Rubbing SteveSy's nose (& Weston White's nose) in Pollock

[Famspear]

From the Pollock case:

But Albert Gallatin, in his "Sketch of the Finances of the United States," published in November, 1796, said:

"The most generally received opinion, however, is that, by direct taxes in the Constitution, those are meant which are raised on the capital or revenue of the people; by indirect, such as are raised on their expense.

[ . . . . ]

He [Gallatin] then quotes from [Adam] Smith's [An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the] Wealth of Nations, and continues:

"The remarkable coincidence of the clause of the Constitution with this passage in using the word 'capitation' as a generic expression, including the different species of direct taxes, an acceptation of the word peculiar, it is believed, to Dr. Smith, leaves little doubt that the framers of the one had the other in view at the time, and that they, as well as he, by direct taxes, meant those paid directly from, and falling immediately on, the revenue, and, by indirect, those which are paid indirectly out of the revenue by falling immediately upon the expense."

3 Gallatin's Writings (Adams' ed.) 74, 75.

I pointed out to SteveSy:

Steve, that's an argument considered by the United States States [sic] Supreme Court in the first Pollock decision, at 157 U.S. 429 (1895).

The Court rejected those arguments!!!!! The Court concluded that, by "direct tax," the Constitution means capitations and taxes on property by reason of ownership. The Court stated that taxes on revenues are indirect taxes -- EXCEPT for taxes on income from property. And, of course, the effect of the Pollock ruling -- treating taxes on income from property as "direct" taxes required to be apportioned -- was overruled by the Sixteenth Amendment.

SteveSy responded with:

Dude, you really need to stop smoking crack. The court did not reject those arguments. They certainly never said they rejected them. In fact they used them to justify the thing that struck the law down as unconstitutional. We would have to assume the court quoted numerous things that show a direct tax includes a tax on income and then rejected them without EVER quoting anything whatsoever to support the claim that it wasn't a direct tax. That's just plain idiotic Famspear...you've topped yourself this time.

Steve then added this:

Mr. Hamilton also argued: 'If the meaning of the word 'excise' is to be sought in a British statute, it will be found to include the duty on carriages, which is there considered as an 'excise.' ... An argument results from this, though not perhaps a conclusive one, yet, where so important ad istinction in the constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived.' 7 Hamilton's Works (Lodge's Ed.) 333.

If the question had related to an income tax, the reference would have been fatal, as such taxes have been always classed by the law of Great Britain as direct taxes.

(bolding added by me).

Steve then writes:

Ummmm, the court is clearly showing Hamilton's reasoning would make the income tax a direct tax. The court never says anything that refutes this in anyway.

[ . . . . ]No, its clear your mind is so warped you see things that aren't there.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4138&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=30

Wrong, Steve. I see the same thing everyone else sees -- everyone who isn't a tax protester, that is. The Court in Pollock rejected the argument that the U.S. federal income tax was, in general, a direct tax. The Court ruled, in two separate rulings, that the only federal income tax to be considered a direct tax would be a tax on income from PROPERTY (interest, dividends, and rent). The Court specifically stated that income taxes on "employments," etc., were excises (indirect taxes). I think we've been through this a thousand times.

The Court stated:

We have considered the act only in respect of the tax on income derived from real estate, and from invested personal property, and have not commented on so much of it as bears on gains or profits from business, privileges, or employments, in view of the instances in which taxation on business, privileges, or employments has assumed the guise of an excise tax and been sustained as such.

--from Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601, 635 (decision on rehearing) (1895).

The Court further stated that if its action, in ruling the 1894 Act to be unconstitutional, were to throw out only the portion of the tax imposed on income from property, the largest part of the tax revenue to be thereafter realized under the Act would have left the burden to be borne by:

[ . . . . ] professions, trades, employments, or vocations; and in that way what was intended as a tax on capital would remain, in substance, a tax on occupations and labor. We cannot believe that such was the intention of congress.

--from Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601, 637 (decision on rehearing) (1895).

