Q: How is the 16th Amendment constitutional? It is front end taxing, and back end taxing on a person and too broad.

A: Your concerns raise more of a political question than a legal one. And I think you are misunderstanding the relationship between the 16th Amendment and Article I.

Similar arguments and concerns have been litigated since the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913. Congress's ability to tax income is not constitutionally vague. And Congress's ability to spend - especially for the "general welfare" - is quite broad. Your concern about what and how much is taxed and spent is better raised to your congressperson to explain.

A: Your concerns about taxation touch on complex constitutional issues that have been extensively debated and reviewed by courts over many decades.

The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the 16th Amendment's broad taxation powers, ruling that Congress can tax income from any source. While you raise interesting points about the timing of taxation relative to expenses, courts have determined that "income" refers to gross income before personal obligations - this prevents people with different spending habits from being taxed differently. The legal interpretation holds that income tax isn't double taxation, but rather taxation at different points of economic activity.

Regarding spending authority, courts have interpreted the General Welfare Clause quite broadly. Military aid to allies has been deemed part of "common Defence," and "general Welfare" has been interpreted to include programs benefiting individuals, not just states - this forms the constitutional basis for Social Security. The Supreme Court case Helvering v. Davis (1937) specifically upheld Social Security's constitutionality under Congress's power to spend for general welfare. While your interpretation of these clauses is thoughtful, decades of constitutional law has established different precedents.