Weston White and the "Quatpillar" - continued

[Weston White]

Does the IRS even actually say someplace that working for money is a taxable activity? I do not think I have seen a quote like that anyplace before. They only say income is wages and wages are taxable... where is it that they say laboring is a taxable activity? If there is no such quote, why not?

Weston, laboring is not a taxable activity. Getting paid for laboring, is a taxable activity. Are you to simple to understand that?

Taxing the money from something is the same as taxing the something itself. Tax the shadow you are still taxing the source, there is no difference... As they say lipsticking a pig, is just a pig wearing lipstick.

What you are insinuating is that Congress has the right to tax that which would otherwise only directly taxable, merely by taxing something driving therefrom. That is just obsured and preposterous! If that were the intention, there would not have been a division of taxable methods.

Whenever I see posts such as these, I know I am on the right track. You guys really need to get a desperation smiley. I would use that all the time on this forum!

[SteveSy]

Also, is it that the income tax is "wrong" or is it the methodology for its calculation, or is it the way it is spent? Or some combination thereof.?

All of the above....it allows the government to almost endlessly spend, more importantly its used to manipulate people, politically, economically and morally. The income tax as it's applied provides the government way to much power over the people. Also, its not right to tax someone just for making money to feed their family.

[Weston White]

So Congress can tax a private sector, non-federally-connected, company for paying non-federally-connected, non-privileged remuneration to a worker, but cannot tax the worker for receiving that remuneration? Where does the Constitution say that? And what happened to your claim that some federally-connected privilege is necessary for an excise tax?

They are taxing the business for the privilege of existing in that capacity and engaging corporate activity and protection, justly under an excise or franchise tax. The employee has no part of that they are merely providing labor for the business itself, they are never party to the arrangement; as they in most cases do not receive any of the benefits provided to the corporation itself.

The issue about federal-connection is a bit tricky, as the federal government can tax the corporation, even a State created corporation, though through the usage of legalese terms within the IRC, this does not appear to be the intention, at least in subtitle C, though I am not familiar with how everything works for corporations themselves, being that I do not study that issue because it just not apply to me.

Besides that you are describing what is essentially double taxation, the corporation is being taxed upon its gains for its activities after its losses are covered, which I presume includes payroll matters, in turn the employees of said corporation are again taxed on their activities which served to enrich the corporation. Though that would seem to be a complex issue and the federal government can double tax if they want to, though they are suppose to adjust so that the tax is not overbearing or oppressive.

If the Supreme Court said that "births, marriages and burials" can be taxed via an excise, why can't the earnings of a private-sector laborer? Or is there some federal privilege involved in being born or dying? And if you claim that a tax on laboring is a capitation because laboring is an inherent part of being a person qua person, why isn't that true of "births, marriages and burials"?

SteveSy already answered this, though just to add that SCOTUS has never specifically said that such is the case regarding labor to any degree. Though all of those have more to do with a permit type of fee for recording or documenting the event, you don’t have to get a state issued marriage license or birth certificate or death certificate, you can gather witnesses and legally record such events on your own, that is your right to do so. Just as you do not have to obtain a SSN and the government does not have to issue you one when applied for. The same goes for when applying for such federal benefits, even though you paid, they do not have to approve benefits to you nor are they automatic.

If it's an "excise or a duty," it's obviously not a direct tax, no?

Though this is a matter not discussed within and it is not relevant to the common laborer, so why bring the case up? You all chastise others when they posts cases not bearing directly upon taxation or because the case has to do with corporations only, etc., and yet what do you yourselves go and do? Yea you know.

No, they don't reference French taxes, they reference a tax collected in the American colonies to pay for a war against France. And they reference it to show that "[o]ur colonial forbears knew more about ways of taxing than some of their descendants seem to be willing to concede."

“Thus in 1695 (6 & 7 Wm. III, c. 6), Parliament passed an act which granted 'to His Majesty certain Rates and Duties upon Marriages, Births and Burials,' all for the purpose of 'carrying on the War against France with Vigour.'”

