Capitations, other direct taxes, & shape shifting lizards

[webhick]

Or, could it be that you are just a really large ego attached to a keyboard?

I'm sorry...but now all I can think about is what sovereign citizen porn looks like. AND ITS YOUR FAULT.

[SteveSy]

When will you learn that your opinion doesn't matter?
...
Now, since neither of those have happened, and the court's decisions have been allowed to stand, could it possibly be that the people who DO matter agree with the courts?

They only matter because people in general don't know any different. They've made the fatal mistake of actually trusting that their government would not abuse their power to that degree. As times get tougher that trust will evaporate and they'll be more inclined to see the facts.

History is replete with examples of governments lying to its people to obtain power it couldn't ordinarily achieve. Our government is no different, and its corruption is exposed almost daily now. Like I said before our current situation has turned up the knob on the TP incubator.

[The Operative]

Steve,

While you may disagree with the court's opinion on what the Constitution means, it is their opinion that counts. You also seem to think that the courts do not support their opinions using historical sources. I disagree. The courts have, on occasion, discussed at length, the historical writings in reaching a decision. Whether you agree with their conclusions or not is irrelevant. The law is what the courts say it is and they do not make those decisions in complete disregard of historical content.

[Nikki]

When will you learn that your opinion doesn't matter?
...
Now, since neither of those have happened, and the court's decisions have been allowed to stand, could it possibly be that the people who DO matter agree with the courts?

They only matter because people in general don't know any different. They've made the fatal mistake of actually trusting that their government would not abuse their power to that degree. As times get tougher that trust will evaporate and they'll be more inclined to see the facts.

History is replete with examples of governments lying to its people to obtain power it couldn't ordinarily achieve. Our government is no different, and its corruption is exposed almost daily now. Like I said before our current situation has turned up the knob on the TP incubator.

Wrong. They matter because that's the structure of our government.

When enough people decide that the government isn't serving their interests, they'll change things.

So far, that hasn't happened. And "so far" means over 200 years.

[SteveSy]

When will you learn that your opinion doesn't matter?
...
Now, since neither of those have happened, and the court's decisions have been allowed to stand, could it possibly be that the people who DO matter agree with the courts?

They only matter because people in general don't know any different. They've made the fatal mistake of actually trusting that their government would not abuse their power to that degree. As times get tougher that trust will evaporate and they'll be more inclined to see the facts.

History is replete with examples of governments lying to its people to obtain power it couldn't ordinarily achieve. Our government is no different, and its corruption is exposed almost daily now. Like I said before our current situation has turned up the knob on the TP incubator.

Wrong. They matter because that's the structure of our government.

When enough people decide that the government isn't serving their interests, they'll change things.

So far, that hasn't happened. And "so far" means over 200 years.

I'm saying the same thing you are just in a different way....And as far as not changing things for 200 years you are wrong. FDR didn't like what he saw from the courts and guess what he got them to suddenly and drastically have a fundamental change of mind with the support of the people. While I think it was a serious change for the worst it was however a massive change. It was a revolution, just a revolution in the way of thinking.

I have not read all the stories back then but I think it's pretty clear the vast majority of legal scholars were appalled at the changes...I mean seriously, how could the court one year think the interstate commerce clause be so limited and then the next allow it to regulate things such as a farmer growing wheat for his own use?

[Imalawman]

So Steve you're admitting that you once again have no response to the court's reasoning in cases that I cited? Why don't you break down their analysis and show why its so fundamentally flawed?

[SteveSy]

So Steve you're admitting that you once again have no response to the court's reasoning in cases that I cited? Why don't you break down their analysis and show why its so fundamentally flawed?

I never responded because those are a completely different argument. This thread is about what the tax is, direct or indirect, not how its treated if it is one of those.
But since we've beat the direct horse to death I will respond.