The Court then clearly stated that an income tax on businesses, privileges, employments and vocations was an EXCISE -- an INDIRECT TAX:

We do not mean to say that an act laying[,] by apportionment[,] a direct tax on all real estate and personal property, or the income thereof, might not also lay excise taxes on business, privileges, employments, and vocations. But this is not such an act, and the scheme must be considered as a whole. Being invalid as to the greater part, and falling, as the tax would, if any part were held valid, in a direction which could not have been contemplated, except in connection with the taxation considered as an entirety, we are constrained to conclude that sections 27 to 37, inclusive, of the act, which became a law, without the signature of the president, on August 28, 1894, are wholly inoperative and void.

--from Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601, 637 (decision on rehearing) (1895).

Instead of striking down only the portion of the law that imposed the tax on rents, dividends, and interest, the Court thus struck down the entire Act -- but only because the Court reasoned that Congress had not intended for the income tax to be applied only to income from employments, vocations, etc. Clearly (although arguably in the form of dicta) the Court REJECTED the so-called "Gallatin" argument -- the argument that an income tax on the "revenue of the people" was, as a general proposition, a DIRECT tax.

The Court clearly characterized a tax on employments and vocations as being an EXCISE. This is completely inconsistent with Gallatin's view that a tax on the "revenue of the people" was a "direct tax." The ONLY kind of federal income tax ruled by the Pollock Court to be TREATED as a direct tax was the income tax on rents, dividends, and interest.

And the Sixteenth Amendment simply reversed the effect of Pollock by making the direct/indirect debate (for purposes of the apportionment requirement) of ANY kind of federal income tax legally irrelevant.

This is not my imagination, Steve. Your hurling insults at me is ineffective. I'm telling you how the law works. This is how the courts have viewed the Pollock.

[Weston White]

No you are making up things that the court never stated, which is why you are not providing the quotes you are claiming the court has stated... because those quotes do not exist within the case, only within you demented mind. The court was only addressing the matter of what was meant by direct taxation (As in OK the U.S. Constitution say and other direct taxes are to be apportioned, so what exactly does that mean, 'direct taxes'?), in doing so they touched upon the capitation tax as it effects persons. The case was not about laboring, that is not the issues being directly addressed therein. You are way, way, way off base in your wild claims.

The Forefathers did used the same method on indirect taxation by including the catch all or redundant term 'imposts'.

[Famspear]

No you are making up things that the court never stated, which is why you are not providing the quotes you are claiming the court has stated... because those quotes do not exist within the case, only within you demented mind. The court was only addressing the matter of what was meant by direct taxation (As in OK the U.S. Constitution say and other direct taxes are to be apportioned, so what exactly does that mean, 'direct taxes'?), in doing so they touched upon the capitation tax as it effects persons. The case was not about laboring, that is not the issues being directly addressed therein. You are way, way, way off base in your wild claims.

The Forefathers did used the same method on indirect taxation by including the catch all or redundant term 'imposts'.

No, Weston, you are making things up. You are simply lying, and you are trolling. The quotes I provided are direct quotes from the text of the Court's opinion.

You are correct to say that the case was not about "laboring." I'm the one who pointed that out -- see if your expert Legal Mind can re-read my post and figure that out.

Steve's argument was that the Court in Pollock did not reject the Gallatin definition of "direct tax." I pointed out that the Court DID REJECT that definition. I am right. Steve is wrong.

[Imalawman]

But its not as if some non-tax lawyers have gotten it wrong. If you're not a tax lawyer, the issue can seem debatable. Some lesser courts have muddled it up only to have it corrected either on re-hearing or by the superior courts. So, inasmuch as Steve isn't a tax lawyer, it can seem like there's something to debate. Especially considering that some people in the economic sector have been rather loose with the distinction. However, Steve, I re-iterate, the issue really is clear to those of us that have devoted our life's study to tax theory and tax policy.

