Capitations, other direct taxes, & shape shifting lizards

A collection of old posts from all forums. No new threads or new posts in old threads allowed. For archive use only.
SteveSy

Re: Capitations, other direct taxes, & shape shifting lizards

Post by SteveSy »

Nikki wrote: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.
Of course that's not even true....It would be like saying all black's were treated equally under the law back in 1960. Yes, within their group all black's were treated equally under the law and therefore there was equality under the law. The income tax isn't anymore uniform than the blacks were treated equally under the law in 1960.

Uniformity has no meaning whatsoever under the current interpretation, it might as well not even be in there as it does nothing to prevent anything. They can even tax people or business doing the same thing in different states at different rates. Taxing AIG bonuses at 90% is a perfect example.
Last edited by SteveSy on Tue Apr 07, 2009 3:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Lambkin
Warder of the Quatloosian Gibbet
Posts: 1206
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 8:43 pm

Re: Capitations, other direct taxes, & shape shifting lizards

Post by Lambkin »

SteveSy wrote:Ok...you keep thinking that, if not the tea party it will be another group.
The eternal optimist. So if that doesn't happen in 10 years (or pick whatever date you like) does that mean you're wrong?
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.
I never said any of those things, but I'm sure I did roll my eyes as I am doing now. The economy is in the crapper and still the people are not rising up... waaaaah! Instead of having a detax revolution, they elected President Obama. Your enemies must be quaking in their boots.
Cpt Banjo
Fretful leader of the Quat Quartet
Posts: 782
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Usually between the first and twelfth frets

Re: Capitations, other direct taxes, & shape shifting lizards

Post by Cpt Banjo »

SteveSy wrote:
Cpt Banjo wrote:
SteveSy wrote: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)
It does with the part of Eisner appearing immediately before the passage you cited, which you didn't bother to quote:
For the present purpose we require only a clear definition of the term 'income,' as used in common speech, in order to determine its meaning in the amendment, and, having formed also a correct judgment as to the nature of a stock dividend, we shall find it easy to decide the matter at issue.

After examining dictionaries in common use (Bouv. L. D.; Standard Dict.; Webster's Internat. Dict.; Century Dict.), we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 (Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 , 34 S. Sup. Ct. 136, 140 [58 L. Ed. 285]; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 [62 L. Ed. 1054]), 'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,' provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle Case, 247 U.S. 183, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 (62 L. Ed. 1054).
Since the case dealt with the taxability of a stock dividend and not personal earnings, the discussion following the definiton of income naturally dealt with income derived from capital; only an idiot would think that the Court was holding that income is limited to gain derived from capital.
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.
So you're saying that deductions are constitutionally required? Wow, who knew? Now the entire business community can go to court and get all of the following provisions of the Code declared unconstitutional:

(a) Section 162(c), denying deductions for illegal bribes and kickbacks.
(b) Section 162(f) and (g), denying deductions for fines, penalties, and a portion if treble damage liability under the antitrust laws.
(c) Section 267, disallowing deductions for certain losses and expenses involving related parties.
(d) Section 274, disallowing deductions for (among other things) one-half of meal and entertainment expenses (e.g., the three-martini lunch).

There are countless other limitations, but you get the idea. Deductions are matters of legislative grace, and no court has ever bought the argument that gross wages aren't income.
Moreover, since an unapportioned tax on revenue in general is authorized by Article I, Section 8, why the hangup on the 16th?
No its [sic] not
Why not? Answer the question: if a gratuitous transfer can be reached by an excise under Article I, Section 8, why can't a transfer for value? And if a transfer for value is taxable, does it make any difference from a constitutional standpoint whether the tax is imposed on the transferor (as in the gift tax, although the donee can be liable for the tax if the donor doesn't pay) or the transferee (as in a sales tax)?
"Run get the pitcher, get the baby some beer." Rev. Gary Davis
SteveSy

Re: Capitations, other direct taxes, & shape shifting lizards

Post by SteveSy »

Lambkin wrote:The economy is in the crapper and still the people are not rising up... waaaaah! Instead of having a detax revolution, they elected President Obama. Your enemies must be quaking in their boots.
It just happened ding dong...I don't have enemies btw, just people I disagree with. Obama will be as popular, more likely less so, as Jimmy Carter was in the end. Jimmy Carter had a higher approval rating at this time in office than Obama has now lol. Besides the full repercussions of the government's inept actions won't be felt for a few years. They still have the final nuclear option to print money to keep the illusion of stability alive, but that will end soon as inflation and then hyperinflation inevitably kick in.

Yes, if significant changes to how government operates, towards the extreme conservative side, don't take place and we don't have a "detax uprising" then yes I will admit I'm wrong in 10 years. The government has no choice but to collapse or reorganize to something very limited. Medicare and Social Security will hit their peak in 2012, among other programs, and the government has no possible way to pay the recipients without either printing the money causing hyperinflation or by virtually eliminating the programs all together. This will cause a massive sucking sound which will be the GDP bubble deflating because its main source is government spending further decreasing government revenue causing further problems with increased taxation and unemployment. One other possibility is a world war.

One thing that is rarely accounted for in the projections of government outlays in coming years is that GDP must fall if outlays are reduced via modification of entitlement benefits and such. You stop sending a check to granny who has little income already you're going to find granny has to work or join the soup line. She won't be able to find a job because GDP has gone down. GDP has gone down because granny isn't buying groceries or birthday presents for her grandchildren which cause layoffs by the producers. Now more and more employees who once had jobs are now reliant on government increasing its burden further. Also the health care granny used to take advantage of was cut so the providers are no longer raking in the dough, since they aren't bringing in as much they aren't spending as much and around and around it goes in a spiral downwards.
Joey Smith
Infidel Enslaver
Posts: 895
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:57 pm

Re: Capitations, other direct taxes, & shape shifting lizards

Post by Joey Smith »

Political discussions go to Ranting & Raving ......
- - - - - - - - - - -
"The real George Washington was shot dead fairly early in the Revolution." ~ David Merrill, 9-17-2004 --- "This is where I belong" ~ Heidi Guedel, 7-1-2006 (referring to suijuris.net)
- - - - - - - - - - -