Rehash of TP theories (split from "False Returns")

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

Post by Agent Observer »

btw, Agent Observer I don't have the power to claim a law is null and void and never claimed I had such a power.


No, you dont, thankfully. But it's obvious by your superior attitude that you believe you should, or at least that everyone with that authority should listen to you, and only you.
I'm merely giving my opinion just like you are.
Uh, no. I'm not trying to pass off a fairy tale as reality by ignoring overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The positions you take are akin to claiming the sky is red and everyone has 5 legs, with the obvious belief that if you scream it loud enough and often enough, it will suddenly become reality.
You're just like those people that cry for unity and to get over our disagreements. Of course what you're really saying is accept my way so we can all agree.
Not at all. I could care less whether you or any of your fringe, nutcase buddies believe the laws exist or whether you believe they apply to you or not. This is an amusing exercise at best. It's sort of like staring at a traffic accident with morbid curiosity, only in the case of tax protesters, the traffic accident is in extremely slow motion video. I firmly believe that if you give morons enough rope, they'll eventually hang themselves. The laws exist. That's cold hard reality. When the fringe nuts step over the line, regardless of whatever flowery rhetoric they use to justify their actions, I and others like me, will be there to ensure they are held accountable for violating those laws.
Nikki

Post by Nikki »

Judge Roy Bean wrote:
Nikki wrote:
SteveSy wrote:I have issue with judges finding meaning in phrases and sentences that just isn't there.
Okay, fine.

Now, who gets to make the determination as to what "just isn't there?"
Other Judges.

Sorry, Steve. Reality imposes yet again.
Seems like it's turtles all the way down.

5Q for the correct citation.
Prof
El Pontificator de Porceline Precepts
Posts: 1209
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 9:27 pm
Location: East of the Pecos

Post by Prof »

Origin unknown but attributed to old lady flat earther in a confrontation with one of a number of luminaries like William James. See also Terry Pratchett (sp?) novels.
"My Health is Better in November."
ErsatzAnatchist

Post by ErsatzAnatchist »

Nikki wrote:
Judge Roy Bean wrote:
Nikki wrote: Okay, fine.

Now, who gets to make the determination as to what "just isn't there?"
Other Judges.

Sorry, Steve. Reality imposes yet again.
Seems like it's turtles all the way down.

5Q for the correct citation.
Don't be so free with your Quatloos. Your test is too easy. Their is even a Wikipedia article on topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down
iplawyer

Post by iplawyer »

Your opinion carries no more weight than mine does.
Sorry, Steve, but yes it does. Your opinion here carries virtually no weight at all because of the ridiculous stances you've taken on issues.
User avatar
grixit
Recycler of Paytriot Fantasies
Posts: 4287
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 6:02 am

Post by grixit »

Prof wrote:Origin unknown but attributed to old lady flat earther in a confrontation with one of a number of luminaries like William James. See also Terry Pratchett (sp?) novels.
Oh? I had always heard it was an old hindu folk tale.
Three cheers for the Lesser Evil!

10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
. . . . . . Dr Pepper
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4
User avatar
grixit
Recycler of Paytriot Fantasies
Posts: 4287
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 6:02 am

Post by grixit »

Steve doesn't seem to appreciate that no one gets nominated to the Supreme Court without a long and very public record. This record will be scrutinized and argued over by the president's advisors, picked at by a lot of very impudent reporters, and then subjected to a sustained artillary bombardment by the opposition party. By the time the nominee is seated, assuming they are, anyone who cares to can get at least an inkling of their attitudes.
Three cheers for the Lesser Evil!

10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
. . . . . . Dr Pepper
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4
User avatar
webhick
Illuminati Obfuscation: Black Ops Div
Posts: 3994
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:41 am

Post by webhick »

SteveSy wrote:Your opinion carries no more weight than mine does.
Correct! Everyone knows that opinions cannot carry any weight what-so-ever - including their own. It all started with the incident of 1200 when "Shoulder Pads Are Sexy" joined forces with "Mullets are Manly" and rose to power after winning a lengthy campaign against "Less is More." They enslaved the village of "Super-Low-Rides Are Indecent" and forced them to carry the carcasses of their ancient gods to Rapa Nui where they were mashed into their current state of disproportion, buried up to their shoulders, and subsequently turned to stone. When the puffer fish discovered that their time share had been invaded by unmovable squatters placed there by a small group of opinions, they became so enraged that they waged war against all opinions resulting in the substantial zombie population we see today. Eventually, the Bureau of Autocratic Rastafari (B.A.R.), had to step in and negotiate a peace treaty. After years of meetings, it was finally determined that opinions would not be allowed to carry any more weight and the puffer fish would stop directing zombies to eat urinal cakes. Truly disturbing.
When chosen for jury duty, tell the judge "fortune cookie says guilty" - A fortune cookie
SteveSy

