Webhick, do me a favor. If I start claiming to be able to channel the thoughts of Dave Champion, just shoot me.Famspear wrote:Now, y'all leave Steve alone! He's my buddy now.
Actually, in fairness to Steve, I think he was referring to the constitutionality vel non of charging different income tax rates based on the state of residence, etc.Paul wrote:What a maroon. The constitution doesn't just allow it, it REQUIRES it. That's what apportionment of a tax on property based on census population would have to do. Or a capitation tax that has to be apportioned among the states based on census data rather than current population.
Y'all just don't understand Steve the way I do.
(I think I'm scarin' myself, here).
Prof. SteveSy Gets His Due
-
- Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
- Posts: 7668
- Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
- Location: Texas
Re: Prof. SteveSy Gets His Due
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
-
- Illuminati Obfuscation: Black Ops Div
- Posts: 3994
- Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:41 am
Re: Prof. SteveSy Gets His Due
Oh, I'll do a whole lot worse than that. I'll finally get to use that audio torture set that came as a free gift with my last order from "Illuminati Discount and Supply." They managed to get Celine Dion, Mariah Carey, and Whitney Houston to team up into one amazing train-wreck of an album! According to the liner notes, all their vocals had to be recorded separately because there wasn't room for more than one colossal ego at a time in the stadium.Famspear wrote:Webhick, do me a favor. If I start claiming to be able to channel the thoughts of Dave Champion, just shoot me.
Of course, when I bore of watching your ears bleed from that, I'll pop in "American Idol Favorites" and you can listen to last season's contestants slaughter your absolute favorite songs until you gouge your eyes out. There's bonus material too! You will also get to hear stellar interviews from the dumbest contestants! Marvel as they are unable to identify the greatest bands in the world! Be surprised by their inability to know what any of the lyrics mean!
There's just so many possibilities in this little box. I wonder how long you'll last.
When chosen for jury duty, tell the judge "fortune cookie says guilty" - A fortune cookie
-
- Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
- Posts: 7668
- Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
- Location: Texas
Re: Prof. SteveSy Gets His Due
As a general proposition, none of that will work as torture for me, webhick. Years ago, I used to be a top forty radio disc jockey. During years of playing the same crappy songs over and over, a gazillion time an hour, 6 days a week, I became innoculated -- essentially impervious to conventional audio torture techniques.webhick wrote:Oh, I'll do a whole lot worse than that. I'll finally get to use that audio torture set that came as a free gift with my last order from "Illuminati Discount and Supply." They managed to get Celine Dion, Mariah Carey, and Whitney Houston to team up into one amazing train-wreck of an album! According to the liner notes, all their vocals had to be recorded separately because there wasn't room for more than one colossal ego at a time in the stadium.Famspear wrote:Webhick, do me a favor. If I start claiming to be able to channel the thoughts of Dave Champion, just shoot me.
Of course, when I bore of watching your ears bleed from that, I'll pop in "American Idol Favorites" and you can listen to last season's contestants slaughter your absolute favorite songs until you gouge your eyes out. There's bonus material too! You will also get to hear stellar interviews from the dumbest contestants! Marvel as they are unable to identify the greatest bands in the world! Be surprised by their inability to know what any of the lyrics mean!
There's just so many possibilities in this little box. I wonder how long you'll last.
Except for Porter Wagoner (rest in peace!). Don't get that stuff around me.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
-
- Grand Exalted Keeper of Esoterica
- Posts: 5773
- Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 3:11 pm
Re: Prof. SteveSy Gets His Due
Famous last words. Challenging the top Illuminati torturer is never a good idea.As a general proposition, none of that will work as torture for me, webhick. Years ago, I used to be a top forty radio disc jockey. During years of playing the same crappy songs over and over, a gazillion time an hour, 6 days a week, I became innoculated -- essentially impervious to conventional audio torture techniques.
Demo.