The 16th was created for a single purpose. That was to get rid of the reasoning used in Pollock which was resorting to the source, in that case property leased by a corporation, to take a tax that was ordinarily in the class out of indirect taxes and place it in the class of direct taxes where it didn't belong. Direct taxes are about people not business, that's why direct taxes must be apportioned according to representation. A corporation isn't a person in the literal sense, and has no right to a vote, nor is it included in apportionment. A corporation's existence is a privilege granted by the State and the government has a right to tax that privilege anyway they see fit.

A tax on people measured by their income generally was never a indirect tax to begin with so there is no resorting to the source to move it anywhere. It was and always has been in the class of direct taxes. More importantly, its income derived from a source, a source you have. "Income" isn't everything that comes in, that's gross earnings, its not the same.

If the courts have claimed that wages are income to the one earning them then its nonsensical. You can't derive something into existence. If income is a wage then how does income (wage) derived from whatever source (wage) make sense? It doesn't. If you invested that wage and made an increase from it in something like the stock market then you have an income derived from a source, which is capital invested.

Brief as it is, it indicates the characteristic and distinguishing attribute of income essential for a correct solution of the present controversy. The government, although basing its argument upon the definition as quoted, placed chief emphasis upon the word "gain," which was extended to include a variety of meanings; while the significance of the next three words was either overlooked or misconceived. "Derived from capital;" "the gain derived from capital," etc. Here, we have the essential matter: not a gain accruing to capital; not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value, proceeding from the property, severed from the capital, however invested or employed, and coming in, being "derived" -- that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal -- that is income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description.
The same fundamental conception is clearly set forth in the Sixteenth Amendment -- "incomes, from whatever source derived" -- the essential thought being expressed [252 U.S. 208] with a conciseness and lucidity entirely in harmony with the form and style of the Constitution.

Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S.189 (1920) (emphasis same as court's)

Its income derived from property, something you have, whether that be capital or whatever.

More importantly the very people wanting the 16th amendment were the populists. They were trying to protect the average citizen from the very burdensome tariffs. The solution was to tax the profits and gains of rich people who were thought to have been escaping taxation. A little silly to assume they knew they were setting up a scheme to allow the government to come take a portion of their wages directly from their paychecks every month instead.

[Dezcad]

The courts have attempted to determine what falls under the category of direct taxes. Their conclusion is based on nothing that's in existence. There is absolutely no support whatsoever for their conclusion. The truth is their conclusion is in direct contradiction as to what is available in documented history.

I know this has been mentioned many times before, but....

Even if you are right and the SCOTUS now agrees that the income tax is a direct tax, where does that get you.

Doesn't the 16th Amendment, passed without the help, support, aid or interpretation by any court, make the issue of whether the income tax is a direct versus indirect tax moot?

[SteveSy]

Doesn't the 16th Amendment, passed without the help, support, aid or interpretation by any court, make the issue of whether the income tax is a direct versus indirect tax moot?

The argument is moot if you're facing a federal judge today. It will not win and I'm not arguing differently. However, if people generally accept that the power is being misused then its not moot. Things will change and so will the judge's opinion. Like I said FDR was able to make the same type of changes concerning federal power. Things that were considered moot, like the limits on the use of the interstate commerce clause, changed drastically almost overnight. A long line of cases limiting the use of the interstate commerce clause were totally ignored as if they didn't exist. Even if the court used a fantastic display of verbal gymnastics to eke out a semblance of consistency, it was clear they simply ignored them. Case law is not so static and consistent as many of you would like everyone else to believe. Its disposable and weak, it just matters whose opinion is in power at the time and what the circumstances are for the people at large. The pendulum can swing in the opposite direction on any given subject. It just takes the backing of the people.

If you think I'm trying to be a Hendrickson, then you misconstrue my intent or position. There is no silver bullet to win a court case. Its very clear a person will lose in federal court attempting to argue that they don't have to pay the government's extortion. Like one of you said, it doesn't matter if you're right or not.

[Lambkin]

if people generally accept that the power is being misused then its not moot.

