Mach
Member

Pollock. So says the pot to the kettle. Ohhh, yea, that case wherein "the income of a husband by way of salary and attorney's fees is taxable to him." Sure, sure. Gotcha! The source is not ever taxable, only the gain or profit that becomes severed from it--as constitutional 'income.' It's not the source that is the subject of income taxation.

A tax upon the national workforce is by definition a 'direct tax.'

Off the top: 1. The income tax was imposed on the basis of generating revenue to support war efforts; however, the USA has not declared war since 1942. Moreover, it has gone on to be misappropriated in order to sustain myriads of social justice programs that are entirely outside of the powers of the federal government--amendments to our Constitution are otherwise necessary. 2. Mandatory payroll withholdings violate the 5th Amend., as it's the taking of personal property without just compensation and solely to the benefit of the government--the taxpayer forever looses the ability to collect investment interest on the withheld sums, while the government does and neglects to proffer it as either a tax deduction or refund of any type. 3. State income taxes further subjugate individual rights and constitutional protections as states imposing income taxes do so upon the whole amount due (firstly) to the federal government, yet without any prudent consideration that a portion of that sum was never at any point in time in the possession or control of the taxpayer--state income taxes should only tax the remaining sum that was precedently taken by the federal government. Otherwise, taxpayers are being doubly taxed upon monies that was of no practicable benefit to them other than for the purpose of being taxed to the benefit and advantage of the state and federal governments (i.e., the government is using these withholdings to generate pooled investment interest throughout the year and then at the end of the year collects taxes from these sums from each individual taxpayer.) Bonuses:

OMG, just stop with that old tired nonsense! Springer was an attorney and bondholder who reported $50,798 in income back then. The issue in Springer was again "income, gains, and profits" during the year 1865. $50,798 with factoring in today's inflation is over $1.5 million. Ergo, Springer was not a laborer, craftsman, or farmer, or such anything. Pollock modified the findings of Springer; and the (since overruled) Hilton case was nothing other than a silly ass argument over taxes being levied upon horse buggies without apportionment--it has no bearing in modern society, period. The Revenue Act of 1864 unequivocally stated: "Section 116 of the Act imposed the tax on "the gains, profits, and income of every person residing in the United States, or of any citizen of the United States residing abroad, whether derived from any kind of property, rents, interest, dividends, or salaries, or from any profession, trade, employment, or vocation, carried on in the United States or elsewhere, or from any other source whatever" and raised its tax rates from the 1862 Act that started out at 3% over $800 (which is now the equivalent of more than $24,000) to 5% above $600 (which is over $18,000 in today's dollars.) * Notice the similarities between the above and the 16th Amend., i.e., "gains, profits, and income ... derived from any kind" and "from any other source whatever" versus "the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived," hence, properly as an indirect tax it's not being 'directly' imposed upon whatever the source might be, but 'indirectly' upon only the 'gains or profits' as "incomes," being derived from whatever the sources may be. The distinction here is whether or not a positive financial severing had occurred throughout a given tax-year.

Here's that specific piece.. I didn't think it was real at first, I thought it was something from the past.

If you want to conquer wokeness, you will need a popular leftist to be one of your spokesmen.

Haha... that's funny, here is the that Sheriff and some of his deputies now. https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/iron-county-sheriff-remains-jailed-as-prosecutor-hints-at-bigger-scandal/article_5c1c1895-d64f-5316-a6a9-5ecf2b460e86.html

He knows he will lose his career if he ever applied that... he believes in climate change, but flies in his own private jet.

White single parent homes has risen for many decades, but the murder rate has not kept up.

Just another day. In linguistics and related fields, pragmatics is the study of how context contributes to meaning. The field of study evaluates how human language is utilized in social interactions, as well as the relationship between the interpreter and the interpreted. In the branch of linguistics known as pragmatics, a presupposition is an implicit assumption about the world or background belief relating to an utterance whose truth is taken for granted in discourse.

The guys that ran it knew it was coming.

Wow... 47:14 JACOBY:Even some of the largest beneficiaries of this trend told me it made them uncomfortable, like legendary investor Jeremy Grantham. Grantham: In my career in America, the percentage of GDP that goes to finance has gone from three-and-a-half to eight-and-a-half. (chuckling): We're, in a way, we're like a giant bloodsucker, and we have more than doubled in size, and sucking more than twice the blood out of

Oh I know, more mainstream and getting to the ears that need to be woke up in the first place, but he will also only be able to dig so far and in certain places, commercials are commercials. === Here is that full podcast.

If he's serious then that means he will eventually go off on his own and dig in, but I wouldn't count on it. Rogan needs to have Tucker on his show, and even let Alex Jones sit in for awhile... 10 million views.