Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 150

Thread: Today's Federal tax on earned wages may violate our Constitution.

  1. #1

    Today's Federal tax on earned wages may violate our Constitution.

    .
    For the record, let us all acknowledge that the Sixteenth Amendment is part of our Constitution, and it declares:

    ”The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

    Now keep in mind the Sixteenth Amendment does not declare:

    ”The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”


    Nor does the Sixteenth Amendment declare:


    "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on earned wages, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."


    Additionally, our Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed, after the adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment, direct taxes laid by Congress are still required to be apportioned.

    For example, if Congress, under the authority of the Sixteenth Amendment, asserts to be taxing incomes, but the tax, as it is applied, takes the form of a direct tax, and it is not being apportioned, the Supreme Court will strike the tax down as violating the constitutional protection requiring direct taxes to be apportioned, "notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment", as stated in EISNER v. MACOMBER , 252 U.S. 189 (1920):

    "Thus, from every point of view we are brought irresistibly to the conclusion that neither under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder. The Revenue Act of 1916, in so far as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment."
    .
    .
    Seems relatively obvious when considering the above stated FACTS, the contention made by some that today's federal tax on a working person's earned wages may very well violate our federal constitution and has great merit for the following reasons:

    Today's federal tax on earned wages is not in harmony with the original objective of adopting the Sixteenth Amendment which was to allow for a federal tax on “unearned” incomes [stocks, bonds, etc.] as can be contrasted from “earned” wages.

    Today’s federal tax on a working person’s earned wages takes the form of a direct tax, is not being apportioned, and thus violates the constitutional protection requiring direct taxes to be apportioned.

    Finally, and in respect of the Sixteenth Amendment and calculating today’s federal tax on earned wages “ . . . it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not "income," as the term is there used; and to apply the distinction, as cases arise, according to truth and substance, without regard to form. Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.” EISNER v. MACOMBER , 252 U.S. 189 (1920)

    Today’s federal tax on earned wages does not follow the set rules laid out in EISNER V. MACOMBER to calculate and distinguish what portion, if any, of a working person’s earn wages falls within the definition of “incomes” as the term is used in the Sixteenth Amendment.

    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?



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    inb4 Sonny
    “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.”

    H.L. Mencken

  4. #3
    FACT #1: Wages were taxable before the 16th Amendment because SCOTUS held in 1881 that a tax on wages was not a direct tax.

    FACT #2: Neither the 16th Amendment nor the Macomber case changed Fact #1. Macomber stated, "For the present purpose, we require only a clear definition of the term "income," as used in common speech, in order to determine its meaning in the amendment, and, having formed also a correct judgment as to the nature of a stock dividend, we shall find it easy to decide the matter at issue.

    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, 231 U. S. 415; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U. S. 179, 247 U. S. 185), "Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined..."

    FACT #3: SCOTUS has repeatedly held that pay-for-work is taxable -- e.g., "There is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them....” Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111, 114 (1930); "[The tax code] is broad enough to include in taxable income any economic or financial benefit conferred on the employee as compensation, whatever the form or mode by which it is effected.” C.I.R. v. Smith, 324 U.S. 177 (1945).

    FACT #4: SCOTUS has characterized the argument that wages aren't income as "frivolous" and an "incredible". In Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991), while the majority and dissenters disagreed on the issue of willfulness they all agreed that the argument that wages aren't income is nonsense.

    From the majority opinion: "Cheek asserted in the trial court that he should be acquitted because he believed in good faith that the income tax law is unconstitutional as applied to him, and thus could not legally impose any duty upon him of which he should have been aware. Such a submission is unsound, not because Cheek's constitutional arguments are not objectively reasonable or frivolous, which they surely are, but because the Murdock-Pomponio line of cases does not support such a position... It was therefore error to instruct the jury to disregard evidence of Cheek’ s understanding that, within the meaning of the tax laws, he was not a person required to file a return or to pay income taxes and that wages are not taxable income, as incredible as such misunderstandings of and beliefs about the law might be.

    From the dissent: "...it is incomprehensible to me how, in this day, more than 70 years after the institution of our present federal income tax system with the passage of the Revenue Act of 1913, 38 Stat. 166, any taxpayer of competent mentality can assert as his defense to charges of statutory willfulness the proposition that the wage he receives for his labor is not income, irrespective of a cult that says otherwise and advises the gullible to resist income tax collections."

    FACT #5: No one has ever avoided being taxed on their pay-for-work by arguing that such a tax is a direct tax or that pay-for-work isn't income. To the contrary, many who have made such claims have been fined by the courts for making frivolous arguments.

    In addition to gullibility, one can add stupidity to explain the argument that a tax on pay-for-work is unconstitutional.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  5. #4
    Ohio never certified

    FACT

    EAT IT
    FLIP THOSE FLAGS, THE NATION IS IN DISTRESS!


    why I should worship the state (who apparently is the only party that can possess guns without question).
    The state's only purpose is to kill and control. Why do you worship it? - Sola_Fide

    Baptiste said.
    At which point will Americans realize that creating an unaccountable institution that is able to pass its liability on to tax-payers is immoral and attracts sociopaths?

  6. #5

    What is, and what is not, taxable income under the Sixteenth Amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    FACT #1

    < cut for brefity >

    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 [58 L. Ed. 285]; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 [62 L. Ed. 1054]), '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“!

    It seems to be self-evident that a wage earner does in fact invest capital in pursuit of earning a wage, e.g., the cost of transportation to and from work; the cost of food which fuels the wage earners body during working hours; the costs involved with housing, medical needs, and even clothing are all expenses incurred by the wage earner and are necessary expenses and outlays which makes one’s labor possible. And this does not even take into account the “investment” of eight hours of life itself which the wage earner makes available to their employer, and that is in addition to the actual physical and mental labor invested by the wage earner, which is also made available to their employer.

    So, the question to be answered here is, 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?



    Let us now note that the income from an illegal business was held subject to income tax in United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259. Nevertheless, it was necessary to determine what that income was, and the cost of an illegal purchase of liquor was subtracted from proceeds of the illegal sale of the liquor in order to arrive at the gain from the illegal transaction which were then subjected to income tax in that case .

    And, in Sullenger vs. Commissioner the Court allowed the business owner [who made illegal purchases of meat] to deduct the cost of meat purchased at a higher price then set by the Office of Price Administration, which he then resold for profit. The “income” from those sales was being taxed and was at issue in the case. The Court went on to cite Sullivan and concluded: “No authority has been cited for denying to this taxpayer the cost of goods sold in computing his profit, which profit alone is gross income for income tax purposes.”

    The point being, not only does todays capitalist get to deduct, and rightfully so, their necessary expenses and outlays to arrive at a “taxable income”, but even crooks engaged in illegal and criminal activities are allowed to make such deductions ___ and with the Courts’ blessing ___ when computing their taxable “profit” or “gain”. But today’s lowly wage earner who, although invests in a number of ways, and makes countless outlays to earn a wage, is told to follow a different set of rules which do not recognize the wage earners’ various investments and outlays when calculating a profit or gain from selling the property each has in their own labor.

    JWK



    The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.
    _____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

  7. #6
    I believe that income gained from the sale stocks/bonds/property (rental, sale/etc.) is income earned. There is a leftist talking point that you "aren't doing anything" when income comes in passively from these types of investments, even Tim Pool holds this view to an extent and I disagree.

    I earned the money to buy the stock/bond/property and I am taking the risk that I might lose it. That is money that I earned that could be completely lost. Conversely, if I make money on those investments that I chose to invest in based on personal research into the investments, I earned it.

    I think one reason a lot of people, particularly on the left complain about it is because at times there is excessive amounts of money earned in this manner. This can be blamed on the federal reserve keeping interest rates artificially low. That pushes people and large organizations in particular to take out more loans than they would normally be able to take out in order to invest rather than earning the money to invest. That tends to push the value of these investments upward and artificially inflates the amount earned on these investments for some people and organizations at the expense of the value of the dollar, as well as those holding the investments when the inevitable crash occurs.

    So don't demonize the investor, demonize the Fed.
    Last edited by dannno; 03-22-2023 at 01:17 PM.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    I believe that income gained from the sale stocks/bonds/property (rental, sale/etc.) is income earned. There is a leftist talking point that you "aren't doing anything" when income comes in passively from these types of investments, even Tim Pool holds this view to an extent and I disagree.

    I earned the money to buy the stock/bond/property and I am taking the risk that I might lose it. That is money that I earned that could be completely lost. Conversely, if I make money on those investments that I chose to invest in based on personal research into the investments, I earned it.

    I think one reason a lot of people, particularly on the left complain about it is because at times there is excessive amounts of money earned in this manner. This can be blamed on the federal reserve keeping interest rates artificially low. That pushes people and large organizations in particular to take out more loans than they would normally be able to take out in order to invest rather than earning the money to invest. That tends to push the value of these investments upward and artificially inflates the amount earned on these investments for some people and organizations at the expense of the value of the dollar, as well as those holding the investments when the inevitable crash occurs.

    So don't demonize the investor, demonize the Fed.
    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
    Last edited by johnwk; 03-22-2023 at 03:54 PM.

  9. #8
    You guys need to quit speculating in taxable assets and use those that are not.
    Do something Danke



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by oyarde View Post
    You guys need to quit speculating in taxable assets and use those that are not.
    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to oyarde again.