-
- Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
- Posts: 7668
- Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
- Location: Texas
Re: Prof. SteveSy Gets His Due
I have to admit, the idea of having to listen to the American Idol stuff does make me feel a little queasy.Demosthenes wrote:Famous last words. Challenging the top Illuminati torturer is never a good idea.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
-
- Fretful leader of the Quat Quartet
- Posts: 782
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 7:56 pm
- Location: Usually between the first and twelfth frets
Re: Prof. SteveSy Gets His Due
I have this strange vision of Famspear's head exploding as Porter and all the Wagonmasters tear into a tune -- kinda like the Slim Whitman effect in Mars Attacks.Famspear wrote:Except for Porter Wagoner (rest in peace!). Don't get that stuff around me.
"Run get the pitcher, get the baby some beer." Rev. Gary Davis
-
- Recycler of Paytriot Fantasies
- Posts: 4287
- Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 6:02 am
Re: Prof. SteveSy Gets His Due
SteveSy/Famspear, coming to a fansite near you.webhick wrote:"::hic:: I love you man! ::hic:: I want you to ::hic:: know that rrreally ::hic:: app ree shee ate ::hic:: your op-onyuns ::hic::"
Three cheers for the Lesser Evil!
10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
. . . . . . Dr Pepper
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4
10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
. . . . . . Dr Pepper
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4
Re: Prof. SteveSy Gets His Due
24 straight hours of Tiny Tim covers of Barry Manilowe songs
Re: Prof. SteveSy Gets His Due
Actually, that is exactly how I understood him, and my post is the correct response. IF the income tax is direct, it must be apportioned according to population, which means that the tax rate on a low-per-capita-income state must be imposed at a higher rate in order to have the same per capita tax as a higher income state.Actually, in fairness to Steve, I think he was referring to the constitutionality vel non of charging different income tax rates based on the state of residence, etc.
Re: Prof. SteveSy Gets His Due
I meant the government could do it without apportionment. The government doesn't get to pick and choose where the tax will be higher under the apportionment rule, its based on the census. If it is direct but does not require apportionment then they could lay the tax however they wished because uniformity doesn't apply to direct taxes either. I thought I made myself clear, guess not. If they wanted they could lay a 60% tax on only NY residents, or simply make only Warren Buffet and Bill Gates pay and it would be perfectly constitutional. It would give the government the power to destroy anyone or thing.Paul wrote:Actually, that is exactly how I understood him, and my post is the correct response. IF the income tax is direct, it must be apportioned according to population, which means that the tax rate on a low-per-capita-income state must be imposed at a higher rate in order to have the same per capita tax as a higher income state.Actually, in fairness to Steve, I think he was referring to the constitutionality vel non of charging different income tax rates based on the state of residence, etc.
-
- Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
- Posts: 5233
- Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
- Location: Earth
Re: Prof. SteveSy Gets His Due
Gibberish.SteveSy wrote:I meant the government could do it without apportionment. The government doesn't get to pick and choose where the tax will be higher under the apportionment rule, its based on the census. If it is direct but does not require apportionment then they could lay the tax however they wished because uniformity doesn't apply to direct taxes either. I thought I made myself clear, guess not.Paul wrote:Actually, that is exactly how I understood him, and my post is the correct response. IF the income tax is direct, it must be apportioned according to population, which means that the tax rate on a low-per-capita-income state must be imposed at a higher rate in order to have the same per capita tax as a higher income state.Actually, in fairness to Steve, I think he was referring to the constitutionality vel non of charging different income tax rates based on the state of residence, etc.
If the tax were a capitation, and neither State A nor State B had any slaves, then Sybil's figures are correct.SteveSy wrote:Not that it matters much but I think your analysis is wrong. The government selects a figure and apportions it according to population. A place like Idaho would probably have the same rate per person as CA.
For the sake of argument if the government needed to raise $110,000 and there are only two states it could be laid like the following:
State A has 100,000 residents
State B has 10,000 residents
State A would tax its citizens at $1 per person and so would State B even though State A's total apportioned amount is 10X State B's . Of course in reality either State could most likely collect the money however they wished as long as they met the apportioned amount.
