Why the Income Tax is Evil
Frank Chodorov, a prominent libertarian theorist, argued that all government intervention is detrimental, with the income tax being a particularly harmful form of evil. In his 1954 book, The Income Tax: Root of All Evil, Chodorov contended that the ability of the federal government to tax incomes, granted by the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, was the fundamental cause of numerous laws and governmental practices that infringe upon individual rights. He believed this power had nearly eradicated the concept of natural rights, leading to a government that sees itself as the source of rights rather than a protector of them—a significant departure from the vision of the Founding Fathers.
Chodorov maintained that the income tax is “evil” because it fundamentally denies the principle of private property. He argued that unlike other taxes, income and inheritance taxes assert that citizens’ earnings are not exclusively their own. Instead, the government’s claim to these earnings precedes the individual’s. In other words, if the government’s needs grow, they take it from you. But they care not about your family’s needs may grow.
To be truthful, Chodorov is not entirely correct in that, the government taxes you in other forms by giving it different names. Then, local governments can add their taxes and increases it as “their needs” grow, such as property tax, sales tax, permits required, etc.
He explained this “devastating argument” by stating that the government effectively tells citizens:
“Your earnings are not exclusively your own; we have a claim on them, and our claim precedes yours.”
“We will allow you to keep some of it, because we recognize your need, not your right.”
“Whatever we grant you for yourself is for us to decide.”
Chodorov pointed to the income tax report as proof, noting that the government arbitrarily dictates how much income individuals can retain for living expenses, business needs, family maintenance, and medical costs. After granting these exemptions, the government then decides what percentage of the remaining income it will appropriate. This percentage, he observed, could be—and has been—increased over time, while exemptions could be—and have been—lowered.
Ultimately, Chodorov concluded that the amount of an individual’s earnings they could retain was determined by the needs of the government, not by their right to property. The Sixteenth Amendment, he argued, placed the right to decide the disposition of an individual’s property squarely with the government.
Under a Christian government that follows God’s laws, there would be no income tax. There would be a tithe on those in certain industries. The reason why the government would need no taxes is, that there would be no private banks like we have today. The government would ISSUE money into circulation based on the GDP where it will remain (base on the goods and services produced in the nation). The money would not be loaned into circulation nor would there be any interest/usury attached to it. A whole book can be written and has been written on this. Sermons have been given on this very topic.
The money saved, would be huge. Prosperity would reign like never before. It would make Donald Trump’s DOGE saved peanuts compared how much could be saved by doing it God’s way. And with Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” he just made it worse with an additional $5 TRILLION in debt.
Hopefully, enough has been said for you to grasp the advantages of this.
Christian Flat Earth Ministry 
Before the Civil War: When States Across the North Considered Secession
Alternative Perspectives on Early American Secession Movements
Before the American Civil War (1861–1865), there were several notable movements in the United States that explored or advocated for secession. These episodes reflect the evolving and often contested nature of the American union in its first century.
The American Revolution: Secession from Empire
The first and most well-known independence movement was the American Revolution (1775–1783), in which the thirteen colonies declared independence from the British Empire. This foundational conflict was, in essence, a war of secession—an effort to break away from imperial rule and establish a new, self-governing nation.
New England Federalists and the Hartford Convention
During the early 19th century, New England Federalists expressed deep dissatisfaction with the direction of national politics, particularly under President Thomas Jefferson. Their discontent culminated in the Hartford Convention of 1814, where some delegates discussed the possibility of New England seceding from the Union. Ultimately, they chose to remain, believing they could exert influence from within—and indeed, New England would go on to play a dominant role in shaping national policy.
The Overlooked Middle States Secession Movements
Less widely remembered are the secessionist sentiments that emerged in the 1850s in the Middle Atlantic states—New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland. According to historian William C. Wright in *The Secession Movement in the Middle Atlantic States*, these regions saw a range of proposals:
– Some advocated joining a Southern confederacy.
– Others proposed forming a separate “Central Confederacy.”
– Many simply favored allowing the Southern states to leave the Union peacefully.
New Jersey had one of the most active secession movements, followed by New York City and the Hudson Valley. Prominent voices like Edward Everett, the 1860 Constitutional Union Party’s vice-presidential candidate, argued that holding states in the Union by force was both impractical and unjust.
Political Resistance to Coercion
In Maryland, a majority of the state assembly supported peaceful secession. However, in 1861, federal authorities arrested many of its members, preventing them from convening. This action was seen by many at the time as a violation of the principle of voluntary union.
New York City’s mayor, Fernando Wood, even proposed that the city secede and become a free trade zone. Meanwhile, the New York state legislature passed a resolution in early 1861 opposing the use of force against the South. Influential editors like Horace Greeley of the *New York Tribune* and Henry J. Raymond of the *New York Times* also supported peaceful separation.
In Pennsylvania, while the Republican Party—aligned with industrial interests—supported the Union war effort, the Democratic Party largely opposed coercion. Wright notes that most Democratic leaders and voters in the state favored a policy of non-intervention.
New Jersey’s congressional delegation and press were strongly in favor of allowing the South to depart peacefully. Delaware, too, had significant support for a Central Confederacy, but federal troops were deployed to prevent its legislature from debating secession.
The Constitutional Debate
These episodes underscore a broader historical reality: the idea of secession was not always viewed as radical or illegitimate. From the Revolution to the mid-19th century, many Americans—across regions and political affiliations—understood the Union as a voluntary compact among states.
However, President Abraham Lincoln advanced a different constitutional interpretation. Legal scholar James Ostrowski summarizes Lincoln’s wartime doctrine as follows:
– States could not legally secede under any circumstances.
– The federal government had the authority to use military force to suppress secession.
– States could be compelled to contribute troops to suppress other states.
– After military victory, the federal government could impose martial law and new constitutions.
– The president could suspend civil liberties, including habeas corpus, without congressional approval.
This vision of federal supremacy marked a turning point in American constitutional history. Critics argue that it departed from earlier understandings of state sovereignty and voluntary union. Supporters contend it preserved the nation and ended slavery.
Reassessing the Narrative
Much of this history remains underexplored in mainstream accounts, which often emphasize national unity and downplay internal dissent. Yet these secessionist movements—whether successful, abandoned, or suppressed—offer valuable insight into the contested nature of American federalism and the enduring tension between union and autonomy.