Pollock really is clearly decided on that point though - income taxes from employment are excises. Steve, feel free to disagree as to taxes on income derived from real property - the issue is still out there on that topic. Largely, I don't care because the 16th amendment makes it a moot point and I have too much on my plate to engage in that type of debate right now.

[LPC]

Gallatin had nothing to do with the creation or ratification of the Constitution, and his ideas were never adopted by the Supreme Court. His views are therefore outside the scope of my FAQ, the purpose of which is not to explain what the law might have been, but what the law actually is.

[GoldandSilverEagles]

I agree the income tax has been ruled an excise tax, however it is treated unlike any other excise tax. Taxes on gasoline, alcohol, tobacco, those are common excise taxes and they are a voluntary tax, as no law requires you to purchase said commodities. Their purchase is 100% voluntary. Thus it can be said that it is a "voluntary" tax. If you choose not to pay the tax, you simply don't purchase said commodities.

Now enter the income tax. It is claimed to be an excise tax. But unlike the voluntary nature of purchasing the above commodities, one has a *need* to work, to support ones family. Is the act of "earning a living" a government privileged activity? I say NO! ~ I say I have a God given *RIGHT* to work, in order to survive and support my family, regardless of where I was born or live.

Or I can choose to engage in the mind f*ck of scamming the American worker by not working and thus not making myself "liable" for this excise tax, if not only reducing my "liability" for this tax. I can choose to become a career welfare recipient and avoid this so-call "privilege" to work by having the government support me.

I don't agree with the latter. But why am I to be continually punished by ongoing legalized government theft when I chose the honorable path of working in order to support my family?

[Judge Roy Bean]

... But why am I to be continually punished by ongoing legalized government theft when I chose the honorable path of working in order to support my family?

Punished? Sure, you're really being punished. I'd love to let you in on some stories about people who are REALLY being taken advantage of.

Guess what, you and everyone else is being taxed the same way and the legality of the method has been well established.

Just because you don't want to carry your own weight while others do doesn't make you right, it only adds to the burden of everyone else.

And it really pi**e* me off when fools such as yourself try to lure people into solving their perceived problems with schemes that make their lives even worse, so if you get punished for breaking the law and it helps prove to other potential fools that signing on for a nut-ball tax scheme is folly, so be it.

[GoldandSilverEagles]

... But why am I to be continually punished by ongoing legalized government theft when I chose the honorable path of working in order to support my family?

Punished? Sure, you're really being punished. I'd love to let you in on some stories about people who are REALLY being taken advantage of.

Guess what, you and everyone else is being taxed the same way and the legality of the method has been well established.

And you forgot to say 'only in a quatloos frame of mind'.

Just because cause you don't want to carry your own weight while others do doesn't make you right, it only adds to the burden of everyone else.

Intelligent well esteemed people dont want to carry the 'fair share' of those who see themselves as slaves, in the servitude of an out of control (federal) government. I choose not to think with the slave mentality that you have settled for.

My "fair share" is paid every time I pay excise taxes at the point of purchase.

And it really pi**e* me off when fools such as yourself try to lure people into solving their perceived problems with schemes that make their lives even worse, so if you get punished for breaking the law and it helps prove to other potential fools that signing on for a nut-ball tax scheme is folly, so be it.

Such is the attitude of a well conditioned and obedient slave.

Btw...You forgot to say "Sieg Heil", "Heil Hiltler" saluting your total loyalty to you're Government Masters at the end of your post.

[GoldandSilverEagles]

Depends AuAG, do you and your family enjoy travelling along any number of inter and intrastate roads? Fly anywhere?

And I pay *plenty* of excise taxes in the process.

If you are a boater, do you take comfort that there is always a group of people ready to rescue you if you get into trouble on the ocean or the Great Lakes?

I don't do boating and thus am not subject to it's (excise) taxation.

t a boater Enjoy camping and various natural parks?

Last time I visited a 'national' park, the attendants charged a fee to get it Tarzan.

Well then bunky, why the kvetching about paying taxes? Your taxes, as well as mine and everyone elses' helps support these fine programs and agencies - national roads, air traffic control, USCG and USFS respectively.

