Free Enterprise Society Fresno Ca.

[Weston White]

This is when I want to tell the story about Abraham Lincoln and about how calling a tail a "leg" doesn't make it a leg.

But what's the point, because WW wouldn't get it.

Yes, you're right, Weston. You can evade taxes as long as you describe the money you receive using the right homonym [sic].

If you call the money you receive "revenue" instead of "income," then you become invisible and the government will never see you.

It's a sure-fire strategy, and you need to tell all your pals at losthorizons.com right away. Especially Pete. Maybe he'll cut you in on a piece of his jail time.

Sure you could tell your story, for when we get right down to it, that is all that you have. We are talking about legalize defined in law, though, so such a story is really but a fairytale with a magical ending for you.

[Weston White]

You were making a big deal out of the fact that the 16th Amendment didn't repeal the apportionment requirement for direct taxes, similar to the way the prohibition amendment was subsenquently repealed. I just pointed out a number of amendments that clearly have an effect, and yet did not repeal contradictory provisions in the original constitution. If you could put 2 and 2 together, you would have come to the conclusion that amendments do not need to repeal contradictory provisions in the pre-existing constitution in order to be effective. So, when the 16th Amendment says that taxes on incomes do not have to be apportioned, it means that taxes on incomes don't have to be apportioned even if the provision in the original constitution requiring apportionment of capitations and other direct taxes is still in existence. All it means is that a tax on income, to the extent that it could be considered a capitation or direct tax, is excluded from the apportionment requirement imposed on those taxes.

I admit that is a bit of a good point, though I will also state that all those were merely
just tweaking and expansion, nothing monumental such as if the XVI Amendment were to mean what you want it to (that incomes was within the class of capitations taxes but was transferred over to the class of excises, actually such a notion is actually ludicrous), regardless the XVI makes no mention of capitation taxes, if it actually meant to address something about capitation taxes it would have such as stating that capitation taxes shall be an indirect tax, and even still it still does not serve to entirely make your case for you because it could mean either or being that this is never addressed within the XVI Amendment nor within the congressional hearings during its ratification. Also SCOTUS and the CRS have stated more than once that incomes is and always was existed within the class of excise taxes, so again this does not support your contention either.

And the notion that a "tax on incomes" can mean only taxes that fall into some definition of "excise" and that cannot fall into the "capitation or other direct" category means that the 16th Amendment has no meaning.

No, it has meaning, whenever you have a realized gain from engaging in activities which are taxable within the IRC and in such amounts which are qualifying you are legally required to pay taxes upon that. For example because the federal government pretty much owns the majority of all major and successful corporations, should you take that money you earn each pay period working at Barns and Nobles or whatever and invest it in say AIG, you turn a nice fat profit over the course of the year, say $15,000, if after your deductions it is still exceeds the minimal threshold for establishing tax exemption, you need to pay your taxes on that; or say you work in the mining, BATFE [related], railroad businesses, military, a federal instrumentality (e.g. Postal Service, bank, insurance, etc.) as your "wages" are taxable because you are designed subject within other various Subtitles of the IRC.

Why exempt a tax from the apportionment requirement unless the apportionment requirement could apply to it?

Because of the POLLOCK ruling, sort of funny the chain of events that transpired from 1895 until 1913 weren’t they or are you going to deny that as well?

[Weston White]

Sure you could tell your story, for when we get right down to it, that is all that you have. We are talking about legalize defined in law, though, so such a story is really but a fairytale with a magical ending for you.

And yet the law and no court has ever sided with any of the positions put for by Hendrickson, Schiff, Rose, etc, etc, etc.

And yes there is a magical ending for us, it is called having money, having wealth, having real estate, being able to travel whenever and wherever we want, not having to constantly be in court, or spending inordinate amounts of time with the IRS and getting hit with additional penalties and fines, not being incarcerated, to name but a few "magical endings."

Pete Hendrickson's magical ending, and probably that of a number of his followers (ditto for Rose, Schiff, etc., fans) is taxes, penalties and fees owed to the IRS so that they end up in bankruptcy, and for some divorce court as well, paying far more in penalties and interest than if they had just paid the taxes in the first place, and a life time of cruddy jobs, cruddy rentals, and a cruddy life full of bitterness and vitriol directed at everyone and everything except the real cause of their problems - themselves.

yawn

[Weston White]

It is the same with Pete Hendrickson and you. The courts have stated that Pete's theories are wrong. It is that simple. Pete Hendrickson and you are both wrong.

In all honesty the courts never actually argued what he believes they only argued the prosecution version of what he believes (which is grossly mangled and falsified), much like all of you only argue your own version of what you believe that I believe, all the while failing to address what it is that I actually believe, e.g. similar to how LPC keeps altering what I am actually saying to something that I had never said nor claimed nor believe.

