income tax is not unconstitutional

I think that the heart of the matter is whether or not today's income tax (the current state/federal income taxes where you have to report on your yearly earnings and hand over a percentage to the government) is constitutional or not. That's the income tax that we are affected by and is also the one that people tend to claim is unconstitutional. I disagree with the idea that simply because the constitution says something, it can justify actions that are contrary to what was meant. I actually feel that you are being too general in your assumptions. What really matters in your example is what TAX means. Whether the constitution says that congress can tax or tax SOMETIMES is irrelevant if you don't know what the definition of tax is. If congress decided to take 95% of everybody's wages because they were given permission to "tax" or even "tax sometimes" by the constitution, would that really be constitutional? Before coming to a conclusion, you would have to understand what exactly a tax is, what kind of taxes can be implemented by congress, and what regulations exist upon them (all as outlined by the constitution itself). Just because the constitution gives them permission to tax people, doesn't mean they can do it in any manner they see fit – the need to stick with the guidelines provided by the constitution. Which leads to another issue that ultimately points to the income tax being unconstitutional: the constitution prohibits direct taxes without apportionment. Now, some people believe that the 16th amendment allowed for an exception to this rule, others do not. Even the Supreme Courts are not in agreement which does make it really difficult to determine what's really going on here. (Although you must admit, it's pretty terrible when even the courts can't agree and yet we're still required to pay this thing). Quoting an article entitled "Uncertainties of the Income Tax" http://www.constitution.org... (which is a really good one by the way) "The problems created by the failure of American courts to determine what is the nature of an income tax are very broad. Any particular federal tax must fit within one of the two constitutional tax categories and once the category is known, it may be determined whether the tax in question complies with the constitutional regulation for imposition of that type of tax. A direct tax which is uniformly imposed would still be unconstitutional as one imposed in the absence of apportionment. An indirect tax imposed via apportionment would likewise be unconstitutional since it would not be uniform. But if it is impossible to determine which class any given tax falls within, then it is likewise impossible to determine which constitutional regulation, if any, applies to that tax. If the courts of this nation hold that an income tax is both an excise tax and a direct one, it cannot with any degree of certainty be determined what constitutional restrictions might or might not apply to this tax or what is even the meaning of the 16th Amendment. What's more, it cannot be determine what is income, whether property or non-property." This of course, actually suggests that we don't KNOW whether the income tax is constitutional or not. Because of the nature of the tax, and the apparent inability of the courts to identify exactly what type of tax it is, it really isn't possible to say one way or another whether or not the tax is constitutional – not with any certainty anyway. However, given my previous point, even if the 16th amendment did allow for a direct tax without apportionment this one time, the fact that its implementation clearly violates the fifth amendment is enough to condemn the federal/state income tax as unconstitutional.