As usual your bitching about programs not supported by the income tax under the guise that I'm anti taxation. I am not. I pay every tax I am required by law to pay. Nor am I 'anti-government'. However, I am anti-government fraud.

Or, if you were to be completely honest, is it that you dislike the level of taxes you are paying?

No.

Or is it that you dislike how the government spends those tax dollars? Or a combination of the two. If so, that is a completely different kettle of fish.

i cannot control how the feds spend the FRN's collected from every gallon of petrol I pump, or from every bottle of alcohol I partake in. I am against paying for something i am not required by Congress to pay.

[Weston White]

No you are making up things that the court never stated, which is why you are not providing the quotes you are claiming the court has stated... because those quotes do not exist within the case, only within you demented mind. The court was only addressing the matter of what was meant by direct taxation (As in OK the U.S. Constitution say and other direct taxes are to be apportioned, so what exactly does that mean, 'direct taxes'?), in doing so they touched upon the capitation tax as it effects persons. The case was not about laboring, that is not the issues being directly addressed therein. You are way, way, way off base in your wild claims.

The Forefathers did used the same method on indirect taxation by including the catch all or redundant term 'imposts'.

No, Weston, you are making things up. You are simply lying, and you are trolling. The quotes I provided are direct quotes from the text of the Court's opinion.

You are correct to say that the case was not about "laboring." I'm the one who pointed that out -- see if your expert Legal Mind can re-read my post and figure that out.

Steve's argument was that the Court in Pollock did not reject the Gallatin definition of "direct tax." I pointed out that the Court DID REJECT that definition. I am right. Steve is wrong.

These subjects, in 1798, 1813, 1815, 1816, were lands, improvements, dwelling houses, and slaves, and, in 1861, lands, improvements, and dwelling houses only. Under the act of 1798, slaves were assessed at fifty cents on each; under the other acts, according to valuation by assessors."

"This review shows that personal property, contracts, occupations, and the like have never been regarded by Congress as proper subjects of direct tax. It has been supposed that slaves must be considered as an exception to this observation. But the exception is rather apparent than real. As persons, slaves were proper subjects of a capitation tax, which is described in the Constitution as a direct tax; as property, they were, by the laws of some, if not most, of the States classed as real property, descendible to heirs. Under the first view, they would be subject to the tax of 1798, as a capitation tax; under the latter, they would be subject to the taxation of the other years as realty.

...And what were slaves, they were a laboring class only taxable under a direct tax, as a form of property. Though the products they produced or created could be taxed indirectly.


Never was the meaning of capitation taxes or for that matter poll taxes challenged as understood, conceptually or otherwise.

Exhibit A - http://defendindependence.org/OIF/BLD.PDF

Case closed.

[Weston White]

Gallatin had nothing to do with the creation or ratification of the Constitution, and his ideas were never adopted by the Supreme Court. His views are therefore outside the scope of my FAQ, the purpose of which is not to explain what the law might have been, but what the law actually is.

His ideas were in complete accord with everybody's ideas also quoted within that case. The Justices did not include that information for no reason or just to cause confusion or to toy with peoples heads. It was done for a reason, they were seeking absolute clarification on the issues at bar. What do you think the Justices said to themselves, oh we know much more about taxation than Gallatin, he was must have been a moron, we therefore discard all of his writings, and Smith... and Cooley... and all of those in Congress, they must have all been stupid, stupid, stupid! The fact is your FAQ is entirely incorrect regarding this issue.

[Famspear]

Gallatin had nothing to do with the creation or ratification of the Constitution, and his ideas were never adopted by the Supreme Court. His views are therefore outside the scope of my FAQ, the purpose of which is not to explain what the law might have been, but what the law actually is.

