Weston White: Wrap-up

[LPC]

As Weston's intellect, which was small enough to begin with, begins to implode into itself and approaches the relativistic event horizon, at which point even irrational thoughts will be unable to escape, it might be worthwhile to try to summarize what we know about the world according to WW:

1. A British economist in 1776 said that a capitation is a direct tax on wages. Therefore:

2. A direct tax on wages is a capitation;

3. Wages are not income;

4. An unapportioned tax on wages is unconstitutional;

5. The 16th Amendment doesn't mean what it says;

6. Every judge in the history of the United States is wrong;

7. An unapportioned wage on a capitation is a direct tax;

8. A capitation on an apportioned wage must be direct;

9. People are not persons;

10. The tax laws do not mean what they say;

11. The tax laws enacted in 1862 are still in force, but the tax laws enacted in 1986 have expired;

12. Everything I want to be true is true, regardless of factual reality.

Did I leave anything out? (I mean, he never claimed that the Queen of England controls the United States and is a shape-shifting lizard, did he? I had hoped I would have noticed that one.)

[Weston White]

Seriously are you really that ignorant or do they just pay you to pretend to be?

Dr. Adam Smith did not say it, did not make it up, he did not create it, he exemplified it according to how such taxes were levied in France and for poll-taxes in England.

How about you pull our head our from your horses ass for a few seconds and catch some fresh air, take a look around. Who knows you might just like the scenery.

As to the rest of you numerations they are utter crap, I never ever said any of that nor hvae I implied any of that, and for sake of argument if what I believe is factual and true you numerations would be invalid, because what I believe it would not change anything.

Seriously, if you can’t even get that, at this point, after all of this debating, I honestly see no point in engaging in any further discussion with you.

[Doktor Avalanche]

So declare victory and leave already.

[Imalawman]

Seriously are you really that ignorant or do they just pay you to pretend to be?

Dr. Adam Smith did not say it, did not make it up, he did not create it, he exemplified it according to how such taxes were levied in France and for poll-taxes in England.

How about you pull our head our from your horses ass for a few seconds and catch some fresh air, take a look around. Who knows you might just like the scenery.

As to the rest of you numerations they are utter crap, I never ever said any of that nor hvae I implied any of that, and for sake of argument if what I believe is factual and true you numerations would be invalid, because what I believe it would not change anything.

Seriously, if you can’t even get that, at this point, after all of this debating, I honestly see no point in engaging in any further discussion with you.

QED.

[LPC]

Seriously, if you can’t even get that, at this point, after all of this debating, I honestly see no point in engaging in any further discussion with you.

Oh, please don't throw me in that briar patch!

[Judge Roy Bean]

....
Seriously, if you can’t even get that, at this point, after all of this debating, I honestly see no point in engaging in any further discussion with you.

Thank you. You will probably not be missed by most participants.

[Weston White]

1. A British economist in 1776 said that a capitation is a direct tax on wages. Therefore:

No Dr. Adam Smith, he did research and wrote a renowned book about commerce and economy that is still used as a source of learning to this very day. He did not say that capitations were direct taxes on labor, he merely clarified what the true and known definition of what capitations were known to be at the time as they were levied in France and expanded upon a more practical and just application of taxation in general. What he had wrote about capitations was already the case, regardless if he wrote Wealth of Nations or not. Do you not understand that?

2. A direct tax on wages is a capitation;

WTF? Did you mean “wages” in its common sense meaning and not as defined within the IRC?

Did you mean to write: “A tax upon wages [in the common sense meaning of wages] is a capitation tax, per the U.S. Constitution a capitation tax is a direct form of taxation.”?

3. Wages are not income;

Do you mean “wages” in its common sense meaning and not as defined within the IRC?
Do you mean “income” in its common sense meaning or as meant within XVI Amendment ‘incomes’?

Did you mean to write: “Remuneration received through laboring is not a taxable subject for the purposes of the ‘income tax’.”?

4. An unapportioned tax on wages is unconstitutional;

Do you mean “wages” in its common sense meaning and not as defined within the IRC?

Did you mean to write: “An unapportioned tax assessed upon remuneration for labouring is unconstitutional.”?