Oh I was a country off, darn it! …Or would that be a continent off? Still Dr. Smith discusses England as well France in relation to taxation and economy.

[SteveSy]

Then how do you propose to pay for certain Federal necessities, like Air Traffic Control, or the military, or even the SEC and other such things?

That money has to come from somewhere and no matter how you slice it, the end result is that each and every person will be ceding some portion of their income to a federal government, either directly (income taxes) or indirectly (tariffs).

There's other methods Cpt, a VAT or sales tax would accomplish the mission. Besides all of those are actually small compared to other things like social welfare.

The income tax allows the government almost an unlimited spending ability. If it were done through say a VAT excessive taxation to cover excessive spending would reduce purchases thus reducing the governments ability to borrow. With an income tax the government has the theoretical ability to take 100% of someone's earnings on a perpetual basis. There's no way the founders intended the government to have this power under indirect taxation, for common sense reasons.

[Weston White]

Then how do you propose to pay for certain Federal necessities, like Air Traffic Control, or the military, or even the SEC and other such things?

That money has to come from somewhere and no matter how you slice it, the end result is that each and every person will be ceding some portion of their income to a federal government, either directly (income taxes) or indirectly (tariffs).

TYPES OF TAXES

Prior to the creation of the Revenue Act of 1913, the U.S. Treasury ran a budgetary surplus every year, (except during times of war), as well our Nation operated for over 130 years without any “Federal Income Tax”, (as it is currently applied today). However, if you are still wondering where the government is going to get money to support their expenditures or how they will sustain a budget within the U.S. Treasury to continue operating our Nation, without the aid of a Federal Income Tax, here is the answer to that question. The following is a partial list of 57-common taxes Americans are obligated to pay when participating in such taxable activities:

Accounts Receivable Tax,
Automobile Registration Tax,
Building Permit Tax,
Capital Gains Tax,
CDL License Tax,
Cigarette Tax,
Corporate Income Tax,
Court Fines (Indirect Taxes),
Dog License Tax,
Estate Tax,
Federal Income Tax,
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA),
Fishing License Tax,
Food License Tax,
Fuel Permit Tax,
Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon),
Hunting License Tax,
Inheritance Tax,
Interest Expense (tax on the money),
Inventory Tax,
IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax),
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax),
Liquor Tax,
Local Income Tax,
Luxury Tax,
Marriage License Tax,
Medicare Tax,
Parking Meters,
Property Tax,
Real Estate Tax,
Septic Permit Tax,
Service charge taxes,
Social Security Tax,
Road Usage Tax (Truckers),
Sales Taxes,
Recreational Vehicle Tax,
Road Toll Booth Taxes,
School Tax,
State Income Tax,
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA),
Telephone Federal Excise Tax,
Telephone Federal, State, and Local Surcharge Taxes,
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax,
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax,
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax,
Telephone State and Local Tax,
Telephone Usage Charge Tax,
Toll Bridge Tax,
Toll Tunnel Tax,
Traffic Fines,
Trailer Registration Tax,
Utility Tax,
Vehicle License Registration Tax,
Vehicle Sales Tax,
Watercraft Registration Tax,
Well Permit Tax,
Workers Compensation Tax

The fact is the federal government would still make a killing from taxation without having to tax the laborer. Though the government would have to realize fiscal responsibly, that would be the only real difference.

[Cpt Banjo]

Why don't you bring forth the cases that explain what indirect taxes are? Oh yea that is because it is always in the context of corporations, franchise, and business...nothing else.

