Rehash part II

[SteveSy]

Beyond being narcissistic (to the point of being flat out crazy), you fail to understand that without a system of taxes, the government ceases to exist.

Blah, blah, blah......

I never said I wanted a system with no taxes. I only have an issue with one type of tax, an income tax, its the method I have issue with. The same revenue, probably more could be generated though something like a VAT which is undeniably, from the inception of the constitution, an excise tax.

btw, the government going bankrupt, people not getting their welfare or old people not getting a check has nothing to do with whether a tax is applied constitutionally or not.

[Famspear]

Wow, I'm gone 5 or 10 minutes and everything went crazy...

Steve, I did not imply that you yourself were lying.

I was indeed referring to lies by tax protesters including a tax protester with whom I have previously dealt on the Springer case (in another forum). When you used the phrase "federally licensed lawyer," I was reminded of that.

As a side note, on your use of the term "ad hominem" -- a statement that someone is lying is not an "ad hominem" attack or an "ad hominem" argument. I was not saying that you yourself were lying -- but if in another context on another argument I were to say that you were lying, that would not be an "ad hominem" attack or argument.

Now, it is obvious from your comments that you have indeed been reading tax protester material or materials on the Springer and Pollock cases -- material that does contain blatant lies. I know that you did not just come up with all this yourself; I have seen all this before, as have the other editors here.

One of the basic principles of legal analysis in the U.S. system is that a case is important mainly for what the court in that case actually decided -- the principle of precedent is tightly bound to the concept of stare decisis. To argue that Mr. Springer's license as an attorney or the fact that his income was realized in the practice of law (as opposed to his being licensed as a tree surgeon or realing his income in the tree business) had any bearing on the holding in Springer or the holding in Pollock is a fundamental flaw. Forget about tax law and your antipathy about tax law. The same concept would apply in contract case, or a personal injury case, or any other legal matter. You simply cannot properly cite facts that the court did not even mention in its opinion as being important to the court's decision in the way you are attempting to do.

I know this has to be frustrating for you. Much of what tangles tax protesters up has to do with legal principles not specific to taxation. Tax protesters get it wrong at almost every turn, in part because they are zealots with a desired result in mind who are searching for rationales to support that result. It's the cart before the horse problem.

You're trying too hard, Steve, and as usual you are completely wrong.

[natty]

something like a VAT which is undeniably, from the inception of the constitution, an excise tax.

What makes a "VAT" an excise?
How is that any different from getting paid for your labor?

You are trying to rationalize a dead argument, stevey.

[natty]

Blah, blah, blah...... Less than 1% paid the income tax....so not "every person residing in the United States" was taxed on their gains, profits and income. Very nice attempt to deceive people by surgical quoting though. The only people who were liable for the income tax were the very wealthy businessmen, everyone else was excluded insuring common workers didn't get taxed.

If you are trying to prove that only 1% were taxed because it would have been unconstitutional to tax the other 99%-which I believe is your claim- then that is erroneous reasoning, stevesy.

If it were true that only 1% paid the tax, then it was because the other 99% did not make enough income, and for no other reason.

[Prof]

Blah, blah, blah...... Less than 1% paid the income tax....so not "every person residing in the United States" was taxed on their gains, profits and income. Very nice attempt to deceive people by surgical quoting though. The only people who were liable for the income tax were the very wealthy businessmen, everyone else was excluded insuring common workers didn't get taxed.

If you are trying to prove that only 1% were taxed because it would have been unconstitutional to tax the other 99%-which I believe is your claim- then that is erroneous reasoning, stevesy.

If it were true that only 1% paid the tax, then it was because the other 99% did not make enough income, and for no other reason.

Exactly the point I keep trying to make-- and now that we enjoy a very high standard of living, even more people get to pay income taxes, while the truly poor are still exempted.

[Doktor Avalanche]

something like a VAT which is undeniably, from the inception of the constitution, an excise tax.

What makes a "VAT" an excise?
How is that any different from getting paid for your labor?

You are trying to rationalize a dead argument, stevey.

I think he means this VAT:

[SteveSy]

Wow, I'm gone 5 or 10 minutes and everything went crazy...

Steve, I did not imply that you yourself were lying.