But if the tax that is apportioned is an income tax, then everything changes. If the residents of State A earned $100 each, while the residents of State B earned $50 each, then the residents of State A would have to be taxed at 1% of their incomes in order to raise the $100,000 needed from State A, while the residents of State B would have to be taxed at 2% in order to raise the $10,000 needed from State B. So the tax rate on State B would be twice the tax rate on State A.
Such is apportionment.
Because apportionment and uniformity are conflicting goals. An income tax that is uniform would result in the same rate in every state, while an income tax that is apportioned would NOT result in the same rate in every state.
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.
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.
-
- Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
- Posts: 5233
- Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
- Location: Earth
Re: Prof. SteveSy Gets His Due
Allow me to point out that, for capitations, apportionment is largely meaningless unless there are slaves.LPC wrote:If the tax were a capitation, and neither State A nor State B had any slaves, then Sybil's figures are correct.SteveSy wrote:For the sake of argument if the government needed to raise $110,000 and there are only two states it could be laid like the following:
State A has 100,000 residents
State B has 10,000 residents
State A would tax its citizens at $1 per person and so would State B even though State A's total apportioned amount is 10X State B's . Of course in reality either State could most likely collect the money however they wished as long as they met the apportioned amount.
If you apportion the amount to be raised among the states in proportion to their populations, and then calculate the tax per person in each state, it will always be the same per person in each state as long as each person is counted as one person. Only if the apportionment formula counts some persons as three-fifths of a person will the tax per person change. (I'm ignoring the differentials that might occur due to changes in population between the decentenial censuses, because those differentials are clearly incidental to the purposes of the apportionment process.)
I therefore have some sympathy for those scholars who believe that the apportionment process is archaic and irrelevant following the abolition of slavery.
Which makes me wonder if those who insist on apportionment are not racist, in the same way that those who carry on about "14th Amendment Citizenship" are racist. Because what is the purpose of apportionment if there are no three-fifths persons?
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.
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.
-
- Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
- Posts: 5233
- Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
- Location: Earth
Re: Prof. SteveSy Gets His Due
WTF?SteveSy wrote:I meant the government could do it [impose an income tax] without apportionment.
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.
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.
Re: Prof. SteveSy Gets His Due
What's gibberish Dan?LPC wrote:Gibberish.SteveSy wrote:I meant the government could do it without apportionment. The government doesn't get to pick and choose where the tax will be higher under the apportionment rule, its based on the census. If it is direct but does not require apportionment then they could lay the tax however they wished because uniformity doesn't apply to direct taxes either. I thought I made myself clear, guess not.
If in fact the 16th allows for a direct tax without apportionment then congress could lay a tax without apportionment and without uniformity. This means they could lay a tax just on you and it would be perfectly constitutional. Its not rocket science, I'm sure you'll try and make it look like it is.
-
- Pirate Purveyor of the Last Word
- Posts: 1698
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 2:06 am
Re: Prof. SteveSy Gets His Due
Only Sybil's usual gibberish, no matter the thread. He's about to be beaten to his usual pulp, legal or otherwise and doesn't even realize it. As he never does and never will, as is typical of all TP-type personalities.gibberish
Go, Sybil! We rely on you for amusement as Van Pelt (sadly) and various other miscreants are banned.
All the States incorporated daughter corporations for transaction of business in the 1960s or so. - Some voice in Van Pelt's head, circa 2006.
Re: Prof. SteveSy Gets His Due
Nice troll post, go "."! The irony is they say the same thing about one of you guys on the TP boards anytime one of you post on there. See we have the kooky TP's and we have the kooky TA's each on the extreme and both thinking their verbal gymnastics are superior. lol. wrote:Only Sybil's usual gibberish, no matter the thread. He's about to be beaten to his usual pulp, legal or otherwise and doesn't even realize it. As he never does and never will, as is typical of all TP-type personalities.gibberish
Go, Sybil! We rely on you for amusement as Van Pelt (sadly) and various other miscreants are banned.