Mr. White, that is a lie and you know it. I have pointed out to you on more than one occasion the example of the gift tax, which involves no privilege whatsoever. I have cited to you the case of Bromley v. McCaughn, 240 U.S. 124 (1929), in which the Supreme Court (in upholding the constitutionality of the federal gift tax), stated:

The meaning of the phrase 'direct taxes' and the historical background of the constitutional requirement for their apportionment have been so often and exhaustively considered by this court, Hylton v. United States, 3 Dall. 171; Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 , 15 S. Ct. 673; Id., 158 U.S. 601 , 15 S. Ct. 912; Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41 , 20 S. Ct. 747; Nicol v. Ames, 173 U.S. 509, 515 , 19 S. Ct. 522, that no useful purpose would be served by renewing the discussion here. Whatever may be the precise line which sets off direct taxes from others, we need not now determine. While taxes levied upon or collected from persons because of their general ownership of property may be taken to be direct, Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Turst Co., 157 U.S. 429 , 15 S. Ct. 673; Id., 158 U.S. 601 , 15 S. Ct. 912, this court has consistently held, almost from the foundation of the government, that a tax imposed upon a particular use of property or the exercise of a single power over property incidental to ownership, is an excise which neet not be apportioned, and it is enough for present purposes that this tax is of the latter class.

So don't keep repeating your crap that all indirect taxes involve governmental privileges or business. Just explain, if you will, why a gratuitous transfer of property can be the subject of an excise, but a transfer of money in consideration of labor can't be.

And after you shoot yourself in the foot over that one, we'll examine how the Court has held that income from illegal activities is taxable and see you try to characterize blackmail and embezzlement as "privileged activities".

where is it that they say laboring is a taxable activity? If there is no such quote, why not?

Because the concept of "taxable activity" isn't to be found in the law of income taxation. It's found only in the patter of con artists looking to make a buck off the gullible and in the delusions of tax deniers.

[Judge Roy Bean]

... However, if you are still wondering where the government is going to get money to support their expenditures or how they will sustain a budget within the U.S. Treasury to continue operating our Nation, without the aid of a Federal Income Tax, here is the answer to that question. The following is a partial list of 57-common taxes Americans are obligated to pay when participating in such taxable activities:

Accounts Receivable Tax, [state, county and municipal taxes]
Automobile Registration Tax, [state]
Building Permit Tax, city/county]
Capital Gains Tax,
CDL License Tax, [state, county and municipal taxes]
Cigarette Tax,
Corporate Income Tax, [state, county and municipal taxes]
Court Fines (Indirect Taxes), [municipal, county state and Federal]
Dog License Tax, [municipal]
Estate Tax,
Federal Income Tax,
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA),
Fishing License Tax, [state]
Food License Tax, [municipal]
Fuel Permit Tax, [state]
Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon), [Federal and state]
Hunting License Tax, [state]
Inheritance Tax,
Interest Expense (tax on the money), [not a tax]
Inventory Tax, [state]
IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax), [not a tax]
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax), [not a tax]
Liquor Tax, [Federal and state tax]
Local Income Tax, [state, county and municipal]
Luxury Tax,
Marriage License Tax, [state tax]
Medicare Tax,
Parking Meters, [municipal fine]
Property Tax, [state, county, municipal and school district tax]
Real Estate Tax, [see above]
Septic Permit Tax, [local tax]
Service charge taxes, [huh?]
Social Security Tax,
Road Usage Tax (Truckers),
Sales Taxes, [state, county and municipal taxes]
Recreational Vehicle Tax, [state, county and municipal taxes]
Road Toll Booth Taxes, [state, county and municipal taxes]
School Tax, [state, county and municipal taxes]
State Income Tax, [state taxes]
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA), [state taxes]
Telephone Federal Excise Tax,
Telephone Federal, State, and Local Surcharge Taxes,
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax,
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax,
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax,
Telephone State and Local Tax,
Telephone Usage Charge Tax,
Toll Bridge Tax, [state, county and municipal taxes]
Toll Tunnel Tax, [state, county and municipal taxes]
Traffic Fines, [state, county and municipal fines, not taxes]
Trailer Registration Tax, [state, county and municipal taxes]
Utility Tax, [state, county and municipal taxes]
Vehicle License Registration Tax, [state, county and municipal taxes]
Vehicle Sales Tax, [state, county and municipal taxes]
Watercraft Registration Tax, [state, county and municipal taxes]
Well Permit Tax, [state, county and municipal taxes]
Workers Compensation Tax [state taxes]

The fact is the federal government would still make a killing from taxation without having to tax the laborer. Though the government would have to realize fiscal responsibly, that would be the only real difference.