Post by SteveSy »

Dr. Caligari wrote:
SteveSy wrote:I have issue with judges finding meaning in phrases and sentences that just isn't there.
You're the one who argued with me-- at great length-- that when the Constitution says "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived," it meant that Congress has no power to tax the earnings of ordinary workers in the private sector.
That's true....based on what I believe was the intent of the amendment. The very purpose of the amendment was to reduce taxes on the working class due to tariffs. Seems a little absurd to me everyone was for an amendment that would allow the government to tax their wages directly AND allow the government to directly seize it from their paycheck before they even got it, far exceeding any tariffs that were laid, without limit I might add. Not to mention its a little absurd to tax a gain that you haven't even gained yet, it was never in your possession nor did you have control of it. More importantly its income derived, it's not just income in general. The intent was to tax gains and profits derived from something you had like investments or business. No one has yet to explain how you can derive an income from a wage and the wage be 100% income, its nonsensical to argue you can derive something into existence. You can derive an income from a wage by paying wages to someone which in turn grants you gains or profits or you can invest that wage and derive income from it but you can't derive $100 from $100, the two things must be different for "derive" to be appropriate.

Another issue is I believe a tax on earnings of all people is a direct tax and all direct taxes must be apportioned, that clause still stands. It seems rather ridiculous to me that a $1 tax on every person who is between the age of 18-45 is a capitation tax but a tax on every person regardless of age on their earnings is not a capitation tax. The tax is on every person, so sayeth the law, which is obviously a head tax. The measure of the tax is the amount of your earnings but its still applied to everyone, according to those that want the tax. So it was important enough for the creators of the constitution to require apportionment for a tax of $1 per person, but not every person, and they somehow thought it was ok to lay a non-apportioned perpetual tax on everyone as long as it was a graduated tax going from 0 to infinity. Ya right....smoke some more of that stuff.... Let's not forget that the only quotes that can be found shortly before and a few decades after the creation of the constitution that address a tax on earnings in general clearly identify it as a direct tax. No one ever claimed during that period that they thought it was anything other than a direct tax.

I think its been burned so deeply into our heads by those wanting the taxes that the obvious is difficult to see.

Of course this also ignores the fact that the government has far exceeded its appropriation powers under the constitution which enables the government to tax more than it constitutionally should. The power to tax is constitutionally dependent on the power to appropriate. "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay..." If they're paying for something not allowed by the constitution they don't have the power to tax for it.

That's why I believe the 16th doesn't allow a tax on the earnings of the average individual.
Judge Roy Bean
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Posts: 3704
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 6:04 pm
Location: West of the Pecos

Post by Judge Roy Bean »

SteveSy wrote:...That's true....based on what I believe was the intent of the amendment. The very purpose of the amendment was to reduce taxes on the working class due to tariffs.
As you say - that is YOUR interpretation of the "very purpose." Mine is more simple: The purpose was to open the door to other sources of revenue and the collection thereof.

And not everyone was for it. Individual legislators voted in the states and it certainly wasn't unanimous. But they were politicians. I have yet to meet a politician that didn't see at least some part of their role as directing where money was to be spent and having a say in where it came from.

Not approving an expansion in the ability to tax is like asking a lion to go vegan.
The Honorable Judge Roy Bean
The world is a car and you're a crash-test dummy.
The Devil Makes Three
Agent Observer

Post by Agent Observer »

No one has yet to explain how you can derive an income from a wage and the wage be 100% income, its nonsensical to argue you can derive something into existence.
It is "nonsensical" to you, and only you, because the verbal pixie dust you try to toss around your argument doesn't allow for the common sense interpretation of "derive." Now it's you who is trying to "finding meaning in phrases and sentences that just isn't there." But then again, a hefty helping of verbal pixie dust and finding stuff that isnt there is pretty common in the tax protest movement.