[The Operative]

It is the same with Pete Hendrickson and you. The courts have stated that Pete's theories are wrong. It is that simple. Pete Hendrickson and you are both wrong.

In all honesty the courts never actually argued what he believes they only argued the prosecution version of what he believes (which is grossly mangled and falsified), much like all of you only argue your own version of what you believe that I believe, all the while failing to address what it is that I actually believe, e.g. similar to how LPC keeps altering what I am actually saying to something that I had never said nor claimed nor believe.

Weston, I am going to keep this utterly simple.

You believe that a tax on wages, salary, compensation or whatever word you wish to choose, for labor is a capitation. Is that what you believe?

Do you believe that compensation for labor, paid in the form of wages or salary, are not subject to the income tax laws?

Note: This time, I am asking for what you believe. I am not asking for an explanation. A simple yes or no answer will suffice or if you cannot answer with a yes or no, the simplest answer possible. Earlier, and in another thread, I asked if you thought the courts would agree with a similar statement. You have not answered that question yet.

[LPC]

That [opinions of the Supreme Court in Veazie Bank and Pollock] is dealing with the question of what are 'direct taxes' it is not dealing with the question of what are capitation taxes.

So now you believe that a capitation is not a direct tax?

Your entire argument continues to rest on one sentence from a British economic text, the relevance of which to constitutional interpretation has been squarely rejected by the Supreme Court.

And, in order to avoid the 16th Amendment, you also have to argue that "revenue" is different from "income," which is ridiculous. (You have to take this position because the same British economist flatly declared that wages are a form of revenue, while you believe that the 16th Amendment's declaration that taxes on incomes do not need to be apportioned does not apply to a tax on wages.)

Meanwhile, there are 200+ years of Supreme Court decisions that contradict everything you believe to be true, your guru in under indictment, and most of his followers are facing levies to enforce fines for filing frivolous returns.

This is not evidence of a rational belief system.

[Weston White]

That [opinions of the Supreme Court in Veazie Bank and Pollock] is dealing with the question of what are 'direct taxes' it is not dealing with the question of what are capitation taxes.

So now you believe that a capitation is not a direct tax?

Your entire argument continues to rest on one sentence from a British economic text, the relevance of which to constitutional interpretation has been squarely rejected by the Supreme Court.

And, in order to avoid the 16th Amendment, you also have to argue that "revenue" is different from "income," which is ridiculous. (You have to take this position because the same British economist flatly declared that wages are a form of revenue, while you believe that the 16th Amendment's declaration that taxes on incomes do not need to be apportioned does not apply to a tax on wages.)

Meanwhile, there are 200+ years of Supreme Court decisions that contradict everything you believe to be true, your guru in under indictment, and most of his followers are facing levies to enforce fines for filing frivolous returns.

This is not evidence of a rational belief system.

Yes, that lends to the current confusion, back then "wages" was not statutory 'wages' as serves to mean now, it was simply known as revenue, stock, money, cash, payment, etc. or "wages". Now things are more complicated, legalize has to be taken into consideration. And all of you know that, this is why you are so fixated and center around the use of those specially defined words, this is why you confuse and equate CtC to your misconceived nonsensical chanting mantra of "Behold, behold, art frivolous -- 'wages' is not 'income'!".

When time-traveling you have to keep frame of reference in mind. What the average person understood as common knowledge back then could very well exist as a rarity in common awareness within our present, for example capitation taxes and poll-taxes, back then I highly doubt you would have been able to find a single person that did not fully understand the concept of such taxes. In the present though, ask the average person either one and they will most likely not a clue what you are even talking about, a few of those braver might even take a wild shot in the dark and answer you with a question... "Uh... A tax to vote?". And in comparison ask the common person back then what an "income tax" was and you would most likely get similar responses as the former in the present, though I would surmise the majority of persons would still be at least somewhat well-formed about such taxing principles and politics in general back then as compared to the present.

[Paul]

all of you know that, this is why you are so fixated and center around the use of those specially defined words, this is why you confuse and equate CtC to your misconceived nonsensical chanting mantra of "Behold, behold, art frivolous -- 'wages' is not 'income'!".

As usual, you have it bass-ackwards. It's only because you refuse to use the words "wages" and "income" and "revenue" in their ordinary sense that you can get to the notion that, when the Supreme Court said that a tax on income is by nature an excise, it never would have occured to them that their statement could be taken to apply to a tax on wages. And, what's worse, you get there even though there is no place in the IRC that you can find these words to be "specially defined." Instead, the IRC just assumes that everyone knows what "income" and "wages" mean. It assumes a command of the language that you lack.