You're off into the weeds even further, Weston, and it only demonstrates that your motive has nothing to do with the manner and method of the taxing entity; you just don't like your economic situation and believe it is justifiable to play the TP/TD game to improve your financial status in life at the expense of everyone else.

Sorry.

Try something productive. I counsel people all the time that the solutions to their economic problems involve REAL expense reduction in combination with increased income production. The theory is as old as history and it often involves drastic changes in lifestyle when the fault actually lies with the debtor instead of the creditor. Denying the reality of taxes for quasi-political reasons accomplishes neither an increase in income nor any decrease in actual expenses. You and others like you only make it worse for people who might have a chance to work through a rough patch. And it makes it easier for the predators who are more than happy to take advantage of your kind of willful ignorance.

[Weston White]

Mr. White, that is a lie and you know it. I have pointed out to you on more than one occasion the example of the gift tax, which involves no privilege whatsoever. I have cited to you the case of Bromley v. McCaughn, 240 U.S. 124 (1929), in which the Supreme Court (in upholding the constitutionality of the federal gift tax), stated:

My bad that should have read income taxes, not indirect taxes. Sorry.

So don't keep repeating your crap that all indirect taxes involve governmental privileges or business. Just explain, if you will, why a gratuitous transfer of property can be the subject of an excise, but a transfer of money in consideration of labor can't be.

Would that have not more to do with claiming that something was not taxable for the mere fact that it was a gift or under some contractual agreement? When the case would have otherwise been a legitimate tax upon something? E.g. this land and factory was a gift or inheritance, therefore it is not taxable.

Because the concept of "taxable activity" isn't to be found in the law of income taxation. It's found only in the patter of con artists looking to make a buck off the gullible and in the delusions of tax deniers.

Yes it is, something has to be taxed, either an article or an activity. You can't just levy a tax on air and you can't just tax, for the purpose of taxing or to prove a point or to set an example or to push an agenda or to punish.

[Weston White]

You're off into the weeds even further, Weston, and it only demonstrates that your motive has nothing to do with the manner and method of the taxing entity; you just don't like your economic situation and believe it is justifiable to play the TP/TD game to improve your financial status in life at the expense of everyone else.

Sorry.

Try something productive. I counsel people all the time that the solutions to their economic problems involve REAL expense reduction in combination with increased income production. The theory is as old as history and it often involves drastic changes in lifestyle when the fault actually lies with the debtor instead of the creditor. Denying the reality of taxes for quasi-political reasons accomplishes neither an increase in income nor any decrease in actual expenses. You and others like you only make it worse for people who might have a chance to work through a rough patch. And it makes it easier for the predators who are more than happy to take advantage of your kind of willful ignorance.

My God, WTF, why do you bother to post? Seriously? I think you irritate me more than Famspear and LPC combined, at least they occasionally have something worthwhile to read, the shit you post is avoid of all logic and purpose, I so which I could IGGY you and your stupid damned posts.

Though I will not respond to your post, just too fricking dumb! Oh and I will not respond to any further reply of yours on this matter should you actually bother to respond.

...Off in the weeds? WTF?

[grixit]

Another record set by Weston. I have have now decided not to even read the parts of his topics that others are posting to, because it's like watching 4th grade. Except that 4th graders actually benefit from what they're told.

[ASITStands]

Another record set by Weston. I have have now decided not to even read the parts of his topics that others are posting to, because it's like watching 4th grade. Except that 4th graders actually benefit from what they're told.

4th grade?! Since when did he graduate from being a first-grader?