5. The 16th Amendment doesn't mean what it says;

Did you mean to write: “The XVI Amendment means exactly what it implies, just as it always has, which is that only a tax assessed upon ‘incomes’ within the meaning of this Amendment [‘1909 Corporation Excise Tax Act’] is taxable without any regards to the census or enumeration, or to its source."?

6. Every judge in the history of the United States is wrong;

Did you mean to write: “It appears that the issue being raised has never actually been directly raised before, so far as the common laborer is concerned.”?

7. An unapportioned wage on a capitation is a direct tax;

Did you mean to write: “At this point I LPC, have become so entirely desperate to defend my incredibly compromised position that I am beginning to hallucinate and jabber, it is clearly effecting my writing as my sentences are no longer making any sense. God somebody please help me, make it stop! Please! Help! Help me!”?

8. A capitation on an apportioned wage must be direct;

Do you mean “wages” in its common sense meaning and not as defined within the IRC?

Did you mean to write: “Per the U.S. Constitution within AI,S2,C3 and AI,S9,C4 capitation taxes are required to be apportioned in accordance with the census or enumeration, under the category of ‘direct taxes’."?

9. People are not persons;

Did you mean to write: “As stipulated within 26 USC 7701(p)(1)(1) and 26 USC 7701(p)(1)(2) and in accordance with 1 USC 1, the singular is the plural as the plural is the singular.”?

10. The tax laws do not mean what they say;

Did you mean to write: “The tax laws mean exactly what they say, just as they always have, albeit sadly due to decades of downtrodden public education, propaganda spewed through various forms of media and persons of influence, and complacency upon the part of various government offices since approximately the year 1940 till present the tax laws have been abused and misapplied.”?

11. The tax laws enacted in 1862 are still in force, but the tax laws enacted in 1986 have expired;

Did you mean to write: “The various tax acts run concurrently, which include the Revenue Acts of (although there may be more): 1862, 1864, 1865, 1867, 1870, 1872, 1873, 1878, 1894, 1913, 1916, 1917, 1919, 1921, 1924, 1926, 1928, 1932, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1938, 1939, 1954, 1986. The Revenue Act of 1986 merely expands upon those prior Acts, which as of yet have yet to have been repealed or superseded or have expired, so as to implement and revise as necessary all associated Acts and account for other special considerations; all of course in complete accord with our Nation’s well founded and highly spirited fundamental law.”?

12. Everything I want to be true is true, regardless of factual reality.

This just so does not deserve any comment from me.

Did I leave anything out? (I mean, he never claimed that the Queen of England controls
the United States and is a shape-shifting lizard, did he? I had hoped I would have noticed that one.)

Do you mean other than the blinding fact that you’re a total hazard to yourself and that it would serve you well to be locked up safe inside of a padded cell, errr, uhh, I mean “room”?

[Paul]

Dr. Adam Smith did not say it, did not make it up, he did not create it, he exemplified it according to how such taxes were levied in France and for poll-taxes in England.

So you don't understand Adam Smith any better than you understand anything else. When he said that a capitation on the lowest class was a direct tax on their wages, he wasn't citing any example of any government imposing a tax on wages, he was pointing out that the tax had to be paid out of their wages because, unlike those with income from capital or land, they had no other way to pay the tax.

[Weston White]

....
Seriously, if you can’t even get that, at this point, after all of this debating, I honestly see no point in engaging in any further discussion with you.

Thank you. You will probably not be missed by most participants.

Tell you what... go ahead and save it for my funeral.

[Weston White]

Dr. Adam Smith did not say it, did not make it up, he did not create it, he exemplified it according to how such taxes were levied in France and for poll-taxes in England.

So you don't understand Adam Smith any better than you understand anything else. When he said that a capitation on the lowest class was a direct tax on their wages, he wasn't citing any example of any government imposing a tax on wages, he was pointing out that the tax had to be paid out of their wages because, unlike those with income from capital or land, they had no other way to pay the tax.

No he was stating how the taxes effected the people of France and for that matter England and North America... Have you even read it?