But people don't generally accept that income taxation is a misuse of power. I accept that people are angry, but they aren't directing their anger at the income tax and I don't think they are going to start. The majority of Americans will produce more righteous anger over the cancellation of a TV show than they will over income taxes. That's your army. Good luck with your revolution, you're gonna need it.

[SteveSy]

if people generally accept that the power is being misused then its not moot.

But people don't generally accept that income taxation is a misuse of power. I accept that people are angry, but they aren't directing their anger at the income tax and I don't think they are going to start. The majority of Americans will produce more righteous anger over the cancellation of a TV show than they will over income taxes. That's your army. Good luck with your revolution, you're gonna need it.

Yes, and people didn't generally accept the economy was on the verge of collapse and gold was going to head back up to a $1000 an ounce when people like me were saying it was inevitable, what we had just wasn't sustainable.I know, blind squirrels and nuts and all that...

Things change...as things get worse, which they will, these Tea party things will gain a lot of momentum and out of them will be an ever increasing amount of people speaking out against the government's use of unconstitutional taxation.

They're going to triple the size of the national debt over the next 10 years. A significant portion of tax revenue will go solely to pay interest on it with no way to pay it down. People will feel economic pain like never before because of government and with that they will seek to find reasons to limit its power. We'll see...it won't be long now.

[Cpt Banjo]

A tax on people measured by their income generally was never a indirect tax to begin with so there is no resorting to the source to move it anywhere. It was and always has been in the class of direct taxes.

The Springer court disagreed, characterizing it as in the nature of an excise or duty.

More importantly the very people wanting the 16th amendment were the populists. They were trying to protect the average citizen from the very burdensome tariffs. The solution was to tax the profits and gains of rich people who were thought to have been escaping taxation. A little silly to assume they knew they were setting up a scheme to allow the government to come take a portion of their wages directly from their paychecks every month instead.

It's even sillier to think that by passing the 16th, the people wanted to divest Congress of the power to tax wages and other personal earnings without apportionment, which the Supreme Court held in 1881 that Congress possessed. And considering that wage withholding was enacted as part of the 1913 Act, it's silly to think that it wasn't within the contemplation of the people that got the 16th adopted. The "average citizen" was helped by a very generous (in today's dollars) exemption, but there's nothing in the Constitution that requires any particular amount to be exempt from the income tax.

The bottom line is that Stevie doesn't think the 16th means what it says; or if he does, he doesn't think that wages and other personal earnings are income, which is absurd.

Incidentally, given that Congress' power to tax comes from Article I, Section 8, there would be no constitutional prohibition against an unapportioned gross receipts tax. After all, if the gratuitous transfer of property can be the proper subject of an excise, why can't a transfer for value?

[SteveSy]

A tax on people measured by their income generally was never a indirect tax to begin with so there is no resorting to the source to move it anywhere. It was and always has been in the class of direct taxes.

The Springer court disagreed, characterizing it as in the nature of an excise or duty.

They characterized Springer's income as an excise or duty, not a tax on everyone's income. If Springer held a tax on income regardless was an excise or duty then Pollock would have never been decided.

The bottom line is that Stevie doesn't think the 16th means what it says; or if he does, he doesn't think that wages and other personal earnings are income, which is absurd.

It does mean what it says....the case I quoted makes it clear what it means. The source the 16th speaks of is a source you control, like capital. Income from capital, it doesn't authorize a tax on revenue in general.

[Duke2Earl]

The source the 16th speaks of is a source you control, like capital. Income from capital, it doesn't authorize a tax on revenue in general.

Funny thing about that. It seems that the vast, vast majority of those who have considered the matter think exactly the opposite. Oh well.

[Judge Roy Bean]

....
Things change...as things get worse, which they will, these Tea party things will gain a lot of momentum and out of them will be an ever increasing amount of people speaking out against the government's use of unconstitutional taxation.

The "Tea party things" will have no effect whatsoever on getting people to speak out against allegedly unconstitutional taxation. Those who continue to bang the constitutional issue drum will be marginalized and largely ignored (except when they engage in illegal acts).

