# Hypothetical: Sixteenth Amendment (income tax) is repealed; what happens then? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 28, 2026, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-sixteenth-amendment-income-tax-is-repealed-what-happens-then/1028091 "2026-02-28T22:39:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2026, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-sixteenth-amendment-income-tax-is-repealed-what-happens-then/1028091/1 "2026-02-28T22:39:01Z")
I’m unsure of what the technicalities of an “apportioned” tax are, but I have difficulty thinking that Congress couldn’t find one way or another to give the Federal government as much money as it wants. As far as I can tell it would just mean that people would not pay directly out of their incomes but taxes on everything else would make up the difference. It isn’t like rich people and corporations don’t have a thousand perfectly sanctioned tax dodges anyway, so what realistic difference would it make? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2026, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-sixteenth-amendment-income-tax-is-repealed-what-happens-then/1028091/2 "2026-02-28T23:14:27Z")
Taxes become even more regressive, resulting in everyone but the rich becoming poorer, the national debt becoming larger - the needed money just isn’t there _to_ take from the non-wealthy - and society becoming less stable and livable. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2026, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-sixteenth-amendment-income-tax-is-repealed-what-happens-then/1028091/3 "2026-03-01T00:20:26Z")
Income taxes on wages aren’t direct taxes. The Sixteenth Amendment was necessary to tax income derived from rents. _See Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Company_, 158 U.S. 601 (1895). ~Max ---
**Author:** ![aruvqan\_myers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ed8c4c/32.png) [@aruvqan\_myers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan_myers)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2026, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-sixteenth-amendment-income-tax-is-repealed-what-happens-then/1028091/4 "2026-03-01T00:21:42Z")
Well, among other things, families would go back to ONE vehicle per family - personal property taxes suck. Depending on whatever else they find to tax, people like me will simply dispense of ‘luxuries’ like a second vehicle. Decrease the size of one’s house [if one owns rather than rent] It may seriously suck ass for landlords having to up their property taxes on rentals. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2026, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-sixteenth-amendment-income-tax-is-repealed-what-happens-then/1028091/5 "2026-03-01T00:39:14Z")
In 1798, anticipating a war with France, the United States enacted a direct tax that seemed surprisingly progressive for its time. The government wanted to raise $2 million (~$52 million today) and designed something like a wealth tax: everybody who owned real property (land) or slaves above a threshold of $100 (~$2,600 today) would be subject to a tax with progressive brackets based on the value of the property. The apportionment clause and the three-fifths compromise meant the tax hit subsistence farmers disproportionately to wealthy plantation owners: because the Constitution counted enslaved people as 3/5 of a person for _population_ counts but the tax was based on _property value_, Southern states had a high population quota but relatively lower land valuations compared to the burgeoning North. So the tax wasn’t actually as progressive as it may have looked on paper. One of the consequences was Fries’s rebellion, a minor insurrection in Pennsylvania that ultimately helped topple the Federalist Party in the “Revolution of 1800.” Upon Jefferson’s election, the tax was scrapped and the federal government’s funding rested almost entirely on tariffs. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2026, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-sixteenth-amendment-income-tax-is-repealed-what-happens-then/1028091/6 "2026-03-01T00:52:10Z")
The sources were mostly tariffs, which are _generally_ a bad idea. Then excise taxes on booze and tobacco. It is generally considered by economists that it is not feasible. The budget contains so much more today. [https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2024/can-trump-replace-income-taxes-tariffs](https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2024/can-trump-replace-income-taxes-tariffs) > In the list of untested policy ideas from former President Donald Trump, scrapping the federal income tax and replacing it with revenues from sky-high tariffs on imports is one of the most harmful. Trump floated this fiscal swap when he met with Congressional Republicans last week, but it’s a deeply problematic idea for several reasons. For starters, it would cost jobs, ignite inflation, increase federal deficits, and cause a recession. It would also shift the tax burden away from the well off, substantially increasing the tax burden on the poor and middle class. > > If pursued, this policy would antagonize US allies and partners, provoking worldwide trade wars, damaging global economic welfare, and undermining national security. It would also likely destabilize the global financial system. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2026, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-sixteenth-amendment-income-tax-is-repealed-what-happens-then/1028091/7 "2026-03-01T01:00:34Z")