I was indeed referring to lies by tax protesters including a tax protester with whom I have previously dealt on the Springer case (in another forum). When you used the phrase "federally licensed lawyer," I was reminded of that.

As a side note, on your use of the term "ad hominem" -- a statement that someone is lying is not an "ad hominem" attack or an "ad hominem" argument. I was not saying that you yourself were lying -- but if in another context on another argument I were to say that you were lying, that would not be an "ad hominem" attack or argument.

Now, it is obvious from your comments that you have indeed been reading tax protester material or materials on the Springer and Pollock cases -- material that does contain blatant lies. I know that you did not just come up with all this yourself; I have seen all this before, as have the other editors here.

Sorry don't read TP sites never have never will. I have my own account to search cases.

One of the basic principles of legal analysis in the U.S. system is that a case is important mainly for what the court in that case actually decided -- the principle of precedent is tightly bound to the concept of stare decisis. To argue that Mr. Springer's license as an attorney or the fact that his income was realized in the practice of law (as opposed to his being licensed as a tree surgeon or realing his income in the tree business) had any bearing on the holding in Springer or the holding in Pollock is a fundamental flaw. Forget about tax law and your antipathy about tax law. The same concept would apply in contract case, or a personal injury case, or any other legal matter. You simply cannot properly cite facts that the court did not even mention in its opinion as being important to the court's decision in the way you are attempting to do.

Well I can say we don't know for sure if the SC in Springer considered whether he was a lawyer or not. Springer put together tons of material to support his position, none of which was mentioned in the case, all of which was certainly considered by the court.

What's more important here is you are clearly wrong about what the case was decided upon. The court didn't and couldn't have concluded that the act was constitutional and all income taxes are excises and that's why Springer's income was taxable. If they had Pollock would have had to also claim the tax on rents was constitutional as an excise or would have overturned Springer. In either case Springer doesn't support your claim that taxes on income in general are excises. At best it shows that Springers income because of how he made his income was an excise, whether it be because he was a lawyer or whatever. The Pollock court had to distinguish how he made his income in order to create the exception for a tax on rents. It is only rational to assume when they said "professional as attorney at law" that had something to do with why his income was taxable otherwise they would have simply said he had income which would have meant they overturned Springer.

I know this has to be frustrating for you. Much of what tangles tax protesters up has to do with legal principles not specific to taxation. Tax protesters get it wrong at almost every turn, in part because they are zealots with a desired result in mind who are searching for rationales to support that result. It's the cart before the horse problem.

Sorry, its obvious you shoot from the hip and haven't thought anything through. You're looking for quick little blurbs taken from the anti-tp sites to shoot everyone down. Think a little on your own for once. Think hard about how Pollock could allow Springer to stand while finding a tax on rents as unconstitutional. Read the dissenting opinions in Pollock.....as a matter of fact try to actually read the case instead of someone's opinion of it. Put a little effort in to your rebuttals.

[natty]

Think hard about how Pollock could allow Springer to stand while finding a tax on rents as unconstitutional. Read the dissenting opinions in Pollock.....as a matter of fact try to actually read the case instead of someone's opinion of it. Put a little effort in to your rebuttals.

You mean those dissenting opinions that showed how illogical the reasoning was by the majority in Pollock? You should take your own advice, stevesy.

[Cpt Banjo]

The [Springer] court didn't and couldn't have concluded that the act was constitutional and all income taxes are excises and that's why Springer's income was taxable.

That's exactly what the Springer court did, because its rationale was that the only direct taxes under the Constitution were capitation taxes and taxes on land. Given this premise and given that the tax on Springer's income was neither a capitation tax nor a tax on land, the Court concluded that the income tax was not a direct tax but was instead in the nature of a duty or excise.

If they had Pollock would have had to also claim the tax on rents was constitutional as an excise or would have overturned Springer.

Pollock modified the Springer rationale in only one respect, ruling that a tax on the income from real or personal property was equivalent to a tax on the property itself. The reason Pollock didn't overrule Springer was that part of Springer's income consisted of personal earnings, and the other language in Pollock that has been cited to you ad nauseam indicates that the Court didn't view a tax on personal earnings as a direct tax.

In either case Springer doesn't support your claim that taxes on income in general are excises. At best it shows that Springers income because of how he made his income was an excise, whether it be because he was a lawyer or whatever. The Pollock court had to distinguish how he made his income in order to create the exception for a tax on rents. It is only rational to assume when they said "professional as attorney at law" that had something to do with why his income was taxable otherwise they would have simply said he had income which would have meant they overturned Springer.

