Weston White and the "Quatpillar" - continued

[Weston White]

Here's an example that shows just how hopelessly wrong you are. Suppose a rich uncle wants to help out his nephew, so he conveys to him producing mineral interests that throw off $10,000 per month in royalties. The nephew sits at home, watching TV all day. Each month, he receives a royalty check. Whether you want to admit it or not, the nephew has indeed realized income (it's not even necessary that he deposit the checks), although he hasn't engaged in any activity whatsoever, except maybe saying "Thank you" to his uncle.

What like a trust? Regardless, it does not matter if somebody else arranges it for you or not, if you accept the payoff you are benefiting from the gain. And an action was made, it was made by somebody else for you, an absurd example really. Though he can choose to accept that gain or not, that is up to him. Accept the gain, you pay the tax, deny the gain, then there is no tax.

[Weston White]

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

ROFLMAO

For brevity:

Monday 1st
Tuesday 2nd
Wednesday 3rd
Thursday 4th
Friday 5th
Saturday 6th
Sunday 7th

Go back to your KJB. God rested on the seventh day after completing his creation work. The seventh day was Saturday, according to His word to the people at that time.

It's really funny how you seem to get EVERYTHING wrong that you touch.

Not, Monday is the first day of the week. We have already been over this. Monday = start of the week and Sunday = close of the week. And repeat... Just another manic Monday... I wish it was a Sunday, that's my FuNdAy... Wednesday is hump day, etc., etc.

I do have a question though, how come besides asking very silly and often trite questions, you have nothing to discuss about taxation and never have responses to those that do answer you rather silly questions? Just throwing that out there for you to mull over.

[SteveSy]

Moreover, if you assume (as the Supreme Court has)* that the only direct taxes under the Constitution are capitations and those that are imposed on the mere ownership of property, then it follows that any other kind of economic activity is reachable via an indirect tax.

I don't believe that is true....for one "economic activity" and ownership of property can go hand in hand. The lines can be so blurred that a capitation or property tax can be laid by merely painting it over as economic activity. The lines used to be pretty clear and it has only been since the inception of the income tax that all kinds of verbal gymnastics have taken place. Again, as I have said before, and its common sense to anyone having an inkling of knowledge of American history, that there's no way the founders would have considered a tax on a person gross revenue, with no limits as to the percentage, an indirect tax. You can pretend to justify it with all kinds of nonsense, but in the end its simply that, nonsense. It's not even really a matter of what the founders said other than the constitutionality of it, besides that its just wrong. Every country, for good reason, that laid these types of taxes back in those days labeled them tyrannical. Taxing a person's means to feed their family is just fundamentally immoral and allows the government laying the tax to far exceed their intended powers. Ever since the inception of the income tax the government has grown exponentially along with its debt. The value of our money has eroded to mere pennies of what it was worth. The value of the dollar slightly changed over 100 years. Since the income tax became the status quo it has done nothing but fall in value for the following 100 years.

[Nikki]

Not, Monday is the first day of the week. We have already been over this. Monday = start of the week and Sunday = close of the week. And repeat... Just another manic Monday... I wish it was a Sunday, that's my FuNdAy... Wednesday is hump day, etc., etc.

I do have a question though, how come besides asking very silly and often trite questions, you have nothing to discuss about taxation and never have responses to those that do answer you rather silly questions? Just throwing that out there for you to mull over.

Perhaps that's true on Planet Weston. However, since you have nothing to support your statement other than your own statement (for a change) you remain in training to upgrade your status to that of designated babbling moron.

In response to your question, since you have nothing significant to discuss regarding taxation, I didn't see any need for anything except to respond to your most inane posts.

[Dr. Caligari]

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.

Exactly right! And the "activity" is (like the activity in Bromley), the act of receiving money.

OMG, why do I even bother? You know you are right... now go on peon, go slip back into your chains of bondage, you serf and get back to work so that your neighbors can profit from the sweat of your brow, go on now, get! Stop staring at your keyboard, get back working you slave, you helot, you lackey, you chattel! Your a trite servant, you drudge!

Translation: "You just proved, by quoting the Supreme Court, that everything I have said about the constitutional scope of the income tax is dead wrong, so I will insult you to try to hide my miserable failings."

Sorry, Weston, it won't work. I will, however, go back to work now. The Government needs my tax dollars to pay for Pete Hendrickson's prison cell.

[Cpt Banjo]

Here's an example that shows just how hopelessly wrong you are. Suppose a rich uncle wants to help out his nephew, so he conveys to him producing mineral interests that throw off $10,000 per month in royalties. The nephew sits at home, watching TV all day. Each month, he receives a royalty check. Whether you want to admit it or not, the nephew has indeed realized income (it's not even necessary that he deposit the checks), although he hasn't engaged in any activity whatsoever, except maybe saying "Thank you" to his uncle.

What like a trust?

I said nothing about a trust; the uncle simply filed a mineral deed conveying his interests to his nephew, who now owns them outright.

Accept the gain, you pay the tax...

Thank you for agreeing with me that the only "activity" necessary for triggering the income tax is the receipt of income.