His ideas were in complete accord with everybody's ideas also quoted within that case. The Justices did not include that information for no reason or just to cause confusion or to toy with peoples heads. It was done for a reason, they were seeking absolute clarification on the issues at bar. What do you think the Justices said to themselves, oh we know much more about taxation than Gallatin, he was must have been a moron, we therefore discard all of his writings, and Smith... and Cooley... and all of those in Congress, they must have all been stupid, stupid, stupid! The fact is your FAQ is entirely incorrect regarding this issue.

Weston, this part is actually correct:

The Justices did not include that information for no reason or just to cause confusion or to toy with peoples heads. It was done for a reason, they were seeking absolute clarification on the issues at bar.

We've been through this before: When a court issues a written opinion explaining its decision, the court lists the arguments -- often the arguments on both sides. The court then makes a decision -- which generally means that the court rejects one side's arguments.

I believe you have made this argument before: that if the court mentions an argument in its opinion, the court must somehow be accepting that argument. That's just stupid.

On this, you are wrong.

Weston, how many actual court cases have you read? Or are you still copying and pasting excerpts from tax protester web sites?

As I noted above, Gallatin wrote that a direct tax was a tax on the revenue of the people. Tax protesters in general use Gallatin's argument to argue that an income tax is a direct tax for purposes of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court in Pollock clearly rejected the Gallatin proposition as a general proposition. I've already provide you with the quotes, and yet (as usual) you simply ignore what the Court stated.

Perhaps you should actually read the Pollock cases. If you've already read them, then re-read them.

And, another comment about a prior posting of yours: Stop the trollish behavior. When I give you a quote from case, that's a quote from the case --and it's a quote in context. In that situation, don't contradict me; don't falsely accuse me of planting false quotes. You were caught doing that with Lucas v. Earl. Don't you falsely accuse others of doing what you clearly did yourself. And don't launch into another "defense" of your behavior, Weston.

[GoldandSilverEagles]

As usual your bitching about programs not supported by the income tax under the guise that I'm anti taxation. I am not. I pay every tax I am required by law to pay. Nor am I 'anti-government'. However, I am anti-government fraud. Fair enough. I do not think any here would say there is no fraud or waste in government - or in any really large organization for that matter.

I'm rather surprised! You actually do have some words of reason.

Or is it that you dislike how the government spends those tax dollars? Or a combination of the two. If so, that is a completely different kettle of fish.

i cannot control how the feds spend the FRN's collected from every gallon of petrol I pump, or from every bottle of alcohol I partake in. I am against paying for something i am not required by Congress to pay. One caveat for you. If I understand your position, you feel that you are not required by Congress to pay an income tax because Congress does require that you do so. Now, you do realize that similar positions have been argued for somewhere around 90 years in the courts and found wanting each and every time. I am sure a number of folks are curious as to why you think Congress does not require you to pay an income tax.

For the sake of this debate let's say Congress has passed a law enacting the income tax. How do I fall within their jurisdiction? I don't live or work on federal property, I do not work for a company that contracts or subcontracts with the feds, so where did they get the jurisdiction to tax the fruits of my labors?

One argument is that I was born within one of the 50 union states and that makes me a "US citizen" and thus one of their many "subjects" (translation: "slaves"). If such is true, how did Congress gain jurisdiction over me in that I wasn't born on federal property or a federal territory? Why would I not be an 'American National' since I was born in North America?

[Nikki]

For the sake of this debate let's say Congress has passed a law enacting the income tax. How do I fall within their jurisdiction? I don't live or work on federal property, I do not work for a company that contracts or subcontracts with the feds, so where did they get the jurisdiction to tax the fruits of my labors?

One argument is that I was born within one of the 50 union states and that makes me a "US citizen" and thus one of their many "subjects" (translation: "slaves"). If such is true, how did Congress gain jurisdiction over me in that I wasn't born on federal property or a federal territory? Why would I not be an 'American National' since I was born in North America?

The exact same way that a foreign tourist falls under the jurisdiction of federal laws if he decides to transport a child across state lines to sell her into prostitution.

Go back to your GED course and try, again, to pass the Civics section.

