Updated CRS report on tax protesters

[webhick]

Steve:
Way back on the first page of this thread, I pointed out to you that the intent of the Founders as to the constitutionality of the Income Tax is irrelevant, because we should be looking at the intent of those that ratified the 16th Amendment. You never responded.

....(crickets)....

Details, details. Steve's got better things to do with his time than deal with reality.

To be fair, he's probably playing with his fishies. I would be interested in hearing how he's progressing at teaching them to fetch his slippers and getting them to roll-over and play dead. Well, if he's succeeding at that last part, then he may not have fishies for much longer.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Steve:
Way back on the first page of this thread, I pointed out to you that the intent of the Founders as to the constitutionality of the Income Tax is irrelevant, because we should be looking at the intent of those that ratified the 16th Amendment. You never responded.

Steve never replies to rational questions unless he can channel someone fron the 18th or 19th century.

[SteveSy]

Steve:
Way back on the first page of this thread, I pointed out to you that the intent of the Founders as to the constitutionality of the Income Tax is irrelevant, because we should be looking at the intent of those that ratified the 16th Amendment. You never responded.

Sorry...
I moved out of the Quatloos house a while back and only visit now.

I seem to remember posting numerous pages from the congressional record showing the debates concerning the 16th. It was never intended to tax the little wage earner. Great wealth was escaping taxation due to the Pollock case. The populists, the advocates for the little guy, fought for the 16th because tariffs were killing them, like the 200% on sugar. The idea was to tax the rich businessmen escaping taxation. The 16th would have never made it if it was known the 16th would have allowed the government to tax the farmer and wage earner to the point of working several months out of the year for the government to cover his supposed "fair share" of the tax.

The 16th in short was to make the rich pay. that was the focus and that was the intent....the little guy was already paying via tariffs. In fact less than 1% of the population paid the income tax when it was first laid. Its clear who was to pay and who the amendment was directed towards. If in fact it was made to tax everyone why did they choose to select only the ultra rich when the first law went in to effect? It wasn't until the late 50's, long after those who created the 16th were gone that the government supposedly expanded the statues to include a significant portion of U.S. citizens.

Try reading the memoirs of Cordell Hull, the author of the first income tax. He was all for the little guy, he would have never advocated for a all encompassing income tax amendment that would eventually allow the government to seize a significant portion of a working person's earnings.

[fortinbras]

I would VERY MUCH like to see a link to this new CRS report. I've written my Congressman for a copy but that could take weeks (or forever, since I didn't vote for him). It would be Very Nice for someone to post this on the net so everyone could read it.

[Quixote]

I seem to remember posting numerous pages from the congressional record showing the debates concerning the 16th.

You did that. You also posted numerous pages from the congressional record showing the debates concerning the income tax in 1913. The 1909 record said nothing about who the tax was intended to effect. The 1913 debates made it clear that Congress understood they had the power to tax all income. One specific discussion concerned taxing the wages of maids. But I'm sure you've blocked that memory.

[SteveSy]

I seem to remember posting numerous pages from the congressional record showing the debates concerning the 16th.

You did that. You also posted numerous pages from the congressional record showing the debates concerning the income tax in 1913. The 1909 record said nothing about who the tax was intended to effect. The 1913 debates made it clear that Congress understood they had the power to tax all income. One specific discussion concerned taxing the wages of maids. But I'm sure you've blocked that memory.

Yes, I remember. They were calculating the revenue from the newly approved statute. Amazing isn't it that the maids were included in the top 1% of the income earners

2+3 doesn't equal 4. Use a little reasoning and realize that you either:
A) Didn't understand what you were looking at
B) Have no ability to use simple common sense and reason
C) Both A & B
D) Congress was so ignorant that they really thought maids would be paying the new income tax but soon realized that only people making 5000X a maid's earnings ended up having to pay.

[notorial dissent]

So? You're right the courts who are appointed, paid by and hand picked based on their willingness to agree with those appointing them agree people owe the income tax. Even if they can't agree, to the point of calling each other's position frivolous, how the income tax is legal within the confines of the constitution. What they all know for sure is that we all owe, they're just not quite sure why nor do they really care why.

And the mouth is off and running again, just out of curiosity, where do you leave your brain parked when you engage your mouth?

While it is true, not to mention constitutional, and anointed and ordained by the founding fathers that the courts are appointed by the Administration, and effectively paid by the appropriations of Congress, the rest of your soliloquy is the purest of nonsense. The courts have struck down any number of laws that their so called “masters” were less than pleased with, including several tax measures that did not meet constitutional muster. The judiciary of this country has an old tradition of NOT siding with the powers that be, and there doesn’t seem to be any likelihood of change in the foreseeable future. The plain fact of the matter is that they did finally get around to writing one, with the help of a constitutional amendment, that did meet muster, and has been passed on by every judge that has sat on it. Get over it Steve, it doesn’t matter if it is an excise or anything else. The 16th Amendment ended the discussion. It doesn’t matter. If you want to argue it as an academic point go find someone who cares, but otherwise, GET OVER IT, the barn has burned, the bridge has collapsed, and Elvis has long since gone back to his home planet.

[LPC]

I would VERY MUCH like to see a link to this new CRS report.