Things will continue to get worse but not because of whacky side-arguments. It's the AMOUNT and who it will be taken from (and then who it will be given to) that is the problem. And those decisions are made by the fools in Washington that a vast number of ignorant voters keep sending there.

[Cpt Banjo]

It does mean what it says....the case I quoted makes it clear what it means. The source the 16th speaks of is a source you control, like capital. Income from capital, it doesn't authorize a tax on revenue in general.

Your labor is a source you control as well, so income from labor would properly be subject to an income tax even under your interpretation of the 16th. Moreover, since an unapportioned tax on revenue in general is authorized by Article I, Section 8, why the hangup on the 16th?

[SteveSy]

It does mean what it says....the case I quoted makes it clear what it means. The source the 16th speaks of is a source you control, like capital. Income from capital, it doesn't authorize a tax on revenue in general.

Your labor is a source you control as well, so income from labor would properly be subject to an income tax even under your interpretation of the 16th.

I don't believe that fits within the following:

Brief as it is, it indicates the characteristic and distinguishing attribute of income essential for a correct solution of the present controversy. The government, although basing its argument upon the definition as quoted, placed chief emphasis upon the word "gain," which was extended to include a variety of meanings; while the significance of the next three words was either overlooked or misconceived. "Derived from capital;" "the gain derived from capital," etc. Here, we have the essential matter: not a gain accruing to capital; not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value, proceeding from the property, severed from the capital, however invested or employed, and coming in, being "derived" -- that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal -- that is income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description.
The same fundamental conception is clearly set forth in the Sixteenth Amendment -- "incomes, from whatever source derived" -- the essential thought being expressed [252 U.S. 208] with a conciseness and lucidity entirely in harmony with the form and style of the Constitution.

Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S.189 (1920) (emphasis same as court's)

Besides, its pretty stupid to claim a person has no cost basis in the investment of labor. It would be like saying a business has no cost in sending their workforce to a job site, has no cost in providing a place for their employees to eat, has no vehicle maintenance to get to the job site etc etc....A person doesn't work all year making a wage and have a 100% gain, profit or increase in wealth. A tax such as that would require a tax on people measured by their revenue generally and not a tax on income at all.

I can't even imagine what would have been said by the people back in 1912 if congress were to publicly state, "You realize that a working man has a 100% profit, gain or increase in wealth over a given year while a business isn't so lucky and has real expenses in order to make theirs"

Moreover, since an unapportioned tax on revenue in general is authorized by Article I, Section 8, why the hangup on the 16th?

No its not.

[Lambkin]

as things get worse, which they will, these Tea party things will gain a lot of momentum

No they won't, the tea party fools will be squashed flat if they try anything and the rest of the country will snicker for a second before changing the channel to American Idol. If only you could sing, Steve, you might stand a chance. (But you might need to pick up a new tune.)

[Nikki]

Section 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

ONLY Duties, imposts, and excises must be uniform. No other taxes need be.

By the terms of the Constitution, the power of Congress to levy taxes is subject to but one exception and two qualifications. Articles exported from any State may not be taxed at all. Direct taxes must be levied by the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity.

Next, we bring in 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.

Thus, the tax on incomes need not be apportioned. The only restriction, if it is an indirect tax, is that it be uniform -- which it is.

[SteveSy]

as things get worse, which they will, these Tea party things will gain a lot of momentum

No they won't, the tea party fools will be squashed flat if they try anything and the rest of the country will snicker for a second before changing the channel to American Idol. If only you could sing, Steve, you might stand a chance. (But you might need to pick up a new tune.)

Ok...you keep thinking that, if not the tea party it will be another group. I'm sure I could go back and find posts from people like you saying how stupid I was about saying the economy was on the verge of collapse and I didn't know anything. Gold was going to drop like a rock and the thought of it hitting a $1000 an ounce was a joke, only to be espoused by people who were ignorant. We were completely stable and had nothing to fear...as you rolled your eyes.