Rehash part II

[Doktor Avalanche]

That's your position...not mine. You've made it obvious as have people like Famspear. Personal knowledge is back seat to someone's opinion of what happened.

Do you even know what argumentum ad verecundiam is?

[LPC]

By the way, you can take any subject under the law and trace it back to an initial decision that set the precedent that is currently being followed. The general public knows the biggies, but for every subject matter under the law, there was a case that set the precedent, that was the stare decisis.

Ya I did that with a few Circuit Court cases....guess what, none of them ever produced anything to back up their opinions. In fact the they end up citing a case that has nothing whatsoever to do with what they were citing it for. I posted a walk through here a few years back. Not once did they support their opinion except by citing other cases with more unsupported opinion. It boiled down to "because we said so". It started off with Dan's circuit court cite for his argument against "wages are not income".

Well N.S.D.T. You do realize that courts issue opinions right? When those opinions are written, they rely on what has gone before, which may very well be more opinion (all of which can be traced back to an initial, original opinion).

Sybil knows that, but insists on ignoring Hylton, Springer, Pollock, Brushaber, Steward Machine, Lucas v. Earl, and every other Supreme Court decision that contradicts him. That's the internal lie that allows him to say "what precedent" and think that he's being rational.

Aside from the constitutional blip that was the Pollock decision (which was the law of the land for only about 81 years before it was negated by the 16th Amendment), every judge in the history of the United States has agreed that a tax on incomes is an excise or duty, and not a "direct tax," and even the Pollock court was unanimous in agreeing that a tax on wages was not a "direct tax."

But Sybil prefers to close his eyes and put his fingers in his ears and scream "No No No No No No No."

Incidentally, the next thread should be titled "Rehash CXLIII," because that's closer to the number of times people have rehashed this argument with Sybil.

[The Observer]

Sybil knows that, but insists on ignoring Hylton, Springer, Pollock, Brushaber, Steward Machine, Lucas v. Earl, and every other Supreme Court decision that contradicts him. That's the internal lie that allows him to say "what precedent" and think that he's being rational.

Not to mention that he ignores that his own position is nothing more than an opinion that isn't backed up by anything.

[Dezcad]

Why do you cite sources prior to or just around the time of the 16th Amendment?

Ummm...maybe because they were there and would have known? That's kinda like asking, why do you quote eyewitnesses at the scene of the crime, you should be asking people who have an opinion about what happened.

You're confusing facts with opinions. Eyewitnesses testify only to facts and don't give opinions.

The fact is that the 16th Amendment was ratified. What the words and language of the 16th Amendment means is a matter of opinion.

[natty]

Mr. Sherman: Mr. President, the discussion originally began on the amendment offered by the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Crawford], as I remember. I wish to recur to that for a brief moment. The criticism in the application of the principle embodied in that amendment is that it taxes the thrifty and exempts the prodigal. The same criticism I am aware, and I know it is on of the difficulties, would apply to the savings of any active person. If the savings be out of property income there would be at the end of the year a surplus derived from that income, and that in turn invested would become principal; the principal would in turn produce income, and so on, indefinitely. The earnings of any person from any occupation or profession would, if not spent in like manner, become principal. If by professional effort any person should earn a given sum annually and he spend half of it, he saves the other half. The half so saved in turn becomes principal. The principal is property. The savings from the income by professional effort or by any form of skilled labor or unskilled by hand becomes property. At the end of any given period that savings is a principal, and any income derived from it is an income from property, not an income from earnings capacity or the personal ability of the taxpayer in question. So, in every instance it comes finally to the same result. I can see no criticism in the application of the principle embodied in this amendment because of that reason.

- 1913 Congressional Record pg.3842 - 3843

It's income derived from something you have that is taxed. This makes it clear he did not think the law taxed earnings.

It does no such thing.
If the law taxes A and B, and someone criticizes B, that means the law does not apply to A?

The discussion is about taxing the "thrifty vs. prodigal", stevey. It addresses the issue of fairness and in no way embodies all that is taxed as you erroneously conclude.

btw, citing the Congressional Record for authority is deceptive because it contains both the winning and losing arguments and fools like yourself love to quote it out of context.

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

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...

You mean like the Fair Tax?

