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

[SteveSy]

Re Hylton: are you suggesting that the mere use of my own property involves a privilege? Who knew?

Never said excises only tax privileges. In the Hylton case it was a tax on the use of carriages. There's not enough information about that case to see exactly what was being taxed. I've read many things from Hamilton and various others but it seems it comes down to taxing the use. I have a hard time believing the federal government taxed all carriages during that period. It would have been virtually impossible back then considering many people were likely way off in the woods.

Your analogy is inapposite, btw. Registering cars is for the privilege of driving on public highways. As long as I don't drive on the public highway, I needn't register my car. The carriage tax, on the other hand, didn't require any such connection. It reached, among others, any carriage kept by someone for his own use, and it didn't matter whether he drove it on a public road or just around his farm.

Again, it was considered a tax on the use of something. It was reasoned that it was an article of consumption. At least that's how some reasoned it.

The important part in that case specifically says:

Indirect taxes are circuitous modes of reaching the revenue of individuals, who generally live according to their income.

Hylton v. U.S.

That pretty much destroys any argument that indirect taxes can tax income generally.

I mean come on the very use of the words tell you what they tax. Indirect taxes tax people indirectly, direct taxes tax people directly.

[Quixote]

My guess is you'll avoid showing where and try another one of your silly tactics of shifting the argument.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Tell me how the quote I posted is out of context.

I already did. I'll do it again. Your Keasley quote is clearly out of context because it ends in mid-sentence without elipses. The context is relevant because in context it is clear that the court used the phrase "direct tax on income" to mean a tax on income itself as opposed to a tax on something else measured by income. That has nothing to do with the meaning of the phrase "direct tax" as used in the constitution.

[Weston White]

Also SteveSy made a good point bringing up the issue of what are considered the franchise tax, occupation tax, and license tax. They are all varied forms of excise taxes, just as the income tax is, though to date the income tax has basically become a concatenation of many classes of such individual excise taxes. Though they are not to be confused with what are excise taxes on articles of commerce such as BATFE or what are moreover duties, though also title as excises such as gift or succession taxes. The real meat of the argument is Subtitle A, the income tax as originally intended and which has become obfuscated over time, to some generic catch phrase, designed only to cause confusion and chaos in the lives of all that encounter it.

As well it is important to keep in mind that the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909 was merged into Title 26, just as Title 27 has been merged into Title 26, therefore when reviewing statutes within Subtitle F, the rulemaking authorities for those statutes needs to also be cross-referenced so as to ensure the section applies to the originating Title 26 statutes. Most of those Subtitle F statutes apply solely to Title 27 and not Title 26.

Again notice that never in those cases do they directly or outright state taxing labor is an intended consideration of the income tax. That only is the income gained from "professions" and "vocations" or from labor [as in Springer for example, an attorney dealing with bonds and a few other SCOTUS cases where employees or more correctly corporate officers that were paid with stocks as rewards or motivational incentives for their work with the company] taxable under the income tax.

The moral being that never were the franchise tax, occupation tax, license tax, etc., an issue concerning indirect taxation. The issues always pertain to the taxing of the gains and profits [the income] from property of various forms, be they real or personal. Not the fact that they have such property (excluding the Hylton case), but because they profited from the property itself, those varying forms of property, be they rents, bonds, stocks, dividends received, their wealth was essentially increased or made better from some form of corporate structure.

Such activities, such stock, such capital serves to made persons that were already whole better off, more "well to do". As opposed to those laboring commonly for their core sustenance, who are seeking simply just to be made whole. That is the unavoidable distinction between revenue and income.

The use of incomes derived from personal services must be kept in context to its originating purpose, which was to essentially lay varied forms of franchise, occupation, license taxes. Such a context is by no means all inclusive, all empowering, all encompassing. Not by any means.

[SteveSy]

My guess is you'll avoid showing where and try another one of your silly tactics of shifting the argument.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Tell me how the quote I posted is out of context.