Yet you have never been able to cite any legal authority to support your claim that it was the professional nature of Springer's activities that was the rationale for upholding a tax on his income as an indirect tax. The Nicol case, decided just 4 years after Pollock, upheld as an excise a tax on an activity involving no governmental privilege, thereby destroying your specious argument that Springer's federal license is relevant to the analysis. The Bromley case upheld the validity of the gift tax (gifts don't involve a privilege either, do they?) and gave a definition of an excise that is certainly broad enough to cover the taxation of "ordinary" wages, salaries, and personal earnings.

Now, you obviously think SCOTUS was wrong in Nicol and in Bromley. Fine -- continue to beat that dead horse all you want, but if you continue to pretend that what they held isn't the law and that an income tax on "ordinary" wages, salaries, and personal earnings is a direct tax, then you are just demonstrating how deluded you really are.

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote:

More importantly, he [Springer] was a federally licensed lawyer, the court had already made it clear in earlier decisions the measure can be anything as long as the act or activity is taxable [. . . ]

viewtopic.php?t=2006&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=75

Oh, come on Steve, are you saying that you did not get the “federally licensed lawyer” nonsense from reading tax protester material? Are you saying that you got that phrase from case law somewhere? You have AN ACCOUNT that you use to do your own online “legal research" ??????? Is that what you’re saying?? Really? Come on, Steve. Westlaw? Lexis? CCH? Thomson RIA? Do you have any idea how much one of these accounts costs? Who is your “account” with? And where did you come up with the “federally licensed lawyer” garbage? You got the “federally licensed lawyer” garbage from a court case? No, you did not.

Come on Stevie, this is Quatloos! Wake up! You need a caffeine fix or something? You really think you’re fooling somebody?

Look, all I had to do was google “federally licensed lawyer” together with “Springer” and “tax”, and look at the tax protester garbage I found:

It was common knowledge that a general tax on citizen's revenue was considered a direct tax. The current income tax is an indirect excise tax. It taxes those things that naturally fall under the head of excises. Why is it not one of you can provide even a single quote from history to show that the earnings from a wage was considered taxable by excise for which the earner must pay? [ . . . ] Obviously because the Pollock court made it clear the case prior [sic] that excise taxes are on those things. Also don't go quoting Springer because he was a federally licensed lawyer.

--This is typical tax protester drivel, apparently from the year 2004, from:

http://misc.mailarchive.ca/taxes/2004-12/3480.html
(By the way, the author is listed as being “Lie Detector” at the Email address of steve_at_isisdev.com. Was that your nonsense, Steve?)

Steve, a search of the CCH database of the texts of Federal court cases on the subject of taxation since the year 1913 reveals not a single court case with the phrase “federally licensed lawyer” (or a similar term) in the text of the opinion, much less any referenced to Mr. Springer as being a “federally licensed lawyer”. The terms searched for in CCH were:

federally charter attorney, federally charter attorney at law, federally charter attorney-at-law, federally charter counsel, federally charter lawyer, federally chartered attorney, federally chartered attorney at law, federally chartered attorney-at-law, federally chartered counsel, federally chartered lawyer, federally license attorney, federally license attorney at law, federally license attorney-at-law, federally license counsel, federally license lawyer, federally licensed attorney, federally licensed attorney at law, federally licensed attorney-at-law, federally licensed counsel, federally licensed lawyer, federally permission attorney, federally permission attorney at law, federally permission attorney-at-law, federally permission counsel, federally permission lawyer, federally permit attorney, federally permit attorney at law, federally permit attorney-at-law, federally permit counsel, federally permit lawyer, federally registered attorney, federally registered attorney at law, federally registered attorney-at-law, federally registered counsel, federally registered lawyer, federally registration attorney, federally registration attorney at law, federally registration attorney-at-law, federally registration counsel, federally registration lawyer

Further, the phrase “federally licensed lawyer” is not found in the two opinions in the Pollock case or in the Springer opinion.