[The Operative]

For the sake of this debate let's say Congress has passed a law enacting the income tax. How do I fall within their jurisdiction? I don't live or work on federal property, I do not work for a company that contracts or subcontracts with the feds, so where did they get the jurisdiction to tax the fruits of my labors?

One argument is that I was born within one of the 50 union states and that makes me a "US citizen" and thus one of their many "subjects" (translation: "slaves"). If such is true, how did Congress gain jurisdiction over me in that I wasn't born on federal property or a federal territory? Why would I not be an 'American National' since I was born in North America?

Nothing to debate.

Every citizen of a State is a subject of two distinct sovereignties, having concurrent jurisdiction in the State,-concurrent as to place and persons, though distinct as to subject-matter.” - Claflin v. Houseman, 93 U.S. 130, 136 (1876)

You should also read http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#individualpower and http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#federalareas

[SteveSy]

We have considered the act only in respect of the tax on income derived from real estate, and from invested personal property, and have not commented on so much of it as bears on gains or profits from business, privileges, or employments, in view of the instances in which taxation on business, privileges, or employments has assumed the guise of an excise tax and been sustained as such.

--from Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601, 635 (decision on rehearing) (1895).

Famspear you make the same mistake every other TA does because you squint your eyes really, really hard and see what you want to see rather than what they said.

First off, what does "and have not commented" mean to you. To a sane person that means they have no commented on those types of taxes, meaning they didn't reject arguments for or against them.

Second, and here's the most important part...its taxes "ON" employments, not income from employments. A tax on employments is an excise and always has been its called a license tax. The last tax law, which I posted here prior specifically used that phrasing, tax on employments, and it was a license tax.

The Court further stated that if its action, in ruling the 1894 Act to be unconstitutional, were to throw out only the portion of the tax imposed on income from property, the largest part of the tax revenue to be thereafter realized under the Act would have left the burden to be borne by:

[ . . . . ] professions, trades, employments, or vocations; and in that way what was intended as a tax on capital would remain, in substance, a tax on occupations and labor. We cannot believe that such was the intention of congress.

--from Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601, 637 (decision on rehearing) (1895).

Oh boy you're a star today! No duh, what does that have to do with anything? So what that proves nothing other than the court saying we're gonna strike the entire law down. It certainly doesn't mean they supported the other part of the law, it wasn't "commented on" remember?

The Court then clearly stated that an income tax on businesses, privileges, employments and vocations was an EXCISE -- an INDIRECT TAX:

We do not mean to say that an act laying[,] by apportionment[,] a direct tax on all real estate and personal property, or the income thereof, might not also lay excise taxes on business, privileges, employments, and vocations. But this is not such an act, and the scheme must be considered as a whole. Being invalid as to the greater part, and falling, as the tax would, if any part were held valid, in a direction which could not have been contemplated, except in connection with the taxation considered as an entirety, we are constrained to conclude that sections 27 to 37, inclusive, of the act, which became a law, without the signature of the president, on August 28, 1894, are wholly inoperative and void.

--from Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601, 637 (decision on rehearing) (1895).

What they are saying is the same thing they said above, they haven't considered the matter in order to make such a ruling. What they do know is that a tax "ON" business and employments in the past have been held as excises, otherwise known as a license tax.

Instead of striking down only the portion of the law that imposed the tax on rents, dividends, and interest, the Court thus struck down the entire Act -- but only because the Court reasoned that Congress had not intended for the income tax to be applied only to income from employments, vocations, etc. Clearly (although arguably in the form of dicta) the Court REJECTED the so-called "Gallatin" argument -- the argument that an income tax on the "revenue of the people" was, as a general proposition, a DIRECT tax.

There you go manifesting that delusion again....the court said no such thing. What they clearly said, and this doesn't require your special ability to interpret things that aren't there, they haven't commented on it. The court was not going to make rulings on issues not before them. The Supreme Court doesn't do that, you and I both know that, except maybe in dicta. They had no choice in their mind however but to strike the entire act down because the act was not intended to exist in only half its form. A little know trivia is that there was a case going to be heard concerning income from employments and the like but it was moot once the entire act was struck down.