[Dr. Caligari]

Mr. Sherman: Mr. President, the discussion originally began on the amendment offered by the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Crawford], as I remember. I wish to recur to that for a brief moment. The criticism in the application of the principle embodied in that amendment is that it taxes the thrifty and exempts the prodigal. The same criticism I am aware, and I know it is on of the difficulties, would apply to the savings of any active person. If the savings be out of property income there would be at the end of the year a surplus derived from that income, and that in turn invested would become principal; the principal would in turn produce income, and so on, indefinitely. The earnings of any person from any occupation or profession would, if not spent in like manner, become principal. If by professional effort any person should earn a given sum annually and he spend half of it, he saves the other half. The half so saved in turn becomes principal. The principal is property. The savings from the income by professional effort or by any form of skilled labor or unskilled by hand becomes property. At the end of any given period that savings is a principal, and any income derived from it is an income from property, not an income from earnings capacity or the personal ability of the taxpayer in question. So, in every instance it comes finally to the same result. I can see no criticism in the application of the principle embodied in this amendment because of that reason.

- 1913 Congressional Record pg.3842 - 3843

It's income derived from something you have that is taxed. This makes it clear he did not think the law taxed earnings.

It says nothing of the sort. It says that if you earn money, save some of it, and are taxed on the income earned on those savings, you will be taxed twice. Nothing in that quote remotely suggests that the original earnings of the worker aren't taxed.

Besides, your question is based on a negative. It's like asking, show me anyone who said the 16th couldn't tax a German in Germany. When no one can find it you claim victory.

Show me where anyone during the ratification said it would reach wages.

...well, there is that pesky little fact that the first income tax law passed after ratification of the 16th Amendment specifically taxed wages and salaries.

Also, the 1894 income tax (the one held unconstitutional in Pollack) had taxed wages and salaries, and everyone knew (and said) that the 16th Amendment was intended to overrule Pollack and permit that income tax to be reinstated.

[Dr. Caligari]

The way the government has expanded the word income to mean everything that comes in it is impossible to not have an income and live. Thus everyone is supposedly liable for the tax, a capitation tax in substance, to what degree is the only question. Personally, I give the people who hammered out the constitution a little more credit than that...If the constitution is and was so easily usurped by such a weak attack it was waste of time from the word go. Besides as stated before, every country we could have adopted the phrase from calls a tax general tax on earnings a direct tax. No one ever mentioned redefining "direct tax" to be distinct from everyone else. Maybe it was the super secret Illuminati or mason's secretly trying to deceive the public in to ratifying a constitution based on a super secret redefinition of "direct taxes".

Even if you were right about the meaning of "direct tax" under the original Constitution, it is clear as a bell that the 16th Amendment clearly intended to, and did, permit taxation of workers' salaries and wages.

[SteveSy]

...well, there is that pesky little fact that the first income tax law passed after ratification of the 16th Amendment specifically taxed wages and salaries.

Well when you show me some guy that makes enough from a "wage" to be in included in the 1% of the nation that had to actually pay the tax on his wage you win! Wage earners were taxed....

Btw, the above clearly states wages are property, the principal, and the income derived, as in investment or savings interest, from that property is what is taxed. It doesn't say anything about taxing twice. The law taxed income derived from wages or salaries not the wages or salaries themselves. There's that pesky little problem with people trying to reason something can derive itself into existence again. You "derive" one from another you don't derive "A" from "A". "A" is the wage "B" is the income. "A" is invested or saved and "B" interest or investment income, a growth or increment taken from "A", which was derived, or originated, from "A". The word "derived" has purpose, they didn't just stick it in there because it looked aesthetically pleasing.

What you are reasoning is similar to saying "I have a cup of liquid and I'm going to derive one cup of water from the liquid". When asked what type of liquid it is you say "water". It's just as nonsensical as your assertion concerning income derived from wages..

The earnings of any person from any occupation or profession would, if not spent in like manner, become principal. If by professional effort any person should earn a given sum annually and he spend half of it, he saves the other half. The half so saved in turn becomes principal. At the end of any given period that savings is a principal, and any income derived from it is an income from property, not an income from earnings capacity or the personal ability of the taxpayer in question.

Let's re-review what the Supreme Court said about "derived".

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.

(emphasis same as court's) - Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920)

[jg]

Btw, the above clearly states wages are property, the principal, and the income derived, as in investment or savings interest, from that property is what is taxed.

