[the MA constutional provision allowing an income tax] sounds constitutional to me. It's upon "incomes", just like the 16th amendment to the Constitution. Not upon the money you earn for trading your labor for pay.
justinprime, two posts later:
Phil Hart says, "Wages and salaries from labor were not considered income within the original meaning and intent of the 16th Amendment. Taxes on labor, as currently collected by the IRS as an "income" tax, cannot be described as anything other than a direct tax." I think Phil has some more digging to do. Maybe he should read CtC.
"Here is a fundamental question to ask yourself- what is the goal of the income tax scam? I think it is a means to extract wealth from the masses and give it to a parasite class." Skankbeat
He is right in a bent sort of way, wages and salaries were not considered by the 16th amendment, as they were considered taxable even before the amendment. The 16th amendment clarified the slot to put things like rents and maybe some stuff you could consider capital gains, but money you got paid for working has been, and continues to be, fair game from the founding.
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.
Disciple of the cross and champion in suffering
Immerse yourself into the kingdom of redemption
Pardon your mind through the chains of the divine
Make way, the shepherd of fire
One of the thing that "genius" Justin doesn't take in to consideration, among all the others, is that most if not all of the state constitutions lacked the limitations on taxation of the the Fed Constitution. So while the states may base their definition of "income" loosely off of the Fed definition, there is no limit on what constitutes "income" as far as the states are concerned, so he is even more wrong than usual.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
I guees my point was not as obvious as I thought it was. Justinprime, based on his reading of CTC, says money for labor is not income, but when Phil Hart says payment for labor is not income, justinprime says "Phil has some more digging to do. Maybe he should read CtC."
"Here is a fundamental question to ask yourself- what is the goal of the income tax scam? I think it is a means to extract wealth from the masses and give it to a parasite class." Skankbeat
Quixote wrote:I guees my point was not as obvious as I thought it was. Justinprime, based on his reading of CTC, says money for labor is not income, but when Phil Hart says payment for labor is not income, justinprime says "Phil has some more digging to do. Maybe he should read CtC."
Or, as can be said of most CTC adherents, intellectual consistency is not his strong suit, and he's as dumb as a post, too.
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.
JamesVincent wrote:So he's right enough to be wrong?
I think that it would be more accurate to say that there is a factual basis for the conclusion that he might be merely mistaken, rather than being a f****ing idiot.
However, I lean toward f****ing idiot.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