The meaning of, "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived," is pretty clear to most of the world. You're trying to turn the meaning of "derived" into some complex Thermodynamic equation. For the rest of the world, the phrase "from whatever source derived" simply means "regardless of where it came from." The amusing thing is that the common sense interpretation indicates it was put there specifically to clarify the intent was to defeat obscure arguments that would seek to limit the definition of "income," yet somehow wingnuts like you are busy "finding meaning in phrases and sentences that just isn't there."
Duke2Earl
Eighth Operator of the Delusional Mooloo
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri May 16, 2003 10:09 pm
Location: Neverland

Post by Duke2Earl »

So what have we learned? Just because Sybil believes somethings with all of his heart, it doesn't make them true. The words of the 16th Amendment contradict him completely but his psychic channeling comes through for him. He "believes" that the income tax is a direct tax... so what? Nobody else thinks that. He believes in mystic significance should be attributed to the word "derived." And he wants to give weight to his "opinions" by saying his opionion is as good as anyone else's. Sybil...no, your "opinions" have exactly zero weight. Your "opinions" are simply wrong and not true... and as such should be completely disregarded by any thinking being.
My choice early in life was to either be a piano player in a whorehouse or a politican. And to tell the truth there's hardly any difference.

Harry S Truman
Nikki

Post by Nikki »

But his beliefs and opinions carry more weight than those of the Supreme Court BECAUSE their beliefs and opinions don't agree with his.
SteveSy

Post by SteveSy »

Judge Roy Bean wrote:
SteveSy wrote:...That's true....based on what I believe was the intent of the amendment. The very purpose of the amendment was to reduce taxes on the working class due to tariffs.
As you say - that is YOUR interpretation of the "very purpose." Mine is more simple: The purpose was to open the door to other sources of revenue and the collection thereof.
They didn't need any money. Read the record from that period its clear it was to reduce taxation on the working class headed up by the populists. Read the memoirs of Cordell Hull the guy that wrote the bill.
SteveSy

Post by SteveSy »

Agent Observer wrote:
No one has yet to explain how you can derive an income from a wage and the wage be 100% income, its nonsensical to argue you can derive something into existence.
It is "nonsensical" to you, and only you, because the verbal pixie dust you try to toss around your argument doesn't allow for the common sense interpretation of "derive." Now it's you who is trying to "finding meaning in phrases and sentences that just isn't there." But then again, a hefty helping of verbal pixie dust and finding stuff that isnt there is pretty common in the tax protest movement.

The meaning of, "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived," is pretty clear to most of the world. You're trying to turn the meaning of "derived" into some complex Thermodynamic equation. For the rest of the world, the phrase "from whatever source derived" simply means "regardless of where it came from." The amusing thing is that the common sense interpretation indicates it was put there specifically to clarify the intent was to defeat obscure arguments that would seek to limit the definition of "income," yet somehow wingnuts like you are busy "finding meaning in phrases and sentences that just isn't there."
Sorry...there were many versions of the text suggested for the amendment. "Derived" was specifically put in there for a reason. It's not complex, go use any dictionary. "Derived" means to get something from another, you can't derive something into existence. The amendment was to get past a SC ruling where a company was deriving income from their land, via rent. Why even put from "whatever source derived" if from "whatever source" doesn't even matter and all income is taxed regardless of source, or a source you control. "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes" alone would have accomplished what you think it means. It's not like they just picked the first thing that came to their mind and voted on it. They made sure they worded it just right to accomplish their goal. Adding in a phrase that doesn't even modify the power would have been stupid.


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)


No one said you have to accept my opinion...you have two options as I see it, don't respond and ignore my posts or discuss why you believe they are wrong or right. Posts like Dukey's are just trolling...he acts as if I'm demanding and trying to enforce my opinion of the law on everyone. He seems to miss the fact that he could just not respond and ignore my posts. Instead he acts like a child and starts throwing rocks. Out of the 1270 posts he's made I bet 1265 are nothing but personal attacks. Something that would have gotten anyone that doesn't agree with this forum banned before post 10.
Duke2Earl
Eighth Operator of the Delusional Mooloo
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri May 16, 2003 10:09 pm
Location: Neverland

Post by Duke2Earl »