The earnings of any person from any occupation or profession would, if not spent in like manner, become principal. If by professional effort any person should earn a given sum annually and he spend half of it, he saves the other half. The half so saved in turn becomes principal. At the end of any given period that savings is a principal, and any income derived from it is an income from property, not an income from earnings capacity or the personal ability of the taxpayer in question.

No it does not say that the earnings are property. It says the half so saved becomes principal. That statement also means, by omission, that the half not so saved is not principal. Hence not all "earnings of any person from any occupation or profession" become principal. Your logic is, as usual, flawed.

Note also the use of the phrase "not an income from earnings capacity or the personal ability of the taxpayer in question." which (even though you highlighted it) you imagine that such income is not possibly subject to the income tax when this snippet does not directly address that topic.

Besides your confusion of principal and property, the statement that you claim supports your claims is (once again)actually contrary to your assertion.

That is just the sort of drivel that some here have insisted on not allowing to go undisputed.

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote:

Well when you show me some guy that makes enough from a "wage" to be in included in the 1% of the nation that had to actually pay the tax on his wage[,] you win!

We've already won, Steve. Wage earners were taxed under the 1913 tax act, for the year 1913.

I'm not sure if I'm understanding your argument, Steve, but even if you were correct -- that only 1% of the nation had to pay the tax for, say, the year 1913 -- and even if NONE of that "1% group" earned wages (let's assume that the entire 1% were wealthy and just collected dividend income or whatever), that would not change the point about what the law was for the year 1913. The 1913 act imposed the Federal income tax on the total amount derived from salaries, wages or compensation for personal service of whatever kind and in whatever form paid. (Actually, taxpayers for the year 1913 got a break, because the statute taxed only the income from March 1 through December 31.)

So, can you clarify what you're saying on the above quote?

[SteveSy]

Btw, the above clearly states wages are property, the principal, and the income derived, as in investment or savings interest, from that property is what is taxed.

The earnings of any person from any occupation or profession would, if not spent in like manner, become principal. If by professional effort any person should earn a given sum annually and he spend half of it, he saves the other half. The half so saved in turn becomes principal. At the end of any given period that savings is a principal, and any income derived from it is an income from property, not an income from earnings capacity or the personal ability of the taxpayer in question.

No it does not say that the earnings are property. It says the half so saved becomes principal. That statement also means, by omission, that the half not so saved is not principal. Hence not all "earnings of any person from any occupation or profession" become principal. Your logic is, as usual, flawed.

You're trying hard to dismiss the facts, I will say that. They are talking about taxing the frugal in that paragraph so the topic would be savings and what savings is, not something else like what isn't saved.

Besides your confusion of principal and property, the statement that you claim supports your claims is (once again)actually contrary to your assertion.

I suppose if you tell yourself enough times it's contrary to my assertion then you might actually believe it.

Step one is dropping the self perpetuated delusion that "derive" has no purpose and that "income derived from wages" actually means the thing derived is really the wages. All I can say is, damn, some people can really drop to the bowels of absurdity in order to rationalize the irrational.

That is just the sort of drivel that some here have insisted on not allowing to go undisputed.

More like it sounds reasonable so you have to respond before someone sees your position weakening. If it really were that irrational and stupid you could let it speak for itself...instead you have to fight tooth and nail to keep your head above water.

[SteveSy]

SteveSy wrote:

Well when you show me some guy that makes enough from a "wage" to be in included in the 1% of the nation that had to actually pay the tax on his wage[,] you win!

We've already won, Steve. Wage earners were taxed under the 1913 tax act, for the year 1913.

No they weren't....prove it. Show me anyone or any report that showed a wage earner paid the tax on his wages.

I'm not sure if I'm understanding your argument, Steve, but even if you were correct -- that only 1% of the nation had to pay the tax for, say, the year 1913 -- and even if NONE of that "1% group" earned wages (let's assume that the entire 1% were wealthy and just collected dividend income or whatever), that would not change the point about what the law was for the year 1913.

No, see, you don't get to assume your premise is correct in order to prove your premise. Your premise has been challenged, wages were not taxed. Income derived from wages was taxed. You can't for the love of Pete derive "A" from "A". The thing derived can not be the same as the thing its derived from, learn basic English and grammar. In fact go check an online dictionary and look up the word "derive" and its proper usage.