Welcome To              TaxHistory.com
Historical Perspectives on the Federal Income Tax

Senate Finance Committee June 2, 2003

Chairman Chuck Grassley

219 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510-6200


Dear Chairman:

The enclosed material is for your information and is not necessarily a request for a response. We have been writing to you, the Internal Revenue Service, the Joint Committee on Taxation, and our other representative for several years and have not yet received any real answers. It is our hope that someone will now take the time to address the issues we have raised in these, and past, letters.

Congress has passed a tax reduction bill, which we believe is not in the best interest of the majority of wages earners; and they have accomplished this in a time of great financial need as evidenced by the conflict in Iraq. This, no doubt, is a good start, but a bit misguided. We are not objecting to the lowering of the tax rate, although that reduces the tax burden mainly for the wealthy. Nor are we objecting to the reduced taxation of dividends, although we have no investments from which to obtain dividends. We object to the fact that Congress levies, through the income tax, an excise tax upon the living expenses of the majority of working men and women in violation of Constitutional principles.

The enclosed documentation includes graphs showing the transition of the income tax as it was intended to be in 1913, to what it has become today. It may not have been intentional, but the result is still the same. If the intent of the Sixteenth Amendment was to allow Congress the ability to levy a capitation tax upon the citizens of our Country without apportionment, then there can be no objection to the personal exemption being $3,000. However, if the intent of the Sixteenth Amendment was not to allow Congress that ability, then there is a serious question as to its adequacy, in relation to Article 1, Section 9, clause 4 of the Constitution, in today’s economic conditions.






Gary and Michele Given

t; [Pollock v. Farmers, 158 US 601 @ 625 (1895)]

For questions about the material on this site or for problems concerning the mechanics of this site contact info@taxhistory.com
Like the new site? Let us know! Don't like it Let us know that too