In the capitation which has been levied in France without any interruption since the beginning of the present century, the highest orders of people are rated according to their rank by an invariable tariff; the lower orders of people, according to what is supposed to be their fortune, by an assessment which varies from year to year. The officers of the king's court, the judges and other officers in the superior courts of justice, the officers of the troops, etc., are assessed in the first manner. The inferior ranks of people in the provinces are assessed in the second. In France the great easily submit to a considerable degree of inequality in a tax which, so far as it affects them, is not a very heavy one, but could not brook the arbitrary assessment of an intendant. The inferior ranks of people must, in that country, suffer patiently the usage which their superiors think proper to give them.

In the greater part of those provinces of France which are called the Countries of Elections the taille is of this kind. The real taille, as it is imposed only upon a part of the lands of the country, is necessarily an unequal, but it is not always an arbitrary tax, though it is so upon some occasions. The personal taille, as it is intended to be proportioned to the profits of a certain class of people which can only be guessed at, is necessarily both arbitrary and unequal.

[taille: a tax formerly levied by a French king or seigneur on his subjects or on lands held of him]

[Weston White]

Do you know what he also said? He said that it should not be the employee that pays the tax levied upon his wages out of his own pocket, it should be the employer that pays such taxes either through a pay increase slightly higher than the tax being levied or paid directly by the employer themselves and that the employer would simply recoup that loss through an increase of their commodities or merchandise in the same manner as they would if the tax was imposed as an indirect tax.

The wages of the inferior classes of workmen, I have endeavoured to show in the first book, are everywhere necessarily regulated by two different circumstances; the demand for labour, and the ordinary or average price of provisions. The demand for labour, according as it happens to be either increasing, stationary, or declining, or to require an increasing, stationary, or declining population, regulates the subsistence of the labourer, and determines in what degree it shall be, either liberal, moderate, or scanty. The ordinary or average price of provisions determines the quantity of money which must be paid to the workman in order to enable him, one year with another, to purchase this liberal, moderate, or scanty subsistence. While the demand for labour and the price of provisions, therefore, remain the same, a direct tax upon the wages of labour can have no other effect than to raise them somewhat higher than the tax. Let us suppose, for example, that in a particular place the demand for labour and the price of provisions were such as to render ten shillings a week the ordinary wages of labour, and that a tax of one-fifth, or four shillings in the pound, was imposed upon wages. If the demand for labour and the price of provisions remained the same, it would still be necessary that the labourer should in that place earn such a subsistence as could be bought only for ten shillings a week free wages. But in order to leave him such free wages after paying such a tax, the price of labour must in that place soon rise, not to twelve shillings a week only, but to twelve and sixpence; that is, in order to enable him to pay a tax of one-fifth, his wages must necessarily soon rise, not one-fifth part only, but one-fourth. Whatever was the proportion of the tax, the wages of labour must in all cases rise, not only in that proportion, but in a higher proportion. If the tax, for example, was one-tenth, the wages of labour must necessarily soon rise, not one-tenth part only, but one-eighth.

A direct tax upon the wages of labour, therefore, though the labourer might perhaps pay it out of his hand, could not properly be said to be even advanced by him; at least if tile demand for labour and the average price of provisions remained the same after the tax as before it. In all such cases, not only the tax but something more than the tax would in reality be advanced by the person who immediately employed him. The final payment would in different cases fall upon different persons. The rise which such a tax might occasion in the wages of manufacturing labour would be advanced by the master manufacturer, who would both be entitled and obliged to charge it, with a profit, upon the price of his goods. The final payment of this rise of wages, therefore, together with the additional profit of the master manufacturer, would fall upon the consumer. The rise which such a tax might occasion in the wages of country labour would be advanced by the farmer, who, in order to maintain the same number of labourers as before, would be obliged to employ a greater capital. In order to get back this greater capital, together with the ordinary profits of stock, it would be necessary that he should retain a larger portion, or what comes to the same thing, the price of a larger portion, of the produce of the land, and consequently that he should pay less rent to the landlord. The final payment of this rise of wages, therefore, would in this case fall upon the landlord, together with the additional profit of the farmer who had advanced it. In all cases a direct tax upon the wages of labour must, in the long-run, occasion both a greater reduction in the rent of land, and a greater rise in the price of manufactured goods, than would have followed from the proper assessment of a sum equal to the produce of the tax partly upon the rent of land, and partly upon consumable commodities.