I have already run across this tax protester argument in another forum. You aren’t fooling anybody, Stevie. The “federally licensed lawyer” nonsense is a permutation of the phony argument that under the Springer case, the income tax on individuals could apply only to “people connected with the federal government.” As the other protester stated in another forum:

The Civil War income tax was a tax on people connected with the federal government. It fell upon railroads, steamboats, and ferries (Section 80), railroad bonds (Section 81), banks, trust companies, savings institutions, and insurance companies (Section 82), and salaries of officers, and payments to persons in the civil, military, naval, or other employment or service of the United States, including senators and representatives and delegates in Congress (Section 86). Springer was an attorney - a civil officer of the court, who was subject to the tax. All the people subject to the tax were employees of the government, or received some sort of privilege from the federal government, such as the right to represent others in court (as it applied to Springer). The Civil War income tax did not apply to any individual, but only to those people enumerated in the legislation.

I called the protester on these falsehoods, pointing out first, that he was citing statutes not even at issue in the Springer case – statutes not even mentioned. Second, the 1864 statute in the Springer case clearly taxed all income of individual citizens or residents of the U.S., not merely people "connected with the federal government" or "people who received a privilege from the government.

Again, section 116 of the 1864 Act imposed the Federal income tax on "the gains, profits, and income of every person residing in the United States, or of any citizen of the United States residing abroad, whether derived from any kind of property, rents, interest, dividends, or salaries, or from any profession, trade, employment, or vocation, carried on in the United States or elsewhere, or from any other source whatever [ . . . ]". See Revenue Act of 1864, 13 Stat. 223, sec. 116 (June 30, 1864).

I repeat: Mr. Springer was indeed an attorney engaged in the ''profession of the private practice of law'' -- but Mr. Springer's profession itself was not only not material to the ''Springer'' court's decision, it ''wasn't even mentioned'' by the Court in the ''Springer'' decision.

Shooting from the hip? Steve, were you really so stupid that you thought I was shooting from the hip? Did you really think I had not already studied the actual text of the Springer case?

Steve, your “federally licensed lawyer” garbage is verbiage you read somewhere in tax protester literature. No, you didn’t dream this up on your own. And you didn’t find the “federally licensed lawyer” argument by reviewing the texts of court opinions, with your online “account” that you supposedly have.

Here is the exact language from Pollock:

The original record [in the Springer case] discloses that the income [of Mr. Springer] was not derived in any degree from real estate, but was in part professional as attorney at law, and the rest interest on United States bonds. It would seem probable that the court did not feel called upon to advert to the distinction between the latter and the former source of income, as the validity of the tax as to either would sustain the action.

--Pollock, 157 U.S. 429, 578-79 (this is from the first Pollock decision, the April 1895 one).

Income from the profession of an attorney is income from an employment, income from labor, income from the rendering of personal service. Interest income on a United States bond is income from property. A bond is personalty, a species of property. The income tax at issue in Pollock was an income tax on property, as discussed below.

There is no mention here by the Pollock court of Mr. Springer being a “federally” licensed attorney (though he may well have been), and there is no mention that Mr. Springer’s “federal license” (assuming he had one) was seen by the Court in Springer (or by the Court in Pollock, for that matter) as being relevant to any issue before the Court in either case.

Steve, you wrote:

Well I can say we don't know for sure if the SC in Springer considered whether he was a lawyer or not.

and:

Springer put together tons of material to support his position, none of which was mentioned in the case, all of which was certainly considered by the court.

Baloney. I just told you earlier in this discussion: In the United States, we follow the doctrine of stare decisis. Whether there were tons of material on Mr. Springer's law license income in the Springer record, or just one sentence on the subject, is of no moment. Again: the issue of the taxability of that income vel non, based on his being a “federally licensed lawyer,” (1) was not an issue addressed by the Supreme Court in the Springer case (the Springer Court), (2) was not decided by the Springer Court, and (3) not even mentioned by the Springer Court. His “federalness”, if he had any, was not mentioned in the Pollock case either.

A completely doofus argument on your part, Steve.

Steve wrote:

What's more important here is you are clearly wrong about what the case was decided upon.

No, Steve, I am not wrong. I am right. You are wrong. I did my homework. You did not.

Now, let’s look at this from Steve:

Think hard about how Pollock could allow Springer to stand while finding a tax on rents as unconstitutional. Read the dissenting opinions in Pollock.....as a matter of fact try to actually read the case instead of someone's opinion of it. Put a little effort in to your rebuttals.