Some of us had concluded, "It's like arguing with a first-grader!" long ago.

[Cpt Banjo]

So don't keep repeating your crap that all indirect taxes involve governmental privileges or business. Just explain, if you will, why a gratuitous transfer of property can be the subject of an excise, but a transfer of money in consideration of labor can't be.

Would that have not more to do with claiming that something was not taxable for the mere fact that it was a gift or under some contractual agreement? When the case would have otherwise been a legitimate tax upon something? E.g. this land and factory was a gift or inheritance, therefore it is not taxable.

My gibberish-to-English translator isn't working at the moment, so I have no idea what you're trying to say. The only reason gifts and inheritances aren't included in gross income is because the Code specifically excludes them. There's certainly nothing in the Constitution that prevents their being subject to the income tax. Moreover, you've either misunderstood my question or you're evading it. We know from Bromley that a tax on a gratuitous transfer of property is an excise. Why isn't a tax on transfer of property for a consideration (e.g., the payment of wages in consideration for the performance of labor) also an excise?

Because the concept of "taxable activity" isn't to be found in the law of income taxation. It's found only in the patter of con artists looking to make a buck off the gullible and in the delusions of tax deniers.

Yes it is, something has to be taxed, either an article or an activity. You can't just levy a tax on air and you can't just tax, for the purpose of taxing or to prove a point or to set an example or to push an agenda or to punish.

With very few exceptions, the only activity needed for the imposition of the income tax is the receipt of income. (For those who want to cogitate on the handful of transactions that technically don't involve income receipts (except the deemed income the Code imputes) but do still involve an activity of some kind, start with Section 7872.)

[Doktor Avalanche]

Though I will not respond to your post, just too fricking dumb! Oh and I will not respond to any further reply of yours on this matter should you actually bother to respond.

You do realize by saying this you've precluded the possibility of never responding to that post.

[Evil Squirrel Overlord]

My God, WTF, why do you bother to post? Seriously? I think you irritate me more than Famspear and LPC combined, at least they occasionally have something worthwhile to read, the sh*t you post is avoid of all logic and purpose, I so which I could IGGY you and your stupid damned posts.

A little upset that he has touched a nerve or was frank with you?

[Weston White]

My God, WTF, why do you bother to post? Seriously? I think you irritate me more than Famspear and LPC combined, at least they occasionally have something worthwhile to read, the sh*t you post is avoid of all logic and purpose, I so which I could IGGY you and your stupid damned posts.

A little upset that he has touched a nerve or was frank with you?

No, not really, besides the complete redundancy of it all. That said, he post makes absolutely not sense, it is utter and complete horseshit. I am sick of coming across the high level of horseshit on this forum. You people are suppose to be actual tax professionals and this is all you have, seriously? Comments about being a first and fourth grader? Are you fricking kidding me? Please somebody tell me there is a joke in there somewhere, anywhere? Because Quatloos is SSWAS!

[Weston White]

So don't keep repeating your crap that all indirect taxes involve governmental privileges or business. Just explain, if you will, why a gratuitous transfer of property can be the subject of an excise, but a transfer of money in consideration of labor can't be.

Would that have not more to do with claiming that something was not taxable for the mere fact that it was a gift or under some contractual agreement? When the case would have otherwise been a legitimate tax upon something? E.g. this land and factory was a gift or inheritance, therefore it is not taxable.

My gibberish-to-English translator isn't working at the moment, so I have no idea what you're trying to say. The only reason gifts and inheritances aren't included in gross income is because the Code specifically excludes them. There's certainly nothing in the Constitution that prevents their being subject to the income tax. Moreover, you've either misunderstood my question or you're evading it. We know from Bromley that a tax on a gratuitous transfer of property is an excise. Why isn't a tax on transfer of property for a consideration (e.g., the payment of wages in consideration for the performance of labor) also an excise?

Because the concept of "taxable activity" isn't to be found in the law of income taxation. It's found only in the patter of con artists looking to make a buck off the gullible and in the delusions of tax deniers.

