Drivel Redux

[Joey Smith]

Re: Capitation Taxes - Redux
by SteveSy on Sun Apr 05, 2009 6:22 pm

[snip]
If you don't like what they said then you are free to go somewhere else
[snip]

No, Stevie, that applies to what the courts (including the U.S. Supreme Court) have repeatedly and consistently held for the last century: The income tax is constitutional in its present form, period-the-end.

Still not able to get anybody who matters to buy into your "unique beliefs"?

[SteveSy]

Re: Capitation Taxes - Redux
by SteveSy on Sun Apr 05, 2009 6:22 pm

[snip]
If you don't like what they said then you are free to go somewhere else
[snip]

No, Stevie, that applies to what the courts (including the U.S. Supreme Court) have repeatedly and consistently held for the last century: The income tax is constitutional in its present form, period-the-end.

Still not able to get anybody who matters to buy into your "unique beliefs"?

They aren't so unique. It's ok though, as the government spends us in to oblivion and requires more and more extractions from the people the more people will be willing to take a closer look at just how the government has acquired its power. The old adage is true, It's not important until it happens to you.

Doubtful that many average people will buy in to the nonsense espoused here where actual facts to support a position are totally unimportant. Seeing the mountain of evidence proving the court's wrong while they support the government extraction of an ever increasing amount of taxes from an ever dwindling amount of pay will cause some issues I suspect for government collection in the future.

The government has inadvertently turned up the knob on the TP incubator.

[Famspear]

Seeing the mountain of evidence proving the court's wrong while they support the government extraction of an ever increasing amount of taxes from an ever dwindling amount of pay will cause some issues I suspect for government collection in the future.

If you think you "see" any evidence proving that courts are "wrong," then you need to have your eyes checked. And the courts are not here to "support" the government in the sense in which you are using the term. You are trying to rationalize your own unwillingness to accept that the courts rule according to principles of law that you do not like. Because you don't like taxes, you have tried to convince yourself for years that federal income taxes are legally invalid, and that the courts who uphold the validity of federal income taxes are merely trying to "support" the government -- that the judges really "know" that the "SteveSy law" is the "real" law, and that the judges are for that reason corrupt, etc. You are wrong.

I agree, however, that the government extraction of ever increasing taxes from an ever dwindling resource (in terms of taxpayers' funds) could definitely be a problem -- for entirely different reasons.

[SteveSy]

Seeing the mountain of evidence proving the court's wrong while they support the government extraction of an ever increasing amount of taxes from an ever dwindling amount of pay will cause some issues I suspect for government collection in the future.

If you think you "see" any evidence proving that courts are "wrong," then you need to have your eyes checked. And the courts are not here to "support" the government in the sense in which you are using the term. You are trying to rationalize your own unwillingness to accept that the courts rule according to principles of law that you do not like. Because you don't like taxes, you have tried to convince yourself for years that federal income taxes are legally invalid, and that the courts who uphold the validity of federal income taxes are merely trying to "support" the government -- that the judges really "know" that the "SteveSy law" is the "real" law, and that the judges are for that reason corrupt, etc. You are wrong.

I agree, however, that the government extraction of ever increasing taxes from an ever dwindling resource (in terms of taxpayers' funds) could definitely be a problem -- for entirely different reasons.

No, it isn't only because I don't like the law. I of course don't like it but that's not the reason. I've clearly shown that the people who were involved in the creation of the constitution did not believe a tax on revenue was an indirect tax. It's also clear that none of you have or ever will post anything whatsoever to show that they believed otherwise. I base my position on historical evidence, something which you and the courts don't have.

Your entire position is based on the flawed premise that the courts can manufacture reality by fiat. They can change the meaning of the constitution at will by simply redefining words without ever showing where that definition was derived from. Nothing in the constitution supports this position of yours, it like everything else you have said concerning direct taxes, is a figment of your imagination supported only by someone else's imagination.