Last edited by SteveSy on Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
- Posts: 7668
- Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
- Location: Texas
Re: Prof. SteveSy Gets His Due
I thought we had finished this discussion. This is part of the reason that I think the Brushaber opinion is so convoluted.SteveSy wrote:If in fact the 16th allows for a direct tax without apportionment then congress could lay a tax without apportionment and without uniformity. This means they could lay a tax just on you and it would be perfectly constitutional. Its not rocket science, I'm sure you'll try and make it look like it is.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and posit that if Congress were to pass an income tax that lacked uniformity, someone would challenge the constitutionality thereof.
Assume this scenario:
1. The DOJ argues that the tax in question is a "direct" tax and is therefore not required to be "uniform".
2. The DOJ argues in the same breath argue that the Sixteenth Amendment removes the requirement that an income tax be apportioned, even to the extent that the tax is deemed to be a "direct" tax.
3. The DOJ argues that therefore the income tax is required to be neither apportioned nor uniform.
4. The DOJ argues that, therefore, the unapportioned, non-uniform income tax is constitutional.
Result? The court will rule that all income taxes are indirect taxes (rejecting the line of cases that interpret the 16th Amendment as having authorized a "direct tax without apportionment," and embracing the line of cases that say that the Amendment simply "put all income taxes back into the indirect category"), and that the income tax in question, lacking uniformity, is unconstitutional.
Problem solved.
Steve, I know that the inconsistent, contradictory interpretations of the Brushaber decision can be frustrating, especially for a mind that seeks to reconcile all inconsistencies. Sometimes, reconciling all inconsistencies is not possible. Sometimes courts say things that are not "logically" consistent. As I believe I said before, at least two contradictory sets of interpretations have followed the Brushaber decision. Each line of interpretations gets us to the same result: No federal income taxes are required to be apportioned. And your concern -- that under one of the interpretations, Congress would or could enact an income tax that the courts would uphold even though neither apportioned nor uniform -- is not one that keeps me up at night worrying.
Again, the Brushaber opinion can be a bear. This is, in part, why we have the rule of stare decisis. A case is important primarily for WHAT the court decides, and less important for HOW and WHY the court came to that decision.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Re: Prof. SteveSy Gets His Due
They would find it constitutional some way....Congress does this already to some degree. Alaskan oil comes to mind, there was a clear violation of the uniformity rule in that case. The court would just reason it in such a way as to make uniformity meaningless. Probably something like "The tax on NY residents doesn't violate the uniformity rule. NY residents are taxed the same in all States and therefore it doesn't violate the geographic rule. The Uniformity Clause requires that an excise tax apply, at the same rate, in all portions of the United States where the subject of the tax is found."Famspear wrote:I thought we had finished this discussion. This is part of the reason that I think the Brushaber opinion is so convoluted.SteveSy wrote:If in fact the 16th allows for a direct tax without apportionment then congress could lay a tax without apportionment and without uniformity. This means they could lay a tax just on you and it would be perfectly constitutional. Its not rocket science, I'm sure you'll try and make it look like it is.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and posit that if Congress were to pass an income tax that lacked uniformity, someone would challenge the constitutionality thereof.
Assume this scenario:
1. The DOJ argues that the tax in question is a "direct" tax and is therefore not required to be "uniform".
2. The DOJ argues in the same breath argue that the Sixteenth Amendment removes the requirement that an income tax be apportioned, even to the extent that the tax is deemed to be a "direct" tax.
3. The DOJ argues that therefore the income tax is required to be neither apportioned nor uniform.
4. The DOJ argues that, therefore, the unapportioned, non-uniform income tax is constitutional.
Result? The court will rule that all income taxes are indirect taxes (rejecting the line of cases that interpret the 16th Amendment as having authorized a "direct tax without apportionment," and embracing the line of cases that say that the Amendment simply "put all income taxes back into the indirect category"), and that the income tax in question, lacking uniformity, is unconstitutional.
Problem solved.
-
- Pirate Purveyor of the Last Word
- Posts: 1698
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 2:06 am
Re: Prof. SteveSy Gets His Due
Not at all. Just an observation. Many here can attest to the same.Nice troll post
All the States incorporated daughter corporations for transaction of business in the 1960s or so. - Some voice in Van Pelt's head, circa 2006.