I already did. I'll do it again. Your Keasley quote is clearly out of context because it ends in mid-sentence without elipses. The context is relevant because in context it is clear that the court used the phrase "direct tax on income" to mean a tax on income itself as opposed to a tax on something else measured by income. That has nothing to do with the meaning of the phrase "direct tax" as used in the constitution.

Whatever...not that it matters. It wasn't out of context. I'll play your silly little game though one more time. Here then:

Francisco's challenge is premised upon two theories: (1) the income tax is an indirect tax; and (2) income received in exchange for labor or services is not income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment.

The cases cited by Francisco clearly establish that the income tax is a direct tax, thus refuting the argument based upon his first theory. See Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1, 19, 36 S. Ct. 236, 242, 60 L. Ed. 493 (1916)

- United States v. Francisco, 614 F.2d 617 (8th Cir. 02/06/1980)

The point being of course the courts are so inconsistent there's no sense in using them as an authority in order to determine what the tax is. But being the king of diversion I'm sure you'll try some feeble attempt to say the court really meant to say something other than what it clearly said.

[Quixote]

Whatever...not that it matters. I'll play your silly little game one more time

There he goes again, shifting the argument. Steve, the question was whether or not you quote out of context. As you have conceded, I proved that you have done so at least once. The question is now settled, so I have no idea what silly game you are playing.

[Famspear]

The point being of course the courts are so inconsistent .....

Yes, the courts are inconsistent.....

there's no sense in using them as an authority in order to determine what the tax is.

A non sequitur.

Somehow the U.S. legal system has operated this way -- with all these inconsistent cases -- since the late 18th Century.

[Quixote]

The point being of course the courts are so inconsistent there's no sense in using them as an authority in order to determine what the tax is.

The income tax is a tax on income. Why would I need a court to tell me that?

The income tax is either a direct tax or an indirect tax. Either way, it's constitutional, so I don't need a court to tell me which class it's in to settle that issue.

[Weston White]

Hylton: are you suggesting that the mere use of my own property involves a privilege? Who knew?

Yup, for example that is why you pay to register your vehicle every year. The tax is on the use and not the ownership of it.

Taxes of this sort have been repeatedly sustained by this Court, and distinguished from direct taxes under the Constitution. As in <|3 Dall. 171|>Hylton v. United States, 3 Dall. 171, on the use of carriages; …

Thomas v. United States, 192 U.S. 363 (1904)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/192/363/case.html

“The defined concept of income has been uniformly restricted to a gain realized or a profit derived from capital, labor, or both.”

Oh my, you mean to say that the term income has a realized scope and context after all, it does not mean the Alpha and Omega as you Quatloosians claim it does! What a revelation!

“The Supreme Court, without advancing any precise definition of the term "income tax", has unmistakably determined that taxes imposed on subjects other than income, e.g., franchises, privileges, etc., are not income taxes, although measured on the basis of income.”

“The court in Keasbey was just saying that an income tax is a tax on income, not a tax on something else, but which uses income as the measure of the tax.”

WOW! That is in perfect accord with:

"The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income [earnings] as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax."
House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, page 2580 [F. Morse Hubbard, legislative draftsman for the United States Treasury Department - testifying before Congress]

[Duke2Earl]

This is old....We've done this so many times its like regurgitation.

No, these arguments will not win in court. No surprise there, they are hand picked by the very people wanting the tax.

You've established that history does not matter and anything that was said during the adoption of the constitution by the founders is meaningless. The only thing that matters is what a hand picked judge says 200 years later. That's you choice....its not mine. This is why I've mainly stuck to ranting and raving at least people have a little closer connection to reality there.

Have fun.

There is actually, behind the venom, an important point here that is the real practical key to what many of us have been saying all along. If you make these arguments you will lose 100% of the time. The reason you lose may be what Steve says they are or the reason you lose may be that that Steve is wrong but that really doesn't matter all that much. What does matter is that you will lose.... each and every time.

I have been a tax attorney for 35 years. My job is to basically predict the future. If someone comes to me with an argument regarding taxes, it is my job to predict how that argument will fare in court. I need to tell my clients what will happen to them if they take a certain position to the best of my ability. That's what I am paid for.