[Famspear]

No, it isn't only because I don't like the law. I of course don't like it but that's not the reason. I've clearly shown that the people who were involved in the creation of the constitution did not believe a tax on revenue was an indirect tax.

No, you haven't. And nobody really cares whether you feel you have, Steve. It's not important. Very little of the crap you feel is important really is important.

It's also clear that none of you have or ever will post anything whatsoever to show that they believed otherwise. I base my position on historical evidence, something which you and the courts don't have.

No, your position is based on what you feel about the historical evidence you have read. Your interpretation of the historical evidence is worthless under the U.S. legal system. Worthless.

Your entire position is based on the flawed premise that the courts can manufacture reality by fiat.

First of all, it's not "my position." I'm explaining the state of the law. And my explanation is based on the rules of law. Court rulings are authoritative on what the law is. Not SteveSy's interpretations -- of historical documents or anything else.

They can change the meaning of the constitution at will by simply redefining words without ever showing where that definition was derived from. Nothing in the constitution supports this position of yours, it like everything else you have said concerning direct taxes, is a figment of your imagination supported only by someone else's imagination.

Oh, so now you feel that the rulings of the courts are "figments of my imagination." Sort of like "shape shifting lizards", eh Steve?

Nothing in the Constitution supports "this position" of MINE? You mean, this position about WHAT THE COURTS HAVE RULED, OVER AND OVER? That position?

Oh boo-hoo. Wahhhhhhhhh...... Steve doesn't feel that the Constitution supports "this position of mine." waaaahhhhh........ Just a figment of my imagination, supported only by someone else's imagination..... wahhhhhhhhhh, Oh boo-hoo.

That's it, Steve? That's your response?

[SteveSy]

No, your position is based on what you feel about the historical evidence you have read. Your interpretation of the historical evidence is worthless under the U.S. legal system. Worthless.

He said that, so far as he had been able to form an opinion, there had been a general concurrence in a belief that the ultimate sources of public contributions were labor, and the subjects and effects of labor; that taxes, being permanent, had a tendency to equalize, and to diffuse themselves through a community. According to these opinions, a capitation tax, and taxes on land, and on property and income generally, were a direct charge, as well in the immediate as ultimate sources of contribution

- The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 4]
Direct Taxes. May 6, 1794

Nope, no interpretation there...speaks for itself. Unless you want to argue that he didn't really say a tax on income was a direct tax.

Nothing in the Constitution supports "this position" of MINE? You mean, this position about WHAT THE COURTS HAVE RULED, OVER AND OVER? That position?

Who cares what they have ruled, I don't. Show me support for what they're saying and I'll believe you or them...but that isn't going to happen because it doesn't exist.

That's it, Steve? That's your response?

Better than yours, which is, they said it so I accept it even if everything proves them wrong.

You have placed courts in the realm of deities...your reality is warped whenever they speak. They're just frigging people Famspear, some corrupt, some good and some really stupid, but all in all they're just people....jeesh.

You want to argue that my arguments will lose if I argue them in the courts I disagree with then you're right. You want to say people will likely pay a heavy price if they don't pay their extortion to the government, you're right. But if you want to argue that the government is right, well, you're wrong, they aren't. The facts clearly show they're full of crap. Just because the government has the might it doesn't make them right.

[fortinbras]

I think that the simple answer is that whether or not the income tax is a direct tax -- and there are court decisions on both sides -- the income tax itself was authorized by the 16th Amendment. And the legislative history of the 16th Amendment shows that it was intended to tax wages, salaries, and other forms of income of the broadest possible number of Americans, and the 16th Amendment was intended to eliminate any previous Constitutional impediment to this. And that the income tax was intended to enable the govt to reduce its very high tariffs on foreign imports, something which had caused other nations to throw up similar barriers to American exports; the reduction or elimination of these tariffs helped make the US the world economic powerhouse it has become.

[SteveSy]

And that the income tax was intended to enable the govt to reduce its very high tariffs on foreign imports, something which had caused other nations to throw up similar barriers to American exports; the reduction or elimination of these tariffs helped make the US the world economic powerhouse it has become.