[ASITStands]

Not, Monday is the first day of the week. We have already been over this. Monday = start of the week and Sunday = close of the week. And repeat... Just another manic Monday... I wish it was a Sunday, that's my FuNdAy... Wednesday is hump day, etc., etc.

Are you suggesting the Nation of Israel and all the Jewish Rabbis through the ages have been wrong about "which" day is the "seventh" day? Does your ignorance know no bounds?

Sunday is the first day of the week and has been for several millennium. Ever since Moses.

[Cpt Banjo]

I don't believe that is true....for one "economic activity" and ownership of property can go hand in hand. The lines can be so blurred that a capitation or property tax can be laid by merely painting it over as economic activity. The lines used to be pretty clear and it has only been since the inception of the income tax that all kinds of verbal gymnastics have taken place.

No, it goes back as far as the Hylton case, where the tax on carriages was held to be an indirect tax. But was the tax on the on the ownership of carriages or their use? And what's the difference? No, this kind of line drawing has been around since the beginning.

[Weston White]

I don't believe that is true....for one "economic activity" and ownership of property can go hand in hand. The lines can be so blurred that a capitation or property tax can be laid by merely painting it over as economic activity. The lines used to be pretty clear and it has only been since the inception of the income tax that all kinds of verbal gymnastics have taken place.

No, it goes back as far as the Hylton case, where the tax on carriages was held to be an indirect tax. But was the tax on the on the ownership of carriages or their use? And what's the difference? No, this kind of line drawing has been around since the beginning.

That was not an income tax, it was an excise tax, specifically a tax upon consumption, and it was on the use of the property not the property itself. E.g. using it on public roads which the government has to upkeep. It words similarly with other taxes, such as succession duties.

[Weston White]

Translation: "You just proved, by quoting the Supreme Court, that everything I have said about the constitutional scope of the income tax is dead wrong, so I will insult you to try to hide my miserable failings."

Sorry, Weston, it won't work. I will, however, go back to work now. The Government needs my tax dollars to pay for Pete Hendrickson's prison cell.

No ding dong, that act is upon receiving money after engaging in a taxable activity, not merely receiving money. And you did not quote, any-tang, if you call that a quote you are grossly mistaken. Frick you are one dumb asstard! Seriously, dude, your are fricking dee-dee-dee!

Especially for you my perpetually stupefied foe:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n0vdDdlnvM

And the abbreviated version for those on a time crunch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy5wNeSPzfQ

[Dr. Caligari]

and it was on the use of the property not the property itself. E.g. using it on public roads which the government has to upkeep.

The federal government kept up public roads in the 1790s? Who knew?

[Dr. Caligari]

No ding dong, that act is upon receiving money after engaging in a taxable activity, not merely receiving money.

Bromley got money as a gift. What taxable activity was he engaged in?

[Weston White]

and it was on the use of the property not the property itself. E.g. using it on public roads which the government has to upkeep.

The federal government kept up public roads in the 1790s? Who knew?

I have no idea, though I do know that carriages need a smooth surface to travel on.

[Weston White]

No ding dong, that act is upon receiving money after engaging in a taxable activity, not merely receiving money.

Bromley got money as a gift. What taxable activity was he engaged in?

I have no idea what you are talking about, so why don't you post the link to the case or at least the case citation?

I suppose it would have a lot to due with what types of gifts and under what circumstances, e.g. was it public officer or corporation, etc..

Though I am not aware of say a requirement to report your birthday, graduation, baby shower, valentine, wedding, Christmas, etc., gifts to the IRS, for example.

[Dr. Caligari]

have no idea what you are talking about, so why don't you post the link to the case or at least the case citation?

The case is here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... &invol=124

I suppose it would have a lot to due with what types of gifts and under what circumstances, e.g. was it public officer or corporation, etc..

No corporate or privileged nexus is required. The Gift tax is explained here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_tax_i ... ted_States

Though I am not aware of say a requirement to report your birthday, graduation, baby shower, valentine, wedding, Christmas, etc., gifts to the IRS, for example.

Most gifts are not taxable, but only because there is a large exemption amount. If someone gave you a million-dollar diamond ring for a birthday present, it would be reportable. The primary obligation to report is on the donor, but if the donor doesn't report the gift and pay the tax, the recipient must.

[Dr. Caligari]

I have no idea, though I do know that carriages need a smooth surface to travel on.

There weren't a lot of smooth roads in the 1790s, which is my most people didn't travel far. Whatever road upkeep was done was done privately or by local governments. There was simply no " federal privilege" involved in the Hylton case.

There is, however, a great deal of federal privilege involved in your private-sector work today. OSHA, a federal agency, protests your safety on the job. Federal law guarantees you the right to collect overtime if you work more than 40 hours a week. Federal laws protect you from racial discrimination in hiring and firing. It's mind-boggling how you will struggle to find non-existent federal privileges in every old Supreme Court case, but insist that your own earnings today-- which are extensively governed by a vast web of federal laws-- have nothing to do with "federal privilege."