AdamW wrote:Reagan's 1984 Grace Commission said this:
"100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Debt ... all
individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services
taxpayers expect from government."
I'd like to add a comment about the Grace Commission List.
A copy of the actual report can be found
here, and the relevant section
here.
Resistance to additional income taxes would be even more widespread if people were aware that:
* One-third of all their taxes is consumed by waste and inefficiency in the Federal Government as we identified in our survey.
* Another one-third of all their taxes escapes collection from others as the underground economy blossoms in direct proportion to tax increases and places even more pressure on law abiding taxpayers, promoting still more underground economy-a vicious cycle that must be broken.
* With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government.
Notice, the first one-third collected was lost to waste and inefficiency in the government. The second one-third appears not to have been collected, and 100% of the last one-third is the portion under dispute. It was
not 100% of all that was collected.
To further illustrate, take a look at the
actual budget table from 1983 (pg. 18).
According to the actual budget, fully 40¢ of every dollar collected in tax revenues came from "individual income taxes," and only 13¢ of every dollar spent was spent on interest.
Now, how do we explain the 100% of the last third collected? Hmm.
Since the Grace Commission was speaking of those revenues collected as "individual income taxes," as opposed to those revenues collected as "excise taxes," "corporation income taxes" or "Social Security receipts," we'll conduct a little computation.
One third of 40¢ is roughly 13.3¢ Hmm. Now, we begin to see the comparison. 13¢ of every dollar spent was spent on interest, so it'd be correct to say, "100% of the last one-third collected as 'individual income taxes' was absorbed solely by interest on the national debt."
In other words, that which is passed off as absolute in the tax movement once again becomes somewhat less than what actually happened when reviewed in the light of day.
Now, in regards to other issues, such as:
AdamW wrote:... what about the people who have beaten the IRS in court? Are the jurors making a mistake when the government refuses to show the law?
As already explained, a criminal tax defendant can overcome the charges in a court of law by showing a "good faith misunderstanding," or some other "good faith" defense.
A
Cheek defense includes a "good faith misunderstanding" of income tax laws.
It's not that you sincerely believe the income tax is illegal, and are therefore absolved, but that you can show by factual evidence, by exhibit and testimony, you had a sincere misunderstanding of the income tax law and its requirements.
However, none of that means the government refuses to show the defendant the law, and none of that absolves the defendant from paying the tax liability, plus civil penalties.
Lloyd Long and Vernice Kuglin are prime examples of how overcoming criminal charges does not exempt a person from civil liabilities and penalties. Tommy Cryer will be no different.
It's simply irresponsible to look at the victories without looking at the subsequent losses. One involves criminal charges, and the other involves civil liabilities. Two different scenarios.
And:
AdamW wrote:It is the Constitution that says direct taxes must be apportioned thus the income tax is unconstitutional (no new tax powers were created with the 16th Amendment) and it is the 2nd plank of the Communist Manifesto that says to create a graduated/progressive income tax.
Thinking an income tax is a direct tax is a mistake. From before the beginning (meaning back in the days of English Law), taxes on incomes have always been considered excises.
For instance, the Supreme Court in
Hylton held that a tax on the use of carriages to transport persons was considered an excise. Read
Pollock at 623-624:
Pollock wrote:In this connection it may be useful, though at the risk of repetition, to refer to the views of Hamilton and Madison as *623 thrown into relief in the pages of the Federalist, and in respect of the enactment of the carriage tax act, and again to briefly consider the Hylton Case, 3 Dall. 171, so much dwelt on in argument.
The act of June 5, 1794, laying duties upon carriages for the conveyance of persons, was enacted in a time of threatened war. Bills were then pending in congress to increase the military force of the United States, and to authorize increased taxation in various directions. It was therefore as much a part of a system of taxation in war times as was the income tax of the war of the Rebellion. The bill passed the house on the 29th of May, apparently after a very short debate. Mr. Madison and Mr. Ames are the only speakers on that day reported in the Annals. ‘Mr. Madison objected to this tax on carriages as an unconstitutional tax; and, as an unconstitutional measure, he would vote against it.’ Mr. Ames said: ‘It was not to be wondered at if he, coming from so different a part of the country, should have a different idea of this tax from the gentleman who spoke last. In Massachusetts, this tax had been long known, and there it was called an ‘excise.’ It was difficult to define whether a tax is direct or not. He had satisfied himself that this was not so.'
On the 1st of June, 1794, Mr. Madison wrote to Mr. Jefferson: ‘The carriage tax, which only struck at the constitution, has passed the house of representatives.’ The bill then went to the senate, where, on the 3d day of June, it ‘was considered and adopted’; and on the following day it received the signature of President Washington. On the same 3d day of June the senate considered ‘An act laying certain duties upon snuff and refined sugar’; ‘An act making further provisions for securing and collecting the duties on foreign and domestic distilled spirits, stills, wines, and teas'; ‘An act for the more effectual protection of the southwestern frontier’; ‘An act laying additional duties on goods, wares and merchandise,’ etc.; ‘An act laying duties on licenses for selling wines and foreign distilled spirituous liquors by retail’; and ‘An act laying duties on property sold at auction.’ *624 It appears then that Mr. Madison regarded the carriage tax bill as unconstitutional, and accordingly gave his vote against it, although it was to a large extent, if not altogether, a war measure.
Where did Mr. Hamilton stand? At that time he was secretary of the treasury, and it may therefore be assumed, without proof, that he favored the legislation. But upon what ground? He must, of course, have come to the conclusion that it was not a direct tax. Did he agree with Fisher Ames, his personal and political friend, that the tax was an excise? The evidence is overwhelming that he did.
And, just so it's understood,
Pollock did not overturn the
entire tax code:
Pollock wrote:The tax imposed by sections 27-37, inclusive, of the act of August 28, 1894, 28 Stat. 553-560, so far as it falls on the income of real estate and of personal property, being a direct tax within the meaning of the constitution, and void, because not apportioned according to representation, all those sections, constituting one entire scheme of taxation, are necessarily invalid.
It was ten sections
only that were declared unconstitutional by
Pollock.
So, with respect to 'AdamW,' I'd suggest he conduct a little more due diligence.
.