It also helped us borrow our way in to oblivion which will make us fall. The income tax just allowed us to increase our credit limit which we used like a heroin addict. We're like that good guy that used to be revered for his responsibility and stability who got involved with heroin...and his life from there on out went downhill while he destroyed his once good name trying to find enough money to keep buying his next fix.

[Famspear]

Who cares what they [the courts] have ruled, I don't. Show me support for what they're saying and I'll believe you or them...but that isn't going to happen because it doesn't exist.

Ah, we're back to the old SteveSy refrain. There is some secret, universal, mystical "SteveSy" law, out there in The Cosmos, that is different from what the courts rule. And Steve has it "right," while the courts have it "wrong." So, not only is Steve asking for support in the form of court decisions, he (as usual) rejects those decisions once they're presented to him -- and he wants SUPPORT for the court decisions themselves.....

You have placed courts in the realm of deities...your reality is warped whenever they speak. They're just frigging people Famspear, some corrupt, some good and some really stupid, but all in all they're just people....jeesh.

Ah, yes, American law was really created by THE DEITIES; American law is really some secret, universal, mystical "SteveSy" law, and the rest of us are making a "mistake" when we point out that MERE MORTALS, those "just frigging people" known as federal judges, render judgments about what the law is. As legal commentator Daniel B. Evans has noted, people like Steve believe that the judges "just got it wrong" and that there is a "law" out there somewhere, indepedent of what judges rule.

You want to argue that my arguments will lose if I argue them in the courts I disagree with then you're right. You want to say people will likely pay a heavy price if they don't pay their extortion to the government, you're right. But if you want to argue that the government is right, well, you're wrong, they aren't. The facts clearly show they're full of crap. Just because the government has the might it doesn't make them right.

Ah, and Steve has THE FACTS -- the FACTS that prove that the government is wrong. And STEVE'S FACTS "clearly show" that the government is FULL OF CRAP.

And that mean ol', bad ol' government is GETTING AWAY WITH IT just because the government has THE MIGHT, but it's just not faaaaaaaaiiiiiiirrrrrrrrr!!!!! Wahhhhhhhhh!!!!!!

Oh, boo-hoo.

[SteveSy]

And that mean ol', bad ol' government is GETTING AWAY WITH IT just because the government has THE MIGHT, but it's just not faaaaaaaaiiiiiiirrrrrrrrr!!!!! Wahhhhhhhhh!!!!!!

Oh, boo-hoo.

I'm not crying just posting the historical facts...something you don't and never will have. Of course you've resigned yourself to arguing support for the decisions is unimportant and that's fine. You're welcome to accept whatever you like, including the existence of shape shifting lizards for all I care.

[Famspear]

And that mean ol', bad ol' government is GETTING AWAY WITH IT just because the government has THE MIGHT, but it's just not faaaaaaaaiiiiiiirrrrrrrrr!!!!! Wahhhhhhhhh!!!!!!

Oh, boo-hoo.

I'm not crying just posting the historical facts...something you don't and never will have.

Oh, wahhhhhh!! I don't have any historical facts!! Oh what'll I do!?! Oh, boo-hoo!

Of course you've resigned yourself to arguing support for the decisions is unimportant and that's fine. You're welcome to accept whatever you like, including the existence of shape shifting lizards for all I care.

Yes, that's right Steve. I've "resigned myself" to "arguing" that support for the court decisions in unimportant. And the courts don't need me to find "support" for their decisions. I don't make the rules. And neither to do you. And there is no imaginary rule that says that the courts must satisfy SteveSy that the courts are "right."

And if I run across any shape shifting lizards, you'll be the first to know, Steve.