Yes it is, something has to be taxed, either an article or an activity. You can't just levy a tax on air and you can't just tax, for the purpose of taxing or to prove a point or to set an example or to push an agenda or to punish.

With very few exceptions, the only activity needed for the imposition of the income tax is the receipt of income. (For those who want to cogitate on the handful of transactions that technically don't involve income receipts (except the deemed income the Code imputes) but do still involve an activity of some kind, start with Section 7872.)

Yes, I am well aware that all of you suffer from applying sentence logic. That is why I crafted a complex reply. I did not want to have to bother actually having to thereafter generate another reply to you or anybody else's reply. To sort of cut you all off at the source, while making my point clean and clear for all other readers happening upon this forum. Mission accomplished.

Oh and BTW, to realize income, one first has to engage in some applicable activity or be a qualifying subject. One does not just obtain income without first engaging in an activity of sorts. Geez.

[Duke2Earl]

As far as wining in court I've always said that's not going to happen. There is no doubt any attack on the constitutionality of the income tax will fail. Its clear to me that if one court can claim its constitutional because its a direct tax which no longer requires apportionment due to the 16th and another say its really an excise and not a direct tax and both courts claim the other argument is frivolous then its obvious no matter what you argue its going to lose.

Lord, love a duck. See, there is some connection to actual reality in this world. I do not agree as to why these arguments will not and can not win in court but at least Steve has enough of a connection to actual reality to realize that he has no, nada, zero chance of winning. If only the rest of the wackos could figure that out. Because basically that's all we have been saying all along.

That's the whole and entire point to all of this. You can believe anything you want. You can torture logic all you want. You may even have a point that things should not be this way. But the actual fact is that if you dance with the courts or the IRS and contend that you don't owe income taxes on your wages for whatever reason you like... you will lose... 100% of the time. So your choices are simple. The consequences of losing can be very bad... economic disaster, prison, ending up like the :Browns, etc. If you don't want to have those consequences happen to you... you better come up with a different plan.

[Weston White]

Time to bring the magic triangle back, I know sorry, I have to do it...


ABRACADABRA
ABRACADABR
ABRACADAB
ABRACADA
ABRACAD
ABRACA
ABRAC
ABRA
ABR
AB
A


ABRAC -- 7
A -- 11

ABRA+A = ABRA (ABRA is the eight level of the magic triangle [ABRA -- 8], 8 is the number of being whole and complete; completion)
(7+11)=18 [6+6+6=18]
A=1 B=2 R=18 A=1 + A=1 (22+1=23)
[(2*3=6), 23==32, (2+3=5)||(3+2=5) [The Law of Fives], 23*3=69, 32*3=96, 2/3=.666...7]

Sunday the 7th day of the week, G the 7th letter of the English Alphabet. On Sunday it was chosen by God to be the completion of Earth, he hath created in those 7-days and God decreed as a day of rest. "G" is the crowning centerpiece of the Masonic's under a triangle of femininity. All decry HIRAM ABIF, All decry HIRAM ABIF, All decry HIRAM ABIF.

... And the bad power of the Quatloosian hath at last been exposed & repealed
And the bad power of the Quatloosian hath at last been exposed & repealed
And the bad power of the Quatloosian hath at last been exposed & repealed ...

[ASITStands]

I take it back! Weston has shown a proficiency in fourth-grade math. However, he has yet to show an ability to read or write at the sixth-grade level. Time will tell.

Invoking some sort of numerology under a Masonic cover will get you nowhere, Weston. It's still gonna be "Lien-Levy City" (or worse). Hope you've prepared for unemployment.

Losing your job, your home, your wife and maybe your freedom are the eventual outcomes of your tax theories. There's still time to change your behavior, but time's getting short.

Let us know when you actually come to your senses.

[Nikki]

Weston can't get ANYTHING right. Sunday is not the seventh day of the week.