Okay, but that’s what Donald Trump says. The Supreme Court has held that income taxes on wages are excise taxes, and thus could be imposed even without the Sixteenth Amendment. Merely repealing the Sixteenth Amendment would mean no more taxes on rental income or other passive income from property (land and slaves). I’m not sure about the status of income from non-real property. So maybe no more taxes on your stock dividends or IRA gains. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2026, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-sixteenth-amendment-income-tax-is-repealed-what-happens-then/1028091/8 "2026-03-01T01:03:15Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Income taxes on wages aren’t direct taxes. As upheld in 1881 case of _[Springer v. United States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springer_v._United_States)_ . So as I read it in Wikipedia’s article, the objectionable part was income derived from property, including such things as dividends from stocks. I see that later court decisions were virtually unanimous in ruling that considering such income a “direct” tax simply because of its source was a sophistry. Wouldn’t these have been upheld even without the Sixteenth, or was the amendment considered necessary to flatly overrule the _Pollock_ decision? ETA: especially, couldn’t they have just said that taxing income from a stock or bond wasn’t the same thing as taxing the mere ownership of the stock, as if it were a land tax? ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2026, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-sixteenth-amendment-income-tax-is-repealed-what-happens-then/1028091/9 "2026-03-01T01:07:11Z")
There was a very early case, the name escapes me, 1790s, which held that “direct” taxes meant _only_ two things: capitation taxes (flat amount per head) and taxes on land. Literally everything else is exempt from apportionment. I think it was a tax on wheels or horses or something. The reasoning is, maybe state A only has 2 widgets and state B has 1000 widgets, and it’s unfair to make the two people in state A pay 500x what people in state B pay. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2026, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-sixteenth-amendment-income-tax-is-repealed-what-happens-then/1028091/10 "2026-03-01T01:12:13Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > There was a very early case, the name escapes me, 1790s, which held that “direct” taxes meant _only_ two things: capitation taxes (flat amount per head) and taxes on land. Literally everything else is exempt from apportionment. I think it was a tax on wheels or horses or something. Sounds like [Hylton v. United States - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylton_v._United_States) ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2026, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-sixteenth-amendment-income-tax-is-repealed-what-happens-then/1028091/11 "2026-03-01T01:15:44Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Okay, but that’s what Donald Trump says. The Supreme Court has held that income taxes on wages are excise taxes, and thus could be imposed even without the Sixteenth Amendment. It is not what trump says. His idea was just scrapping the 16th and go to all tariffs. Back in 1895, and that is a maybe. The Court was really ruling on what was a “direct tax”, not what was not- [Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollock_v._Farmers%27_Loan_%26_Trust_Co). And it was ruled that Pollock was no longer valid, due to the 16th. But - who knows? Maybe. Wages are about half of what is collected for the Income tax, that still leaves the other 50% or so, But 1895 cases are not really solid anymore. Interesting idea anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2026, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-sixteenth-amendment-income-tax-is-repealed-what-happens-then/1028091/12 "2026-03-01T01:20:42Z")
I don’t know what you want me to say. If you scrap the Sixteenth Amendment, you go back to the state of constitutional law that existed before 1913, when 1895 decisions were extremely relevant. So you would be looking at _Pollock_, which held that taxes on personal property or income derived from property (real or personal) must be apportioned, _Springer_, which held that income derived from wages need not be apportioned, versus _Hylton_ (thanks **Lumpy** ), which held that taxes on personal property need not be apportioned. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2026, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-sixteenth-amendment-income-tax-is-repealed-what-happens-then/1028091/13 "2026-03-01T01:27:00Z")
Okay, so I now have a clearer picture of the issues: the 16th A. was a response to a Supreme Court 5-4 ruling that had suddenly placed enormous amounts of income outside of the federal government’s taxation authority. (Geez, who paid off the majority holders I wonder?) As I said in the OP I’m sure that one way or another Uncle Sam would get his take, although the 16th certainly made it easier. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2026, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-sixteenth-amendment-income-tax-is-repealed-what-happens-then/1028091/14 "2026-03-01T03:44:06Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > I don’t know what you want me to say. I said _maybe_. I am not saying -no. Just that the state of constitutional law from back then is a bit murky to us non- constitutional lawyers. It is an interesting point, but like I said it doesnt solve the problem.