[LPC]

No he was stating how the taxes effected the people of France and for that matter England and North America...

What makes you think a capitation was imposed in North American before 1776?

[Weston White]

No he was stating how the taxes effected the people of France and for that matter England and North America...

What makes you think a capitation was imposed in North American before 1776?

Not a capitation, rather a poll-taxes (which would serve to make sense being that England levied poll-taxes). I thought you read Wealth of Nations? Of course if you had, you would have never had to ask such an ill-informed question now would you?

[Nikki]

Seriously, if you can’t even get that, at this point, after all of this debating, I honestly see no point in engaging in any further discussion with you.

Why do they always promise this, but keep coming back again, and again, and again, ...

[Doktor Avalanche]

Seriously, if you can’t even get that, at this point, after all of this debating, I honestly see no point in engaging in any further discussion with you.

Why do they always promise this, but keep coming back again, and again, and again, ...

To impress upon us that they really, really don't want to talk to us anymore?

Reminds me of the time my son threatened to run away from home when he was a tot.

"I'm leaving...I'm really doin' it...I'm gonna run 'way from home...don't try an' stop me...I'm walkin' out the door...bye....I'm really run 'way from home..."

Of course, he couldn't get far: he wasn't allowed to cross the street.

The only conceptual difference here is that it's not adorable when a 44 year old man threatens to run away from home.

[cynicalflyer]

As Weston's intellect, which was small enough to begin with, begins to implode into itself and approaches the relativistic event horizon, at which point even irrational thoughts will be unable to escape, it might be worthwhile to try to summarize what we know about the world according to WW:

I would agree with your assessment, but with one caveat. In WW world, no one is responsible for his/her own actions.

Pete sets off a bomb (fire, smoke, whatever) and it is the VICTIM who is at fault for the subsequent injury.

You do not want to pay your income taxes? Why, it is not your fault that you get hit with fines, fees and what not. That bad old Pete lead you down a wrong path and how were you to know OR the ebil gubement is denying the "truth" OR the courts are corrupt OR...

[Demosthenes]

Poor Weston. Can't read well, can't write well, and can't manage to spit up more than just a little of all the Koolaid he's ingested over the last two years.

It takes a strong mind to fight off two years of cult programming. He's just not there yet. It may take a catastrophic event (indictment, financial ruin) before he'll be honest in his self-assessment.

[Prof]

Poor Weston. Can't read well, can't write well, and can't manage to spit up more than just a little of all the Koolaid he's ingested over the last two years.

It takes a strong mind to fight off two years of cult programming. He's just not there yet. It may take a catastrophic event (indictment, financial ruin) before he'll be honest in his self-assessment.

It is hard to give up a self-image of a person who has conquered a great, hidden secret, which gives power over those who would cloud the mind. Weston strikes me as someone who just can't give up on the idea that he is truely "the One."

Unfortunately, he's just like the rest of us, and he must live in the real world -- and not in a fantasy land where he and only a select few have figured out the greatest fraud in American History!!!

[Gregg]

1. A British economist in 1776 said that a capitation is a direct tax on wages. Therefore:

No Dr. Adam Smith, blah blah blah...

I wish you'd quit saying that. First, it makes you sound like a petulant child and second, Adam Smith dropped out of Oxford so not only is he NOT a Dr of Economics (but I am, bitch) but he doesn't (didn't) even have a college degree.

He got what amounts to an honorary Doctorate from Univ of Glasgow (where he also may have been on the golf team!) although he never attended classes there and at the time his known works were not in the field of Economics, but ethics....

Have you ever gotten a fact right?

[Gregg]

Poor Weston. Can't read well, can't write well, and can't manage to spit up more than just a little of all the Koolaid he's ingested over the last two years.

It takes a strong mind to fight off two years of cult programming. He's just not there yet. It may take a catastrophic event (indictment, financial ruin) before he'll be honest in his self-assessment.

I'm willing to toss him off a tal building, if you think it would help.