-
- Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
- Posts: 7668
- Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
- Location: Texas
Re: Prof. SteveSy Gets His Due
Steve is talking about this case involving the Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax, from the United States Supreme Court:
The Court ruled that the tax did not violate the Uniformity Clause. The CCH commentary on this case is as follows (in part):
So, what's your problem, Steve? Is it that the courts seem to bend over backwards to uphold the constitutionality of a tax statute?
--from United States v. Ptasynski, 462 U.S. 74, 103 S. Ct. 2239, 83-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶9386 (1983) (bolding added).The Uniformity Clause conditions Congress' power to impose indirect taxes. 9 It provides that "all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." Art. I, §8, cl. 1. The debates in the Constitutional Convention provide little evidence of the Framers' intent, 10 but the concerns giving rise to the Clause identify its purpose more clearly. The Committee of Detail proposed as a remedy for interstate trade barriers that the power to regulate commerce among the States be vested in the national government, and the Convention agreed. See 2 M. Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 308 (rev. ed. 1937); C. Warren, The Making of the Constitution 567-570 (1928). Some States, however, remained apprehensive that the regionalism that had marked the Confederation would persist. Id., at 586-588. There was concern that the national government would use its power over commerce to the disadvantage of particular States. The Uniformity Clause was proposed as one of several measures designed to limit the exercise of that power. See 2 M. Farrand, supra, at 417-418; Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 103-106 (1900). As Justice Story explained:
"[The purpose of the Clause] was to cut off all undue preferences of one State over another in the regulation of subjects affecting their common interests. Unless duties, imposts, and excises were uniform, the grossest and most oppressive inequalities, vitally affecting the pursuits and employments of the people of different States, might exist. The agriculture, commerce, or manufactures of one State might be built upon the ruins of those of another; and a combination of a few States in Congress might secure a monopoly of certain branches of trade and business to themselves, to the injury, if not to the destruction, of their less favored neighbors." 1 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States §957 (T. Cooley ed. 1873).
See also 3 Annals of Cong. 378-379 (1792) (remarks of Hugh Williamson); Address of Luther Martin to the Maryland Legislature (Nov. 29, 1787), reprinted in 3 M. Farrand, supra, at 205.
This general purpose, however, does not define the precise scope of the Clause. The one issue that has been raised repeatedly is whether the requirement of uniformity encompasses some notion of equality. It was settled fairly early that the Clause does not require Congress to devise a tax that falls equally or proportionately on each State. Rather, as the Court stated in the Head Money Cases, 112 U. S. 580 (1884), a "tax is uniform when it operates with the same force and effect in every place where the subject of it is found." Id., at 594.
Nor does the Clause prevent Congress from defining the subject of a tax by drawing distinctions between similar classes. In the Head Money Cases, supra, the Court recognized that in imposing a head tax on persons coming into this country, Congress could choose to tax those persons who immigrated through the ports, but not those who immigrated at inland cities. As the Court explained, "the evil to be remedied by this legislation has no existence on our inland borders, and immigration in that quarter needed no such regulation." Id., at 595. The tax applied to all ports alike, and the Court concluded that "there is substantial uniformity within the meaning and purpose of the Constitution." Ibid. Subsequent cases have confirmed that the Framers did not intend to restrict Congress' ability to define the class of objects to be taxed. They intended only that the tax apply wherever the classification is found. See Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 106 (1900); 11 Nicol v. Ames, 173 U. S. 509, 521-522 (1899).
The Court ruled that the tax did not violate the Uniformity Clause. The CCH commentary on this case is as follows (in part):
(bolding added).Although the Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act exempts from taxation oil produced from certain wells in Alaska, the exclusion of a geographically defined class of oil from taxation does not violate the Uniformity Clause of the U. S. Constitution. That clause provides only that a tax apply uniformly wherever the classification subject to the tax is found. Congress did not seek to benefit the state of Alaska (which bears a heavy windfall profit tax burden) by granting it an undue preference; rather, the separate treatment was justified by the disproportionate cost and difficulties associated with extracting oil from the exempt region.
So, what's your problem, Steve? Is it that the courts seem to bend over backwards to uphold the constitutionality of a tax statute?
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet