Weston White
Member

And? Where have I suggested the Sixteenth Amendment is not the law? Did I not write the following in the OP? What does you post have to do with what I wrote? JWK Why have a written constitution, approved by the people, if those who it is meant to control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?

What "change"? Where is the constitutional amendment repealing, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 which states: “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”?

I believe the poster is referring to the often cited case Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1881) which upheld a tax on "income" as not being direct. But the fatal flaw in citing Springer as confirmation that a tax on income could not have been considered a direct tax by our Founders, and thus requiring apportionment, is found in Justice Swayne's own words: "The very elaborate researches of the plaintiff in error have furnished us with nothing from the debates of the State conventions, by whom the Constitution was adopted, which gives us any aid. Hence we may safely assume that no such material exists in that direction . . . " Well, the assumption was wrong! In fact, there is evidence in the State ratification debates which do articulate characteristics which distinguish a direct tax from one which is indirect.

Psalm 62:7 In God is my salvation and my glory: the rock of my strength, and my refuge, is in God.

In regard to the question (". . . why is the capitalist allowed, and rightly so, to deduct their capital investments from money coming in, to arrive at their taxable income as per Eisner, while the wage earner is not" ) you say the Supreme Court and every other court in the country . . . cut for brevity. Your answer ignores how one arrives at taxable income as stated in Eisner by our Supreme Court: "After examining dictionaries in common use (Bouv. L. D.; Standard Dict.; Webster's Internat. Dict.; Century Dict.), we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 (Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 , 34 S. Sup. Ct. 136, 140 ; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 ), 'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,' provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle Case, 247 U.S. 183, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 (62 L. Ed. 1054). Brief as it is, it indicates the characteristic and distinguishing attribute of income essential for a correct solution of the present controversy. The Government, although basing its argument upon the definition as quoted, placed chief emphasis upon the word "gain," which was extended to include a variety of meanings; while the significance of the next three words was either overlooked or misconceived. " Derived — from — capital;" — "the gain — derived — from — capital," etc. Here we have the essential matter: not a gain accruing to capital, not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value proceeding from the property, severed from the capital however invested or employed, and coming in, being "derived," that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal; — that is income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description." . The bottom line is, wage earners, who work for their money, do make capital outlays and various kinds of investments and other outlays, which are essential to make their labor possible, and reading through the Eisner case, those who have money working, as opposed to those who work for their money, get to deduct from money coming in as quoted above. What is the reasoning as to why the same rules do not apply to the wage earner who works for their money?

Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

I too do not demonize the investor. I follow the rule of law, and not what some pretend it means. Having said that, and to confirm what you say above about the investor allegedly not doing anything to earn a profit, see the following defining “profit” which is found in my 1925-26 Bouviers Law Dictionary: "This is a word of very extended signification. In commerce, it means the advance in the price of goods sold beyond the cost of purchase. In distinction from the wages of labor, it is well understood to imply the net return to the capital of stock employed, after deducting all the expenses, including not only the wages of those employed by the capitalist, but the wages of the capitalist himself for superintending the employment of his capital or stock. Adam Smith, Wealth of Nat. b. i. c. 6 and M’Culloch’s Notes; Mill, Polit. Econ. C. 15" That quote inspired my thinking a long time ago about the wage earner's investments and outlays made, that make the wage earner's labor possible when selling the property each has in their own labor. Should we not apply the same rules for deductions to compute a wage earner's profit as the capitalist rightfully uses to arrive at a profit, and or gain? JWK

Your post has nothing to do with what I actually wrote in the OP. In any event, and with regard to the meaning of "incomes" as it appears in the Sixteenth Amendment, we find that meaning in Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920): "After examining dictionaries in common use (Bouv. L. D.; Standard Dict.; Webster's Internat. Dict.; Century Dict.), we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 (Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 , 34 S. Sup. Ct. 136, 140 ; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 ), 'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,' provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle Case, 247 U.S. 183, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 (62 L. Ed. 1054). Brief as it is, it indicates the characteristic and distinguishing attribute of income essential for a correct solution of the present controversy. The Government, although basing its argument upon the definition as quoted, placed chief emphasis upon the word "gain," which was extended to include a variety of meanings; while the significance of the next three words was either overlooked or misconceived. " Derived — from — capital;" — "the gain — derived — from — capital," etc. Here we have the essential matter: not a gain accruing to capital, not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value proceeding from the property, severed from the capital however invested or employed, and coming in, being "derived," that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal; — that is income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description." So, we now learn that all money that comes in is not “income” within the meaning of the 16th Amendment, but only that portion which represents a “profit” or “gain”. Keep in mind also that “profits“ or “gains, are calculated by deducting all necessary expenses and outlay from gross receipts …the remaining portion being “profit” and or “gain“!

Where are all the militant feminists?

Ezekiel 18:30b Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin.

https://www.naturalnews.com/2023-03-21-fairway-grocers-nyc-facial-recognition-profile-customers.html Soon, these will be the ONLY places that you are ALLOWED to buy LEGAL food. Yes FOOD will be ILLEGAL if it is not POISONED. If you speak against it and try to buy from places like this, well thats when those still asleep will realize exactly what this FACIAL RECOGNITION is for. To DENY a person the ability to buy FOOD, and MURDER THEM BY STARVATION.

Matthew 18:21-22 Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.

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.

Luke 18:27 And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.

Psalm 31:3 For thou art my rock and my fortress; therefore for thy name's sake lead me, and guide me.

Psalm 19:7 The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.

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.

JUST A NOTE . . I have found no activity as of 3/17/2023 , on the FairTax Act of 2023 in the House Ways and Means Committee UPDATES. Hopefully this deceptive power grab is finally dead. The only question I have is, why have 25 Republicans, which includes “Freedom Caucus Members”, co-sponsored this proposed expansion of our federal government’s taxing abilities?