The problem with the arguments Steve makes (and the gibberish Weston prattles on about) is that they are stone cold losers... 100% of the time. It really doesn't matter one fig what the 18th century folks said or didn't say... they are still going to lose. Personally, I believe that on balance the arguments in favor of the constitutionality of the income tax are considerably stronger than the arguments Steve makes. I, after considering this at length, cannot get over the fact of the 16th amendment and the clear wording of that amendment. But that doesn't matter all that much either. The one and only fact that matters is not what I think, not what Steve thinks, but what the courts think. If Steve is right, the courts are corrupt, I don't agree, but even if he is right that doesn't matter either because under our system the courts are all we've got.

The point is that if you don't pay income tax you will lose in court. And the consequences of losing in court are painful and severe. If you want to go through that, who am I to stop you? All I can do warn you. Sane people try to avoid those kinds of consequences. Some wackos seem to equate masochism with patriotism. So be it. Don't say you weren't warned.

[Weston White]

Wow, congratulations, what a total BS job! Though I imagine you are quite proud of yourself. Though in reality that is a total waste of college degree, that is of course presuming you even have one. See I could never do something like that, even if I did have a the required training, I just don't have it in me. Just like being a lobbyist or a meter maid/parking enforcement officer for example, I would never do something like that. The idea of it all just makes me feel sick inside.

Though I would wager there are no such cases dealing with taxing labor and bringing up the concern regarding direct taxation for a very simple reason, the cases are either sealed to keep their outcome from the eyes of the public or such cases never made it to court being either dropped or settled to keep the public from learning the actual truth. Otherwise, surely there would be dozens upon dozens of such cases just as there are with other similar issues that had been raised throughout history, especially when considering the ratios involved. It makes no sense for so many people to complain about being taxed on various forms of property all the while caring less that their core assets are being taxed... especially being that during this period of time all of the respected works specifically state that taxing labor is a direct tax.

Now fast forward 100-years and we have a government that has literally designed their own meaning to what direct and indirect taxation means and are peddling that crap to teachers and children over Internet training modules.

[LPC]

I have been a tax attorney for 35 years. My job is to basically predict the future. If someone comes to me with an argument regarding taxes, it is my job to predict how that argument will fare in court. I need to tell my clients what will happen to them if they take a certain position to the best of my ability. That's what I am paid for.

“The prophecies of what the courts will do in fact and nothing more pretentious are what I mean by the law.” Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., The Paths of the Law (1897).

[LPC]

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?

Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 8, clause 1.

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").

Citizenship would be important only if you were not a resident of the United States and your income came from sources outside of the United States. See Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47 (1924).

The Constitution gives Congress the power to impose taxes within the United States. You are therefore within the "jurisdiction" of Congress if you are within one of the States of the United States.

“The 8th section of the 1st article gives to Congress the ‘power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,’ for the purposes thereinafter mentioned. This grant is general, without limitation as to place. It, consequently, extends to all places over which the government extends. If this could be doubted, the doubt is removed by the subsequent words which modify the grant. These words are, ‘but all duties, imposts, and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United States.’ It will not be contended that the modification of the power extends to places to which the power itself does not extend. The power then to lay and collect duties, imposts, and excises, may be exercised, and must be exercised throughout the United States. Does this term designate the whole, or any particular portion of the American empire? Certainly this question can admit of but one answer. It is the name given to our great republic, which is composed of States and territories.”

Loughborough v. Blake, 18 U.S. (Wheat.) 317, 318-319 (1820), (Chief Justice Marshall, writing for a unanimous court; emphasis added).

[Weston White]

for the purposes thereinafter mentioned.

That is key and that is why a tax upon laboring or money from laboring is not even needed. Fact is the federal government has been grossly overstepping its taxing needs and has come to be only self-serving.

... to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; ...

AI,S8,C1

Furthermore:

No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.

AI,S10,C1

Preamble

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[Nikki]

Excellent, Polly, now do you understand what that means?

[SteveSy]

If Steve is right, the courts are corrupt, I don't agree, but even if he is right that doesn't matter either because under our system the courts are all we've got.