The Court clearly characterized a tax on employments and vocations as being an EXCISE. This is completely inconsistent with Gallatin's view that a tax on the "revenue of the people" was a "direct tax." The ONLY kind of federal income tax ruled by the Pollock Court to be TREATED as a direct tax was the income tax on rents, dividends, and interest.

Man you even rewrote it and still pass over it. Its a tax on employments Famspear. A general income tax isn't on employments its on the income of the person who has it.

Here is what the said in the previous case:

Excises are a species of tax consisting generally of duties laid upon the manufacture, sale, or consumption of commodities within the country, or upon certain callings or occupations, often taking the form of exactions for licenses to pursue them. The taxes created by the law under consideration, as applied to savings banks, insurance companies, whether of fire, life, or marine, to building or other associations, or to the conduct of any other kind of business, are excise taxes, and fall within the requirement, so far as they are laid by congress, that they must be uniform throughout the United States.

That is perfectly consistent with what they said in the next case. Also notice not once do they mention excises include taxes on income FROM employment. Not even when they specifically say "as applied to". That was their perfect chance to reject all the arguments saying a general income tax is a direct tax and not an excise. Instead they mysteriously left that out when they declared what an excise could tax.

As I said before you see what you want to see rather than what they said....keep partaking in the koolaid though, its amusing to watch the effects on that pea of yours.

[Cpt Banjo]

The Court further stated that if its action, in ruling the 1894 Act to be unconstitutional, were to throw out only the portion of the tax imposed on income from property, the largest part of the tax revenue to be thereafter realized under the Act would have left the burden to be borne by:

[ . . . . ] professions, trades, employments, or vocations; and in that way what was intended as a tax on capital would remain, in substance, a tax on occupations and labor. We cannot believe that such was the intention of congress.

--from Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601, 637 (decision on rehearing) (1895).

Oh boy you're a star today! No duh, what does that have to do with anything? So what that proves nothing other than the court saying we're gonna strike the entire law down. It certainly doesn't mean they supported the other part of the law, it wasn't "commented on" remember?

The reason the Court is giving for its ruling on the severance issue is that (a) if the tax on investment income were thrown out, the tax burden would be borne by those paying taxes on their wages and personal earnings , and (b) this result was not intended by Congress. Clause (a) clearly reflects the assumption that a tax on personal earnings is constitutional. If the Court didn't think so, why in the world did it say what it did?

They had no choice in their mind however but to strike the entire act down because the act was not intended to exist in only half its form.

Read the Court's reasoning again: the "half" that the Court felt wasn't intended by Congress to bear the tax burden was the tax on wages and personal earnings.

Here is what the [sic] said in the previous case:

Excises are a species of tax consisting generally of duties laid upon the manufacture, sale, or consumption of commodities within the country, or upon certain callings or occupations, often taking the form of exactions for licenses to pursue them. The taxes created by the law under consideration, as applied to savings banks, insurance companies, whether of fire, life, or marine, to building or other associations, or to the conduct of any other kind of business, are excise taxes, and fall within the requirement, so far as they are laid by congress, that they must be uniform throughout the United States.

That is perfectly consistent with what they said in the next case. Also notice not once do they mention excises include taxes on income FROM employment. Not even when they specifically say "as applied to". That was their perfect chance to reject all the arguments saying a general income tax is a direct tax and not an excise. Instead they mysteriously left that out when they declared what an excise could tax.

They left out a lot of other kinds of excises, which doesn't mean those other kinds don't exist (e.g., succession taxes and the general income tax of the Civil War). Moreover, Stevie's inconsistency is showing-- he's saying that if the Court felt that a general income tax wasn't a direct tax, it should have said so even though that wasn't the issue before it. Yet if he were asked why the Court didn't overrule Springer if it thought a general income tax was a direct tax, he'd say because that issue wasn't before it.