Steve, do you really think that the rest of us haven’t read the Pollock decisions? What part of our previous analyses do you not understad? The Court in Pollock struck down the 1894 tax Act because the Pollock Court treated the income tax on income from property (in the form of rents, interest and dividends) as a direct tax. The treatments of taxes on incomes from employments, taxes on incomes from the practice of law (federally licensed or not), taxes on incomes from flipping hamburgers at hamburger joints, etc., etc., were simply not at issue in Pollock.

Since direct taxes were required to be apportioned, and the aforementioned tax in Pollock (income tax on dividends, interest, and rent) was not, the Court in Pollock ruled the 1894 statute unconstitutional.

The Court also went to the pain of explaining WHY it was striking the ENTIRE 1894 statute – including the portion that taxed income from “employments” -- even though taxes on incomes from employments were not at issue. Note that the tax on income from employments was STILL CONSIDERED TO BE AN EXCISE (an indirect tax) AND WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE APPORTIONED. The Pollock court never ruled that an income tax from employments was a direct tax. That issue was not even before the Court. The Court stated that it was ruling the entire Act unconstitutional only because Congress could not have intended that the 1894 Act be applied just to income from employments and not to income in the form of interest, dividends and rents. Under Pollock, the SOURCE of the income suddenly became relevant in determining whether the related tax was a direct tax (required to be apportioned) or an excise (not required to be apportioned).

The Sixteenth Amendment overruled Pollock, by removing the apportionment requirement imposed by the Court in Pollock. The language of the Amendment clearly states “from whatever source derived” and “without apportionment”. The issue -- of whether a particular income tax (e.g., a tax on interest, dividends and rents) would have been considered a direct tax by the Pollock court -- is no longer legally relevant on the apportionment issue. After February 1913, no U.S. Federal income tax is required to be apportioned, regardless of the source of the income.

Think hard, Steve. Think hard.

[natty]

In the United States, we follow the doctrine of stare decisis.

Isn't it ironic that the Pollock majority admitted they were not bound by stare decisis. Justice White in dissent called the Pollock holding logically inconsistent.

And isn't it further ironic that stevesy argues so stubbornly for a decision that was so blantantly "making law from the bench" which he deplores (but only since he agrees with it), haha.

[SteveSy]

Pollock modified the Springer rationale in only one respect, ruling that a tax on the income from real or personal property was equivalent to a tax on the property itself. The reason Pollock didn't overrule Springer was that part of Springer's income consisted of personal earnings, and the other language in Pollock that has been cited to you ad nauseam indicates that the Court didn't view a tax on personal earnings as a direct tax.

BS....

You are either intentionally making crap up or haven't read the opinion at all.

They offered NOTHING to indicate they thought a tax on personal earnings was an excise.

The court considered the following and not once said in any way shape or form they disagreed, in fact they used it to support their opinion:

But Albert Gallatin, in his Sketch of the Finances of the United States, published in November, 1796, said: 'The most generally received opinion, however, is that, by direct taxes in the constitution, those are meant which are raised on the capital or revenue of the people; by indirect, such as are raised on their expense.

In the debates in the house of representatives preceding the passage of the act of congress to lay 'duties upon carriages for the conveyance of persons,' approved June 5, 1794 (1 Stat. 373, c. 45), Mr. Sedgwick said that 'a capitation tax, and taxes on land and on property and income generally, were direct charges, as well in the immediate as ultimate sources of contribution.

Mr. Hamilton also argued: 'If the meaning of the word 'excise' is to be sought in a British statute, it will be found to include the duty on carriages, which is there considered as an 'excise.' ... An argument results from this, though not perhaps a conclusive one, yet, where so important distinction in the constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived.' 7 Hamilton's Works (Lodge's Ed.) 333.

If the question had related to an income tax, the reference would have been fatal, as such taxes have been always classed by the law of Great Britain as direct taxes.

POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

157 U.S. 429

Too bad you can't find a single quote to support your opinion during and shortly after the ratification of the constitution, not a single one. The reason why is clear, it just doesn't exist.