SteveSy wrote: No one said you have to accept my opinion...you have two options as I see it, don't respond and ignore my posts or discuss why you believe they are wrong or right. Posts like Dukey's are just trolling...he acts as if I'm demanding and trying to enforce my opinion of the law on everyone. He seems to miss the fact that he could just not respond and ignore my posts. Instead he acts like a child and starts throwing rocks. Out of the 1270 posts he's made I bet 1265 are nothing but personal attacks. Something that would have gotten anyone that doesn't agree with this forum banned before post 10.
Sybil, in this forum has called me a nazi, a socialist, a communist and other titles. He has attacked me personally on numerous occaisons. But I am supposed to just ignore him. I also see serious consequences of letting his out and out lies and misstatements go unchallenged. His approach is that he should be able to post any damn lie he wants and I am just supposed ignore it or if I do say something about it, I'm a troll. He also thinks I could respond to his lies... well I have. I call them the lies that they are. If telling the truth about his bullcrap is an attack... well so be it. And if you think that his tantrum is going to change me.... good luck.

Yes, Sybil, you are entitled to your opinion... but if that opinion (as it inevitably is) is simply wrong and stupid... I'm not letting it pass.
My choice early in life was to either be a piano player in a whorehouse or a politican. And to tell the truth there's hardly any difference.

Harry S Truman
SteveSy

Post by SteveSy »

Duke2Earl wrote:
SteveSy wrote: No one said you have to accept my opinion...you have two options as I see it, don't respond and ignore my posts or discuss why you believe they are wrong or right. Posts like Dukey's are just trolling...he acts as if I'm demanding and trying to enforce my opinion of the law on everyone. He seems to miss the fact that he could just not respond and ignore my posts. Instead he acts like a child and starts throwing rocks. Out of the 1270 posts he's made I bet 1265 are nothing but personal attacks. Something that would have gotten anyone that doesn't agree with this forum banned before post 10.
Sybil, in this forum has called me a nazi, a socialist, a communist and other titles. He has attacked me personally on numerous occaisons. But I am supposed to just ignore him. I also see serious consequences of letting his out and out lies and misstatements go unchallenged. His approach is that he should be able to post any damn lie he wants and I am just supposed ignore it or if I do say something about it, I'm a troll. He also thinks I could respond to his lies... well I have. I call them the lies that they are. If telling the truth about his bullcrap is an attack... well so be it. And if you think that his tantrum is going to change me.... good luck.

Yes, Sybil, you are entitled to your opinion... but if that opinion (as it inevitably is) is simply wrong and stupid... I'm not letting it pass.
I only respond to your troll posts in like fashion....
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Post by Famspear »

SteveSy wrote:
Seems a little absurd to me everyone was for an amendment that would allow the government to tax their wages directly AND allow the government to directly seize it from their paycheck before they even got it, far exceeding any tariffs that were laid, without limit I might add.
I hate to be the one to break it to you (and I'm probably not the first, anyway), but the Sixteenth Amendment created no new power of taxation, remember? Isn't that the language tax protesters love to quote? Congress has had the power to tax wages directly AND to seize it from a paycheck since approximately the year 1789. No, I realize that the STATUTORY withholding provisions weren't actually enacted until probably well into the 20th Century - that's a separate point.

Who told you that the purpose of the Amendment was to allow the government to tax wages directly? And do you really not realize that Congress always had that power, long before 1913? How do you explain the fact that compensation for services performed by individuals were taxed to those individuals off and on from the 1860s to 1895, when the Pollock decision came down? And how do you explain the Supreme Court's language in Pollock to the effect that a tax on income from "employments" (compensation for services) was an excise, an indirect tax? Do you understand that NO FEDERAL COURT has ever ruled that the Congress does not have the power to impose an income tax on compensation for services, whether called wages or anything else? And how do you explain the Court's statement of its reason, in Pollock, for ruling the entire 1894 statute invalid? Hint: I am deliberately hiding the ball here.

SteveSy wrote:
Not to mention its a little absurd to tax a gain that you haven't even gained yet, it was never in your possession nor did you have control of it.
Steve, you're confusing the concepts of "money" and "income." Whether you physically receive 100% of the money or not, a taxpayer using what is known as the "cash receipts and disbursements method of accounting" (which is something of a misnomer, actually) is taxed on the entire gross income amount received or constructively received. It's called the doctrine of constructive receipt.

Further, taxpayers who instead use the accrual method (mainly corporations, partnerships, etc.) are taxed on income when the income is EARNED, which is not necessarily when the "money" is received.

