Treasury could snag a $1B bill blowing down the street, whip out a sharpie, and scribble a few more zeros on it. In theory, the day is saved!

But would anybody care at that point? The government could easily run out of dollars anybody was willing to accept. I mean, at other than gun point, of course.

[bernard11]

Putting quotation marks around a statement doesn't make it true.

[Michael P]

You're right. Putting quotation marks around something indicates I was quoting someone.

That quote is questionably attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler. Because the author isn't clear, I decided not to attribute it, but simply to retain the quotation marks to indicate that it was not original.

[bernard11]

Perhaps I misunderstood. Often, I think, people quote things as you did with the implication that the statement quoted is transparently true, and obviously established whatever point the commenter is trying to make.

It's a silly thing to do.

Maybe you didn't intend that.

[Frank Drackman]

There is, too bad the majority are idiots who think they're getting over on Uncle Sam when they get their Income Tax "Refund",

Frank "What Mencken Said"

[Jerry B.]

Overpaying your withholding is useful as a form of enforced savings, as you get about as much interest on the refund as you do on a bank account.

[Brett Bellmore]

It is. Right until the moment the government decides it's not going to pay out those refunds, but instead hold onto the money.

You can also just set up an account with a direct deposit, and ignore it, and accomplish the same thing.

[bernard11]

You can also just set up an account with a direct deposit, and ignore it, and accomplish the same thing.

Sure you can. But let me ask you something.

Suppose one day the government announces that it's not able to pay tax refunds. How likely is it that your bank account is unaffected?

Covariance, Brett, covariance.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, in the last couple of years several states were late with their tax refunds, but I'll observe that none of them seized people's bank accounts. Apparently states find it easier to illegitimately hold onto your money, than they find illegitimately taking it.

For that matter, the IRS hadn't yet completed processing all paper tax returns for 2021 as of June, and hadn't even begun processing them for 2022. So a fair number of people ended up loaning their money to the IRS a lot longer than they expected.

On the bright side, at least the IRS pays interest on late tax refunds, even if it's below the rate of inflation.

[Mr. Bumble]

You are an example of the government's best friend. A person with now knowledge of even basic economics.

Wonder how you'll feel when someone files a false return in your name and gets your refund?

[Mr. Bumble]

"no"
edit button please.

[Frank Drackman]

What's the current savings account rate? 2%?? I'll get some new shoes for the ZO6!!! People be better off just paying off their Credit Cards.

[DaivdBehar]

All yransportation is stupid today. Extremely stupid.

[Martinned]

Ah yes, in the good old days when it was still politically possible to overrule a stupid and/or reactionary decision from the Supreme Court.

[Michael P]

Unlike the 1990s (RFRA), 2000s (Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act), 2010s (Dodd-Frank), and today (various executive orders and proposed laws)?

Helpful reference for the future, including many other recent cases: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_abrogated_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions

[Martinned]

You're right, I should have said "possible to overrule a stupid and/or reactionary *constitutional* decision from the Supreme Court".

[Michael P]

Employment Division v. Smith, abrogated by RFRA, was a constitutional decision. The current attempts to override Dobbs are similar.

[Martinned]

The RFRA only overruled Employment Division v. Smith to a very limited extent. Doing anything more would have been outside the powers of Congress/the Federal government.

[Michael P]

If you slice that onion any thinner, you won't have any left. If you even still do.

[apedad]

I think Martinned meant we went all "amend the Constitution" as a reaction to a SC decision; not simply pass a law.

[Michael P]

Since Reconstruction, we've done that three times: income tax, women's suffrage, and moving the voting age to 18. Killing babies hardly seems of similar importance.

[Martinned]

I'm not sure if those are very good examples, because women's suffrage and the voting age, even if there are Supreme Court cases on those (too lazy to look it up) are too unequivocal to be worth much as examples.

But is abortion as important as state sovereign immunity? Because the first time the Constitution was amended to overrule the Supreme Court, that's what they were arguing about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chisholm_v._Georgia

[Michael P]

The page I linked you to listed the Supreme Court decisions that were abrogated by the voting amendments.