The only thing you have is a misrepresentation of what they said in the second case:

We have considered the act only in respect of the tax on income derived from real estate, and from invested personal property, and have not commented on so much of it as bears on gains or profits from business, privileges, or employments, in view of the instances in which taxation on business, privileges, or employments has assumed the guise of an excise tax and been sustained as such.

ON employments, is very different from a tax on income derived from employments. The law in 1864 did place a tax ON employments. See section 76:
http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llsl/013/0200/02800250.gif

[Paul]

As stevesy continues to argue that Brushaber was wrong while still relying on its holding . . .

[Cpt Banjo]

They offered NOTHING to indicate they thought a tax on personal earnings was an excise.

1. They didn't overrule Springer, which they would have had to do if your argument based on British law (that income taxes are direct taxes) or Albert Gallatin had any validity.

2. They said:

According to the census, the true valuation of real and personal property in the United States in 1890 was $65,037,091,197, of which real estate with improvements thereon made up $39,544,544,333. Of course, from the latter must be deducted, in applying these sections, all unproductive property and all property whose net yield does not exceed $4,000; but, even with such deductions, it is evident that the income from realty formed a vital part of the scheme for taxation embodied therein. If that be stricken out, and also the income from all invested personal property, bonds, stocks, investments of all kinds, it is obvious that by far the largest part of the anticipated revenue would be eliminated, and this would leave the burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vocations; and in that way what was intended as a tax on capital would remain, in substance, a tax on occupations and labor.

What are they referring to? The tax on incomes generated by professions, trades, employments, and vocations. And since they are implicitly saying that such taxes would be valid, guess where that means? That such taxes aren't direct.

Note that the Springer opinion rejected all of Mr. Springer's arguments based upon Adam Smith and the other political economists.

Too bad you can't find a single quote to support your opinion during and shortly after the ratification of the constitution, not a single one. The reason why is clear, it just doesn't exist.

Too bad you can't stick to the subject, which is whether under current law and under the law as of 1880, an income tax on personal earnings was a direct tax.

[Paul]

Makes no difference if it's direct or not. If it's not, the only constitutional requirement is that it be uniform throughout the states, and it is. If it's direct, the only constitutional requirement for direct taxes is that it be apportioned, but the 16th amendment takes care of that. So no matter how the income tax would be characterized under the pre-16th amendment constitution, it's constitutional today

[SteveSy]

They offered NOTHING to indicate they thought a tax on personal earnings was an excise.

1. They didn't overrule Springer, which they would have had to do if your argument based on British law (that income taxes are direct taxes) or Albert Gallatin had any validity.

Huh?

They quoted Gallatin I didn't, they also brought up British law to show Hamilton would have had to agree a general income tax was a direct tax. They thought it was relevant or they wouldn't have quoted it in a Supreme Court case. You sure are good at seeing black while looking at something white.

2. They said:

According to the census, the true valuation of real and personal property in the United States in 1890 was $65,037,091,197, of which real estate with improvements thereon made up $39,544,544,333. Of course, from the latter must be deducted, in applying these sections, all unproductive property and all property whose net yield does not exceed $4,000; but, even with such deductions, it is evident that the income from realty formed a vital part of the scheme for taxation embodied therein. If that be stricken out, and also the income from all invested personal property, bonds, stocks, investments of all kinds, it is obvious that by far the largest part of the anticipated revenue would be eliminated, and this would leave the burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vocations; and in that way what was intended as a tax on capital would remain, in substance, a tax on occupations and labor.

What are they referring to? The tax on incomes generated by professions, trades, employments, and vocations. And since they are implicitly saying that such taxes would be valid, guess where that means? That such taxes aren't direct.

And you call me delusional....Jesus


What they are saying is exactly what they said. If they struck the part out of the law that taxed "personal property, bonds, stocks, investments of all kinds" would leave the rest entirely on "professions, trades, employments, or vocations". That is not to say they agreed they were constitutional that would just be the effect. In fact the stated very clearly they have not commented on the matter concerning a tax on gains from employments. That matter wasn't before the court, though it was in the queue. It was moot after the act was struck down. More importantly even if they let the law stand no laborer working for a paycheck would have been taxed. Only wealthy businessmen such as lawyers, doctors and the like could have even achieved the level of income needed to pay the tax. So they weren't talking about Joe bricklayer.