After thinking about this over the last several years I don't believe its a matter of corruption, like I said earlier I think its a matter of unintentional bias on the courts behalf.

There is no doubt that if we had a very conservative congress for 30 years there wouldn't be anything left of substantive due process, in other words abortion wouldn't be a right anymore. This is due to the way the government gets to hand pick the judges. If there is anything that is flawed in the constitution that's one of them IMO. Though I don't even know if it is a constitutional problem, more of an ethics issue. Congress shouldn't get to probe appointees like they do, it allows for strategic manipulation of the legal system. Its simply common sense that if you get to hand select who will be the judges of your own game then in the end you will win and the opposing party will lose, in this case the people's and the State's constitutional rights.

If for instance we had a Supreme Court like the one from the 30's in Washington State its likely we wouldn't have an income tax now, it would be unconstitutional. When you watch the confirmation hearings and the nonsense they bring up from 30 years ago its really no wonder we are where we are today. Its no wonder the government is able to get away with almost everything that used to be clearly unconstitutional, especially concerning State's rights.

This isn't corruption per se, it's just a matter of selective reasoning. If both parties in congress are in agreement on a issue its a sure bet that it will be upheld as constitutional in the courts, regardless if it is or not.

I think an election for candidates to sit on the Supreme Court would be a good idea by popular vote and appointees to the lower courts done by the State legislatures.

[GoldandSilverEagles]

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?

Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 8, clause 1.

Dude, nowhere does that clause specifically make Americans working on non-federal land/property liable for the income tax, which was the basis of my question above.

Question: Why is it touted that indian reservations are on "federal land...within federal jurisdiction" if all of the land within the 50 union states is federal land/ jurisdiction? That makes absolutely no sense.

It's not the land that is within federal jurisdiction, it's ***activities*** that are on the land that fall within fed jurisdiction, such as commerce across state lines, one example being the US Mail, Fedex, UPS.(Rumor has it that Fedex and UPS are merging into another company...'Fedup'! lol)

I will deal with the rest of your post later....BTW....Look up "United States" in blacks law. How many definitions do you find?

[LPC]

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?

Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 8, clause 1.

Dude, nowhere does that clause specifically make Americans working on non-federal land/property liable for the income tax, which was the basis of my question above.

Where does that clause specifically make Americans working on non-federal land/property NOT liable for the income tax?

There is nothing in the Constitution that "specifically" allows Congress to tax whiskey, gasoline, gifts, or estates, and yet Congress has done all of those things also.

The only exemption from tax in the Constitution is that Congress cannot tax exports. It was recognized during the debates on the ratification of the Constitution, and it has been confirmed in numerous Supreme Court decisions since then, that the federal power to tax can be imposed on ANYTHING within the states of the United States, subject only to the requirement that direct taxes be apportioned and other taxes be uniform.

For example:

“It is true that the power of Congress to tax is a very extensive power. It is given in the Constitution with only one exception and only two qualifications. Congress cannot tax exports, and it must impose direct taxes by the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. Thus, limited, and thus only, it reaches every subject, and may be exercised at discretion.”

License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462, 471 (1866) (emphasis added).

See http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#intent for other examples.

BTW....Look up "United States" in blacks law. How many definitions do you find?

BTW....Read the quotation I included from Chief Justice John Marshall. I will provide it again, and highlight the important parts so you won't overlook it again:

“The 8th section of the 1st article gives to Congress the ‘power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,’ for the purposes thereinafter mentioned. This grant is general, [color]without limitation as to place[/color]. It, consequently, extends to all places over which the government extends. If this could be doubted, the doubt is removed by the subsequent words which modify the grant. These words are, ‘but all duties, imposts, and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United States.’ It will not be contended that the modification of the power extends to places to which the power itself does not extend. The power then to lay and collect duties, imposts, and excises, may be exercised, and must be exercised throughout the United States. Does this term designate the whole, or any particular portion of the American empire? Certainly this question can admit of but one answer. [color]It [United States] is the name given to our great republic, which is composed of States and territories.[/color]”

Loughborough v. Blake, 18 U.S. (Wheat.) 317, 318-319 (1820), (Chief Justice Marshall, writing for a unanimous court; emphasis added).