And no, abortion is not as important as sovereign immunity.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I can understand why incels -- selfish and angry ones, anyway -- would see it that way.

[DaivdBehar]

Great legal analysis. Thank you, bruh.

[Frank Drackman]

up bright and early at
https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Greene.aspx
"Reverend" Jerry Sandusky????
does that include the "Incels" in your Bittler/Klinger states of New May-he-co and Puerto Rico????(were in your list of worst educated states)

Frank

[apedad]

The Sixteenth Amendment (Amendment XVI) to the United States Constitution allows Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states on the basis of population. It was passed by Congress in 1909 in response to the 1895 Supreme Court case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified by the requisite number of states on February 3, 1913, and effectively overruled the Supreme Court's ruling in Pollock.

Prior to the early 20th century, most federal revenue came from tariffs rather than taxes, although Congress had often imposed excise taxes on various goods. The Revenue Act of 1861 had introduced the first federal income tax, but that tax was repealed in 1872. During the late nineteenth century, various groups, including the Populist Party, favored the establishment of a progressive income tax at the federal level. These groups believed that tariffs unfairly taxed the poor, and they favored using the income tax to shift the tax burden onto wealthier individuals. The 1894 Wilson–Gorman Tariff Act contained an income tax provision, but the tax was struck down by the Supreme Court in the case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. In its ruling, the Supreme Court did not hold that all federal income taxes were unconstitutional, but rather held that income taxes on rents, dividends, and interest were direct taxes and thus had to be apportioned among the states on the basis of population.

For several years after Pollock, Congress did not attempt to implement another income tax, largely due to concerns that the Supreme Court would strike down any attempt to levy an income tax. In 1909, during the debate over the Payne–Aldrich Tariff Act, Congress proposed the Sixteenth Amendment to the states. Though conservative Republican leaders had initially expected that the amendment would not be ratified, a coalition of Democrats, progressive Republicans, and other groups ensured that the necessary number of states ratified the amendment. Shortly after the amendment was ratified, Congress imposed a federal income tax with the Revenue Act of 1913. The Supreme Court upheld that income tax in the 1916 case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., and the federal government has continued to levy an income tax since 1913.

(wiki)

[Mr. Bumble]

"and the federal government has continued to levy an income tax since 1913."

The result being an agency reviled by most Americans and a tax code that no one one the planet can understand.

[Martinned]

I think you'll find that the Internal Revenue Code is mostly the result of rich people and companies lobbying for loopholes and politicians finding that subsidies are politically more costly than tax breaks.

[Dan Schiavetta]

https://boingboing.net/2013/05/29/tom-the-dancing-bug-lucky-duc-3.html/amp

Indeed!

[Michael P]

Just about the only things farther left than "Tom the Dancing Big on Boingboing" are parody and Pol Pot. I wouldn't trust any of those for an accurate depiction of the world.

[Dan Schiavetta]

If you took tax law in law school, like I did, you would see that Tom is very well informed. The history of tax law in general is one of big sweeping changes for public consumption (e.g., the 1986 Reagan revision), followed by carve-outs, exemptions, exceptions to exemptions, etc., put in place by big-$ lobbyists under the media radar.

[Brett Bellmore]

Heck, I took Econ 101, I was an engineering and biology major, and I knew that. It's the sort of thing anybody who's generally well read would be aware of.

[Frank Drackman]

Don't forget the Defacto "Flat" Social Security "Income" Tax that actually goes down if you can make a trivial amount of $$$ (Yes, Poe' Peoples pay a higher % than Rich bastards, Yay!!!)

[apedad]

Social Security is financed through a dedicated payroll tax. Employers and employees each pay 6.2 percent of wages up to the taxable maximum of $147,000 (in 2022), while the self-employed pay 12.4 percent.

In 2021, $980.06 billion (90.1 percent) of total Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance income came from payroll taxes. The remainder was provided by interest earnings $70.1 billion (6.4 percent) and revenue from taxation of OASDI benefits $37.6 billion (3.4 percent).

The payroll tax rates are set by law, and for OASI and DI, apply to earnings up to a certain amount. This amount, called the earnings base, rises as average wages increase.