There is absolutely no problem under Article I of the Constitution (or under the Amendment) with these kinds of treatments, whether the taxpayer is using the cash method or the accrual method.

SteveSy wrote:
More importantly its income derived, it's not just income in general. The intent was to tax gains and profits derived from something you had like investments or business. No one has yet to explain how you can derive an income from a wage and the wage be 100% income, its nonsensical to argue you can derive something into existence.
Steve, the only person here having difficulty with the concept seems to be you. "From whatever source derived" essentially means "from whatever source received."

In the text of the Amendment, the term "derived" is essentially an inflection of "derive" -- meaning "to get or receive (from a source)", per Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, p. 380 (World Publishing Co., 2nd Coll. Ed. 1978).

Now, go back and study the Pollock case.

SteveSy wrote:
You can derive an income from a wage by paying wages to someone which in turn grants you gains or profits or you can invest that wage and derive income from it but you can't derive $100 from $100, the two things must be different for "derive" to be appropriate.
No, Steve, that's nonsense. You derive (receive) income from a source. The source can be thought of as your employer, or the source can be thought of as the wage itself, but either way, your pseudo-intellectual contortions over these terms gets you nowhere from a legal standpoint.

No two things have to be "different." And nobody is arguing over whether you can "derive $100 from $100" except you.

If you agree with your employer to provide personal services for $1,000.00, and the employer withholds Federal income tax, Federal Social Security tax, and Federal Medicare tax of $326.50 and pays you only 673.50, your gross income in the form of wages is $1,000.00 under section 61(a). Nuttin' you can do about it.

Some commentators, including my first tax law professor in law school, have opined that the term "derived" as used in Eisner v. Macomber (which you or somebody else cited earlier) is indeed arguably used in a slightly different sense of "separated from." The stock dividend in Eisner v. Macomber was deemed not be be "income" essentially because the shareholder either had not actually received anything -- no part of the shareholder's investment in the corporation had been conveyed to the shareholder -- OR because nothing had been SEPARATED from the stockholder's interest. Either theory gets you to the same place. The stock dividend in Eisner v. Macomber was roughly analogous to a pure stock split where the corporation did not give the shareholder option of receiving cash. Essentially, instead of owning an interest in a pizza with, say 2 slices, the shareholder was deemed to be owing an interest in the same pizza with 4 slices. Instead of owning, say, 10 shares worth $30 per share, the shareholder owned 20 shares worth $15 per share. The size of the pie did not change, and the size of the shareholder's unrealized share of the pie did not change. Since none of the slices had actually been separated from the pizza, the shareholder had derived no income. This goes to the tax law concept of "realization" of income.

By contrast, if you buy a vacant lot for $100,000 in an arm's length transaction and, 5 years later you still own it when it's fair market value is $150,000, you have an UNrealized gain of $50,000 for Federal income tax purposes. There has been no realization event, no income tax event -- just an increase in value.

Steve, you are struggling with this stuff in part I think because you want to come up with the result you feel is logical or fair or desirable. That's not a healthy approach in my opinion.

I am curious about something, though. In studying tax protesters, I (and others) have heard this kind of argument before -- that somehow the "income" amount can be some amount LESS than the wage amount -- based on a variety of theories, all of them specious. In your particular case, what materials on the internet (or elsewhere) have you read that have helped you formulate your own version of this theory? (I am not trying to pick on you on this, I just want to know.)
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Post by Famspear »

Above, I wrote:
By contrast, if you buy a vacant lot for $100,000 in an arm's length transaction and, 5 years later you still own it when it's fair market value is $150,000, you have an UNrealized gain of $50,000 for Federal income tax purposes.
Actually, instead of "By contrast," what I should be saying here is "Similarly." Both the stock dividend example in Eisner v. Macomber and the unsold land example are examples of UNrealized income.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Dr. Caligari
J.D., Miskatonic University School of Crickets
Posts: 1812
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Southern California

Post by Dr. Caligari »

SteveSy wrote: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)
Steve, that quote does not even remotely support your bizarre claim that wages aren't "derived." Eisner was talking about a gain in the value of property which hadn't been realized (Eisner's stock was worth more on paper, but he hadn't sold it yet). When a worker gets paid, his wages are ""derived" -- that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal," in the Supreme Court's words.
Dr. Caligari
(Du musst Caligari werden!)