You are quite free to do your research and find a court decision from any court anywhere in the United States, at any time, at any level, that says that Congress cannot impose a tax within a state of the United States, or that Congress cannot impose a tax unless there is a "federal privilege" or "federal connection." But I'll save you the time, there aren't any. And there are numerous decisions declaring those kinds of arguments to be ridiculous.

[ASITStands]

Case closed.

If the case is closed, why do you continue to harp on the matter?

It shows you're not entirely convinced when you continue to attempt to convince others.

And, by the way, your copy of Black's Law Dictionary very clearly delineates a CAPITATION TAX, as, "A poll tax." Duh?! That's exactly what we discussed in Springer.

Actually it shows that I am actively and thoroughly researching this issue. Though think what you wish, it has no bearing on the reason why I am actually here debating.

You really chafe when someone questions your motives, dontcha?

Though the definition within the dictionary has two entries defined within, citing Wharton… and being an attorney you should be familiar with the prestigious Francis Wharton.

I am not an attorney, and I have no knowledge of Francis Wharton.

I do, however, have access to LexisNexis and other study materials. For instance, I may comment on the Annotated Constitution at some point. You're citing an abbreviated version.

[ASITStands]

This is old....We've done this so many times its like regurgitation.

No, these arguments will not win in court. No surprise there, they are hand picked by the very people wanting the tax.

You've established that history does not matter and anything that was said during the adoption of the constitution by the founders is meaningless. The only thing that matters is what a hand picked judge says 200 years later. That's you choice....its not mine. This is why I've mainly stuck to ranting and raving at least people have a little closer connection to reality there.

Have fun.

Regurgitation (puke) has an alternate spelling, "W-E-S-T-O-N W-H-I-T-E."

[Duke2Earl]

Wow, congratulations, what a total BS job! Though I imagine you are quite proud of yourself. Though in reality that is a total waste of college degree, that is of course presuming you even have one. See I could never do something like that, even if I did have a the required training, I just don't have it in me. Just like being a lobbyist or a meter maid/parking enforcement officer for example, I would never do something like that. The idea of it all just makes me feel sick inside.

Though I would wager there are no such cases dealing with taxing labor and bringing up the concern regarding direct taxation for a very simple reason, the cases are either sealed to keep their outcome from the eyes of the public or such cases never made it to court being either dropped or settled to keep the public from learning the actual truth. Otherwise, surely there would be dozens upon dozens of such cases just as there are with other similar issues that had been raised throughout history, especially when considering the ratios involved. It makes no sense for so many people to complain about being taxed on various forms of property all the while caring less that their core assets are being taxed... especially being that during this period of time all of the respected works specifically state that taxing labor is a direct tax.

Now fast forward 100-years and we have a government that has literally designed their own meaning to what direct and indirect taxation means and are peddling that crap to teachers and children over Internet training modules.

Even assuming for the purpose of argument that WW is totally right about everything, what he needs to explain is exactly how he is going to save himself from the death of a thousand cuts in court. The point is still the same, he will lose with 100% certainty. And what exactly will he accomplish besides heaping pain, misery and indignity on himself and his family? Will his stand bring down the system? Maybe he ought to look at the results of the "stands" taken by Schiff, Rose, Brown and soon to be Hendrickson. Does he think he will fare better? Good luck with that.

The truth is simple, people have been making these arguments for lots of years. Every single one of them has lost. It is simply a fable that there are all these suppressed cases out there where people have won. There is exactly zero evidence of that. There are no people out there coming forward with tales of victory over the courts. The truth is that there is one and only one path that can be taken to change or eliminate the income tax and that is in the political sphere. Congress enacted the tax.... only Congress can get rid of it. And all the quotes and research and indignation and stained logic in the world will make exactly zero difference. But in fact there will be one difference if WW persists in his current course and that is that Weston White will have screwed himself and his family for nothing. And that result really ought to make him "sick inside."