[Judge Roy Bean]

I couldn't find the time to browse through my boxes of old books for this one, and thanks to the Internet, I was able to find something appropriate here from one of my favorite authors:

"The self-taught man seldom knows anything accurately, and he does not know a tenth as much as he could have known if he had worked under teachers; and, besides, he brags, and is the means of fooling other thoughtless people into going and doing as he himself has done."
Mark Twain

[Prof]

And under a system of high tariffs imposed by the US and other countries prior to the 16th Amendment, the person who got royally screwed by the high tariffs was the working person - middle and lower income people. By promoting trade, standards of living throughout the world rose.

And SteveSy, the government ran defecits prior to the 16th Amendment too. If you want to whine and gripe about runaway government, try placing the blame where it belongs - Woodrow Wilson, FDR and LBJ, as well as pig-ignorant voters.

Please note that both Reagan, Bush I and Bush II ran up huge deficits, too. Reagan's was the largest in absolute terms in US history; Bush II was no. 2, Bush I was no. 3.

[jkeeb]

I seem to remember Tip O'Neill declaring the Reagan budgets "Dead on Arrival" when submitted. Reagan tried to cut some domestic spending, it just wasn't allowed.

[Judge Roy Bean]

To continue the budget/deficit topic, see the "Off Topic" page.

[Paul]

Your entire position is based on the flawed premise that the courts can manufacture reality by fiat. They can change the meaning of the constitution at will by simply redefining words without ever showing where that definition was derived from.

Does anyone else get tired of listening to this constant complaint about the courts making stuff up from a moron whose sole argument that the 16th Amendment doesn't mean and do exactly what it says -- allow Congress to impose a tax on income without having to apportion it -- is based entirely on the musings of one Supreme Court case? In a locked thread, he responds to an argument that what the founding fathers may have believed about income taxes being direct or indirect is mooted by the 16th Amendment by stating:

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.

This is a close paraphrase of Brushaber, and it's stevesy's only basis for ignoring the 16th Amendment. So, while endlessly complaining about the SC making things up, he cites a made up pronouncement of the SC. And not just any SC opinion, but one that also stated that taxes on income are, by nature, excises. He doesn't just cherry pick his SC cases, he cherry picks within them, and then denounces everything else as made up.

He's gotta be a total moron, because his arguments are too stupid to be the lies of anyone clever enough to realize that other people might read the authorities he relies on and see how he misuses them.

[wserra]

Does anyone else get tired of listening to this constant complaint about the courts making stuff up from a moron

Yes. Hence the Ignore List.

[fortinbras]

Maybe I'm missing the point. Certainly one of the reasons - maybe the major reason - for the 16th Amendment was to circumvent the Pollock decision. Congress (and the whole country) wanted to shift from high tariffs to an income tax as the means of financing the federal govt. The 16th Amendment was written so as to allow that -- notwithstanding the Pollock decision, or quibbling about whether it was a direct or indirect tax, etc.

The 16th Amendment actually had a very beneficial effect. By lowering the tariffs, America became a world trading powerhouse - putting real muscle into the American economy - and by basing the funding of the govt on the population's prosperity instead of the health of foreign businesses, the emphasis and goal of the entire govt shifted to making all Americans wealthier. It was the foundation of the American middle class.

[Lasagna]

No, it isn't only because I don't like the law. I of course don't like it but that's not the reason. I've clearly shown that the people who were involved in the creation of the constitution did not believe a tax on revenue was an indirect tax.

Out of all the garbage that comes out of the TP movement, it's this sort of thing that disturbs me the most. The re-writing of history in order to show that, at all times, the TPer philosophy was correct and supported by the country's heroes. It's way too 1984 for me, and deeply worrisome, because it isn't just the TPer movement that enthusiastically rewrites history - I feel like we're seeing more and more of it all over the place.

For the record, Steve, your quote above is complete and total nonsense. It's beyond stupid. One of the primary purposes, if not THE primary purpose, of the Constitutional Convention was to give the federal government authority to tax citizens. You spend so much time posting here - how about spending ONE DAY reading the Federalist Papers?

[Doktor Avalanche]

It's beyond stupid.

Wow...it's not just stupid, it's beyond stupid.

Lucky for you, Steve, Lasagna frowns on using words like "dumbass".