| I'm not sure which part you're calling inaccurate. The 16th amendment: > The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. Allows taxes on incomes (but not wealth) without apportionment. According to your own post: > it's generally been held that taxes on property (including wealth) would classify as a direct tax. Implying that unlike income under the 16th amendment, a federal tax on wealth would have to be apportioned. But apportionment isn't something people are likely to accept in that context because then you can't put the screws to people in New York or Texas without extracting the same amount per capita from the people in New Mexico or Arkansas. > In many respects, it's probably unnecessary because even without it, it's probably fairly likely that Pollock would have been overruled as just being bonkers reasoning anyways. Unclear how that reasoning could be bonkers without Wickard v. Filburn being even worse, since the logic is pretty similar. The 16th amendment itself had exactly the result apportionment was intended to prevent, i.e. states with structural political advantages (swing states, lower population states with more US Senators per capita) quickly set up massive federal transfers to themselves at the expense of other states. |