Tax rates for employees and employers each under current law
Year OASI DI OASDI
2022 5.30 0.90 6.20

https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/factsheets/HowAreSocialSecurity.htm

[Frank Drackman]

and you pay it from the first $, and how about those "Regressive" State Income Taxes?? (except for those Bitter Klinger States of FL, TX, SD, TN, NV)

Frank "Tax the Bastards to the Stone Age"

[Mr. Bumble]

Yes, SS tax, the working man's friend.
You pay from the first dollar and if you die before reaching retirement age get nothing.

[Syd Henderson]

It gives you an incentive to stay alive!

[Mr. Bumble]

You need to pay someone for the incentive to stay alive?
That's some life you must have.

[DaivdBehar]

Frankie. If people put their SSA payments into an Index Fund with no decisions allowed, the monthly payment would be triple. Another scumbag lawyer catastrophe, Social Security.

[Frank Drackman]

Can't have peoples not dependent on Uncle Sammie

[Mr. Bumble]

Freedom is slavery.

[Michael P]

How economically efficient is it for the (same!) government to hand out benefits and then tax people on them?

[apedad]

". . .revenue from taxation of OASDI benefits $37.6 billion (3.4 percent)."

Yeah, I saw that too.

Taxation of a govt benefit sucks.

[Mr. Bumble]

The government that gives is the government that can take away.

I think this occurred under Billy Clinton's presidency.

[bernard11]

I see the issue, but it actually makes sense.

SS payments go out monthly. The government has no idea, until recipients file their tax returns, what tax bracket the are in and therefore how much the benefit might be reduced in the interests of "efficiency."

[Commenter_XY]

Can we repeal the 16th amendment, please?! 🙂

[Mr. Bumble]

That question would make for an interesting poll.

[bernard11]

Not unless you also asked people what government functions they would reduce, or what revenue sources they would substitute.

And no "waste, fraud and abuse" BS either.

[Mr. Bumble]

Hey, add whatever you want. I only said the results would be interesting.

As an aside, what is the main source of income for states with no income tax?

[Martinned]

Oil

[Mr. Bumble]

New Hampshire, Florida, Tennessee an Washington have oil?

[Mr. Bumble]

I should note that four other states with no income tax do have oil;
Alaska, South Dakota, Wyoming and of course Texas.

[Cal Cetín]

It's true that the only thing bigger than the waste, fraud and abuse is the stuff that's actually legal.

[Sarcastr0]

'What would spending would you cut, if you want to eliminate taxes?'

'The government is a fraud!'

Truly, some trenchant policy thinking right here.

[Cal Cetín]

That's a completely accurate summary of my remarks, without any distortion whatever.

[Frank Drackman]

All except the original Cabinet Departments for starters. All Foreign Aid, any payments to non-Citizens unless they're Veterans. Require Congress/Senators to pay to serve (we pay them? for what? Fucking us?)

Frank "Don't ask questions you don't want answers to"

[Sarcastr0]

That's rather the point - those asking to abolish the 16th are ideologues without enough realism to even understand modernity and what makes our nation great.

[Frank Drackman]

Like the "Department of Education" that educations no one, the "Department of Energy" that produces no energy, Department of "Interior" that manages the Outdoors, Department of "Labor" that does no Labor.... and I'm not Rick Perry, but the others are just about as worthless

[Sarcastr0]

You sure do know so much about these departments, and what they do!

Ask Rick Perry about how useless DoE is.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sure like modern monetary theory. Running short - print more.

[Sarcastr0]

Sure it does.

To a radical, words don't need to mean what they actually say, if they make you think of something else you don't like, that's argument enough!

[Mr. Bumble]

You can choose to buy insurance, or not.
The normal reason people buy life insurance is to take care of loved ones they leave behind.

[DaivdBehar]

What an intelligent personal remark, bruh.

[DaivdBehar]

Intellectually satisfying rebuttal, bruh. You are so well spoken.

[Frank Drackman]

Good Thing for Queen Chlamydia they cured the Hiv-ie!

[Mr. Bumble]

...of course YOU never made a typo.