Demo provided a link to a copy back on page one:

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/CRSReport.pdf

[Duke2Earl]

Sybil starts off all discussion, and indeed all thought, with his "belief" that it isn't right ot fair that he has to pay taxes on his income. Note, in his post above he's fine that Congress intended that rich folks pay income taxes... just that he shouldn't have to because he isn't a rich person. (If Congress has the power to tax individuals, rich or poor have nothing whatsoever to do with it... that's just a matter of tax rates) But once he has convinced himself that it isn't "right" that he has to pay taxes.... all the rest... all his research...all his cites, all his channeling of the dead, all his blather is devoted to prove that he doesn't have to pay taxes. And the fact that basically no one (or at least no one who has any say in the matter) agrees with him just goes to prove to him that everyone is corrupt. Talk about your self-fulfilling prophesies

[fortinbras]

I received this new CRS report as a PDF file in an e-mail from my Congressman. If someone will explain to me (in really simple English) how I can take the attachment from that email and put it on a Quatloos email, I will share it with you.

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

I received this new CRS report as a PDF file in an e-mail from my Congressman. If someone will explain to me (in really simple English) how I can take the attachment from that email and put it on a Quatloos email, I will share it with you.

Does your Congressman have the report on his website? If so, a link to that might be the easiest path.

[Famspear]

If you're talking about 'Congressional Research Service Report for Congress --Federal Income Tax: Legal Analysis of Common Tax Protester Arguments". 110th Congress, Order Code 97-59 A, June 11, 2008, I believe there is already a link to the PDF file near the beginning of this thread.

EDIT: here's the link

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/CRSReport.pdf

[fortinbras]

Yes, silly me, the text appears as you cited (retyped, not a page-for-page repro of the CRS typescript, though).

BNA also retyped this 2008 revision (gee, I hope the very long URL reproduces):

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:ep ... cd=2&gl=us

[Arthur Rubin]

So what's the problem? The U.S. Constitution says that Congress can tax anything it wants and any type of income it wants, whenever it feels like it, with the only caveat that it has to apply to everybody. That is, you cannot say it only applies to Alabama and Idaho, or only to college football coaches.

Who said a tax can't apply only to college football coaches?

[SteveSy]

So what's the problem? The U.S. Constitution says that Congress can tax anything it wants and any type of income it wants, whenever it feels like it, with the only caveat that it has to apply to everybody. That is, you cannot say it only applies to Alabama and Idaho, or only to college football coaches.

Who said a tax can't apply only to college football coaches?

Who says a tax can't only apply only to Alabama and Idaho? The supreme court eviscerated the concept of uniformity awhile ago. If they can tax Alaskan oil differently then certainty they can tax Idaho potatoes differently or anything else made, manufactured or residing in Alabama or Idaho for that matter.

Neither the language of the Uniformity Clause nor this Court's decisions prohibit all geographically defined classifications. That Clause gives Congress wide latitude in deciding what to tax and does not prohibit it from considering geographically isolated problems.

Translation: Uniformity is dead. As long as Congress doesn't come right out and say "We don't like this business or person so we're going to tax him to death" its ok. Oh, and if they do, we'll give them many more chances to reword it to accomplish the same result.

[LPC]

Neither the language of the Uniformity Clause nor this Court's decisions prohibit all geographically defined classifications. That Clause gives Congress wide latitude in deciding what to tax and does not prohibit it from considering geographically isolated problems.

Translation: Uniformity is dead.

Translation: Sybil is dead to any moderation or middle view.

Once any decision is rendered that he disagrees with, it is a complete repudiation of the Constitution and the rule of law and marks the end of civilization as envisioned by the Founding Fathers(R), all of who are known to Sybil personally.

And any opinions other than Sybil's are irrational.

[SteveSy]

Neither the language of the Uniformity Clause nor this Court's decisions prohibit all geographically defined classifications. That Clause gives Congress wide latitude in deciding what to tax and does not prohibit it from considering geographically isolated problems.

Translation: Uniformity is dead.

Translation: Sybil is dead to any moderation or middle view.

I'm not the only one that thinks the Supreme Court has eviscerated the rule of uniformity. Nelson Lund, a constitutional law professor, appears to come to the same conclusion in "The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 51, No. 4 (Autumn, 1984)"

The most recent decision, United States v. Ptasynski, which leaves the uniformity clause virtually an empty shell...

I can't possibly see how anyone could think uniformity has any meaning after the Ptasynski decision. The court makes it clear that uniformity does not prohibit specifically identifying geographic locations for taxation. Exactly what is the purpose of the uniformity clause if geographic locations can be specified? Uniformity within a class? Anything can be specifically classed if Alaskan Oil can be uniquely classed. The other stipulation is that it has to be for a specific purpose, when does congress not tax for a specific purpose? When does congress not do something to accomplish a specific result? Its just absurd. The truth is the SC has never, that I know of, invalidated a statute due to a violation of uniformity and in all likelihood never will especially when uniformity has no identifiable limits. Whatever...

[grixit]

if you were to lay all the economists (or lawyers) end to end

Bow buppa bow bow!

[Leftcoaster]

if you were to lay all the economists (or lawyers) end to end,

you would have paved the dismal road to hell

[webhick]

if you were to lay all the economists (or lawyers) end to end,

you would have paved the dismal road to hell

That doesn't pass muster. Larry Wall said that the road to hell is paved with melting snowballs. Either those economists (or lawyers) have really frigid tushies, or one of us is really wrong.