As an aside the court never says they only modified the Springer opinion as far as it related to income from property. The only rational conclusion is the didn't modify it at all. The Springer case dealt only with Springer's income because of what Springer did and nothing in Pollock repudiated any part of that decision.

Too bad you can't find a single quote to support your opinion during and shortly after the ratification of the constitution, not a single one. The reason why is clear, it just doesn't exist.

Too bad you can't stick to the subject, which is whether under current law and under the law as of 1880, an income tax on personal earnings was a direct tax.

What I wrote is right in line with the subject. It has always been a direct tax, even in the British laws we originated our laws from, if you are to tax the income of the average individual. You see the quotes directly from the people that were there but you dismiss them in favor of your delusion. btw there was no income tax law in 1880.

[Famspear]

SteveSy, please clarify something. Is it your position that the Civil War tax statutes (enacted from 1862 to 1864) taxed the income of federal government employees and those persons connected with the federal government, but not the income of ordinary individuals not so employed or connected?

For example, would the gross amount of year 1863 income from salary of OTHER than an officer or employee of the United States have been included on the Federal income tax return of an individual?

And what about the gross amount of 1863 income of a U.S. resident from profits on any trade, business, or vocation (unconnected with the federal government)? Would that have been included?

[Cpt Banjo]

They offered NOTHING to indicate they thought a tax on personal earnings was an excise.

1. They didn't overrule Springer, which they would have had to do if your argument based on British law (that income taxes are direct taxes) or Albert Gallatin had any validity.

Huh?

They quoted Gallatin I didn't, they also brought up British law to show Hamilton would have had to agree a general income tax was a direct tax. They thought it was relevant or they wouldn't have quoted it in a Supreme Court case. You sure are good at seeing black while looking at something white.

Damn, you're dense. If Gallatin was right, and if the Framers intended to adopt the British view that income taxes are direct taxes, then the Springer court could not possibly have ruled as it did. But since it held that the only direct taxes were capitation taxes and taxes on land, it obviously did not accept the views of Gallatin or British law. And if the Pollock court accepted Gallatin and British law, they would have had to overrule Springer, which they didn't.

As an aside the court never says they only modified the Springer opinion as far as it related to income from property. The only rational conclusion is the didn't modify it at all. The Springer case dealt only with Springer's income because of what Springer did and nothing in Pollock repudiated any part of that decision.

Precisely. They did not repudiate Springer, and since you don't accept the view that a tax on personal earnings is an indirect tax, you have yet to find any other legal rationale for the result in Springer. Your bogus "federally licensed lawyer" argument has never been announced as a rational by any court and was blown out of the water by Nicol, so what excuse will you make up this time?

It has always been a direct tax, even in the British laws we originated our laws from, if you are to tax the income of the average individual. You see the quotes directly from the people that were there but you dismiss them in favor of your delusion. btw there was no income tax law in 1880.

The "law" in 1880 I referred to was the law regarding whether an income tax is a direct tax, and it existed in the form of the Springer opinion. And it is foolish to say that an income tax has always been a direct tax since before 1880 there was no caselaw construing the direct tax clause in this regard. How long will it take you to realize that the courts have rejected the views of Gallatin and British law? Talk about delusion...

[natty]

More importantly even if they let the law stand no laborer working for a paycheck would have been taxed. Only wealthy businessmen such as lawyers, doctors and the like could have even achieved the level of income needed to pay the tax. So they weren't talking about Joe bricklayer.

As an aside the court never says they only modified the Springer opinion as far as it related to income from property. The only rational conclusion is the didn't modify it at all. The Springer case dealt only with Springer's income because of what Springer did and nothing in Pollock repudiated any part of that decision.

This is confusing. Does a lawyer owe an income tax because he is a lawyer, or does a lawyer owe an income tax because he makes more income than a bricklayer?

[natty]

Damn, you're dense. If Gallatin was right, and if the Framers intended to adopt the British view that income taxes are direct taxes, then the Springer court could not possibly have ruled as it did. But since it held that the only direct taxes were capitation taxes and taxes on land, it obviously did not accept the views of Gallatin or British law. And if the Pollock court accepted Gallatin and British law, they would have had to overrule Springer, which they didn't.

You've got to understand that the SC is often as schizo as stevesy. There's nine personalities after all. The Pollock court majority disregarded stare decisis and was going to rule against the income tax in spite of the logic.