Being perfect must be wonderful.

[DaivdBehar]

Rhoid. Cool comment, bruh. I pray you do not get into a crash commuting to work for no benefit.

[Frank Drackman]

there's a first time for everything, Sleepy Joe might say something lucid (well almost everything)

[Mr. Bumble]

Again, your choice whether to buy or not. Not so with taxes.

[apedad]

I'm sure Qa is not addressing the typo....

[Mr. Bumble]

The wise ? speaks.

[Frank Drackman]

Keep flinging that Horseshit Queen(ie), gotta be a Pony somewhere!

[Mr. Bumble]

For the third time,your choice or not as to whether to buy insurance (unless it's government mandated health insurance); and yes you can choose not to work and collect government benefits paid for with other peoples money.

[Mr. Bumble]

Following your lead.

[DaivdBehar]

Rhoid. Count on me for a recommendation letter if you choose to get a job with a salary worthy of your great intellect.

Typos mean I wrote the message on my phone, that is all.

[Frank Drackman]

States of Matter much more important Queen Chlamydia, there's only 4 and bet you can't name 3 without cribbing off AlGores Internets.

[Brett Bellmore]

Democracy, famously, is the "least worst" system of government. It's not a positive good, it's just a way of reducing the downsides once you're stuck with collective decision making. If you can feasibly avoid collective decision making, you're almost always going to be better off than with democracy.

IOW, tyranny IS worse than democracy, but just getting to make your own damn decisions is better than either if it's on the table.

[bernard11]

Maybe you should foot-vote against it.

[Mr. Bumble]

"fe"?

Social Security is NOT an insurance program; it is a Ponzi scheme. New taxpayers payments pay off the older participants.

"Homemakers"? How quaint. Making a home for whom?

Both workman's comp and unemployment insurance are closer to true insurance except when government raids the funds for other purposes.

[Mr. Bumble]

See Fleming v Nestor

"The court's reasoning was quite simple: Social Security is not insurance. There is no contractual agreement between taxpayer and government, like there would be with an insurance policy. The fact that Nestor paid into the system was irrelevant. Congress can give, and Congress can take away."

[Mr. Bumble]

So you are a middle schooler?

Thanks for clearing that up.

[Brett Bellmore]

Democracy isn't about treating everyone's autonomy with equal respect. "Autonomy" is making your own choices! Do you not understand that? It's SELF government, not each other government!

At the point where you're talking democracy, you've already decided you're not going to respect anybody's autonomy, you're just figuring out how to decide what's going to be imposed on everybody.

Stop worshiping voting. It doesn't deserve it, it's just a moderately safe way of making decisions once individual liberty has already been ruled out.

[Brett Bellmore]

Collective decision making and respecting autonomy are mutually exclusive, Queenie. You can do one or the other, not both.

Yes, I agree, there's always going to be some irreducible minimum of collective decision making. Often things where the decision itself doesn't matter, but that it be universal does. Like, what side of the road are we going to drive on? Doesn't matter, but it's got to be one side or the other, so voting is fine.

But if you think of voting as a good thing, rather than just something we're occasionally, unfortunately, reduced to doing, you won't try to reduce it. You'll go out of your way to vote on things that perfectly well could be individual choices. At the very least, you won't be vigilantly looking for opportunities to replace voting with actual autonomy.

[Sarcastr0]

Autonomy is not the state of nature. That's both under and over-inclusive.

[bernard11]

IOW, tyranny IS worse than democracy, but just getting to make your own damn decisions is better than either if it's on the table.

Anarchy is also worse than democracy, so it seems to me your complaint is with human nature.

[Brett Bellmore]

I was quite explicit about some degree of collective decision making being unavoidable. When I was younger I was something of an anarchist, but eventually concluded that E. O. Wilson's jibe about communism, ("Nice theory. Wrong species.") was as applicable to anarchism.

But let's not make the mistake of thinking that collective decision making is an affirmative good. Individuals getting to make their own decisions is an affirmative good, "liberty". Collective decision making, of any sort, is just sometimes a regrettable necessity, and should be avoided where it isn't even necessary.