[SteveSy]

The reason the Court is giving for its ruling on the severance issue is that (a) if the tax on investment income were thrown out, the tax burden would be borne by those paying taxes on their wages and personal earnings , and (b) this result was not intended by Congress. Clause (a) clearly reflects the assumption that a tax on personal earnings is constitutional. If the Court didn't think so, why in the world did it say what it did?

The court simply did not consider the matter. They aren't going to automatically assume something isn't constitutional.

We do not mean to say that an act laying[,] by apportionment[,] a direct tax on all real estate and personal property, or the income thereof, might not also lay excise taxes on business, privileges, employments, and vocations. But this is not such an act, and the scheme must be considered as a whole.

Clearly the court is just saying it wasn't intended so they're killing the entire act. You're making assumption that A implies B when no inference is needed.

They had no choice in their mind however but to strike the entire act down because the act was not intended to exist in only half its form.

Read the Court's reasoning again: the "half" that the Court felt wasn't intended by Congress to bear the tax burden was the tax on wages and personal earnings.

And? Yes they tried to tax earnings so what? The issue was not before the court income from property was. The court made no determination one way or the other as it relates to income from employments. What the court said in the quote above where they said:

We have considered the act only in respect of the tax on income derived from real estate, and from invested personal property, and have not commented on so much of it as bears on gains or profits from business, privileges, or employments, in view of the instances in which taxation on business, privileges, or employments has assumed the guise of an excise tax and been sustained as such.

Is in light of the fact that taxes "on" employments, generally in the form of licenses, have been sustained as excises that might not also tax the income generated from that employment. It was well established that once the privilege was identified the measure could be anything. However, in this case the court saw fit to resort to the source, which happened to be property, in order to determine if it was direct or not.

They left out a lot of other kinds of excises, which doesn't mean those other kinds don't exist (e.g., succession taxes and the general income tax of the Civil War). Moreover, Stevie's inconsistency is showing-- he's saying that if the Court felt that a general income tax wasn't a direct tax, it should have said so even though that wasn't the issue before it. Yet if he were asked why the Court didn't overrule Springer if it thought a general income tax was a direct tax, he'd say because that issue wasn't before it.

No ding dong, if what you said is true and the court rejected all of the arguments then certainly they would have said so when the described an excise tax. They didn't so therefore they didn't reject them. All of those taxes you said aren't listed are, for instance an inheritance tax is a tax on the privilege. Legally transferring property from one owner to another is a state created privilege. The SC has stated this very clearly.

[Imalawman]

Steve, I've forgotten your point, its been while....so what if a tax on incomes is a direct tax?
(I think you're just misreading pollock and there's nothing I can do to change your mind)

[Famspear]

Bonjour SteveSy! The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit:

....[the taxpayer] relies on the case of Pollock v. Farmer's Loan and Trust Co., 157 U. S. 429 (initial decision), 158 U. S. 601 (decision on rehearing) (1895), wherein the United States Supreme Court held that a tax upon income from real and personal property is invalid in the absence of apportionment.

In making his argument that Congress lacks constitutional authority to impose a tax on wages without apportionment among the States, the appellant [taxpayer] has chosen to ignore the precise holding of the Court in Pollock, as well as the development of constitutional law in this area over the last ninety years. While ruling that a tax upon income from real and personal property is invalid in the absence of apportionment, the Supreme Court explicitly stated that taxes on income from one's employment are not direct taxes and are not subject to the necessity of apportionment. Pollock v. Farmer's Loan and Trust Co., 158 U. S. at 635.

--from Ficalora v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 85, 85-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶9103 (2d Cir. 1984) (emphasis added).

So, if I were to go into a federal court in an actual case and I were to cite Pollock, whose interpretation of Pollock would I be required to use -- under the U.S. legal system?

Multiple choice:

A. The interpretation of SteveSy? (as in, "Your Honor, SteveSy says so") or

B. The interpretation of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit?

Je frotterai ton nez dans le Pollock encore, Stevie!