    “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.”

    H.L. Mencken

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by cjm View Post
    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to oyarde again.

    Covered.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by jkr View Post
    Ohio never certified

    FACT

    EAT IT
    Learn some history. The income tax was authorized by Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the original Constitution. That's why the Civil War income tax was upheld by a unanimous Supreme Court 32 years before the 16th Amendment. The only reason the 16th Amendment was needed was to overturn the 1895 Pollock case which had held that a tax on investment income such as interest and dividends was a tax on the property producing the income and therefore a direct tax that had to be apportioned. The case went out of its way to note that taxes on other kinds of income, including pay-for-work, were excises that don't have to be apportioned.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    So, the question to be answered here is, 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?
    The short answer is that the Supreme Court and every other court in the country have consistently held that wages, without any reduction for living expenses, are income for purposes of the federal income tax. Your apparent belief that a 99 year old legal dictionary has more authority than SCOTUS decisions is really something.

    I've previously cited you the Reading case in which the court explained why wage earners can't deduct living expenses as if they were comparable to the cost of goods sold deduction, and I've also explained how incredibly difficult it would be to allocate living expenses between income-producing activity and leisure activity, not to mention the need to capitalize certain expenses. I suggest you review that material again. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ax-alive/page7
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Learn some history. The income tax was authorized by Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the original Constitution. That's why the Civil War income tax was upheld by a unanimous Supreme Court 32 years before the 16th Amendment. The only reason the 16th Amendment was needed was to overturn the 1895 Pollock case which had held that a tax on investment income such as interest and dividends was a tax on the property producing the income and therefore a direct tax that had to be apportioned. The case went out of its way to note that taxes on other kinds of income, including pay-for-work, were excises that don't have to be apportioned.
    YOU learn some history

    Ohio


    never

    ratified


    there is no standing law to create a professional thief class in this nation

    your friends are breaking the law

    learn some history $#@!...wow
    FLIP THOSE FLAGS, THE NATION IS IN DISTRESS!


    why I should worship the state (who apparently is the only party that can possess guns without question).
    The state's only purpose is to kill and control. Why do you worship it? - Sola_Fide

    Baptiste said.
    At which point will Americans realize that creating an unaccountable institution that is able to pass its liability on to tax-payers is immoral and attracts sociopaths?

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    FACT #1:

    FACT #2:



    FACT #3:

    FACT #4:


    FACT #5:


    Fact #6: You are paid to post on this forum.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    FACT #1: Wages were taxable before the 16th Amendment because SCOTUS held in 1881 that a tax on wages was not a direct tax.
    Whose wages are you refering to ?

    Evidence in this record establishes the income of a vast majority of the people in this state consist only of wages, salaries, and commissions. It would indeed be difficult to think these people, in adopting the Constitution, understood a tax on such earnings is NOT an income tax.

    http://https://law.justia.com/cases/...0income%20tax.
    “[T]he enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.” (Heller, 554 U.S., at ___, 128 S.Ct., at 2822.)

    How long before "going liberal" replaces "going postal"?

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    The short answer is that the Supreme Court and every other court in the country have consistently held that wages, without any reduction for living expenses, are income for purposes of the federal income tax. Your apparent belief that a 99 year old legal dictionary has more authority than SCOTUS decisions is really something.

    I've previously cited you the Reading case in which the court explained why wage earners can't deduct living expenses as if they were comparable to the cost of goods sold deduction, and I've also explained how incredibly difficult it would be to allocate living expenses between income-producing activity and leisure activity, not to mention the need to capitalize certain expenses. I suggest you review that material again. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ax-alive/page7
    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 [58 L. Ed. 285]; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 [62 L. Ed. 1054]), '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?

    .
    Last edited by johnwk; 03-23-2023 at 05:05 PM.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Please keep in mind supreme court is made up of judges who were once lawyers. Who basically have a proven track record of being so dim they cannot understand the most simple of sentences. Like " shall not be infringed". These are the same type of people who would randomly decide an income tax is not a direct tax. How much more direct could it possibly be ? Current US economic system should be in complete total failure and abandonment sometime in the next 2 or 2 1/4 decades at most. It is in the best interest of young people to do everything they can to keep the most of income possible to prepare for the grim future.
    Do something Danke

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by jkr View Post
    YOU learn some history

    Ohio


    never

    ratified


    there is no standing law to create a professional thief class in this nation

    your friends are breaking the law

    learn some history $#@!...wow
    Amen. I've done the rounds with Sonny "Brickhead" Tufts. Good luck cracking through that skull, hopefully he donates it to science so they can research how to make an impenetrable vibranium shield from it.

    The 16th Amendment was illegally "passed". It was illegally certified, just like our heisted 2020 election was. The crooks behind the architecture of globalist oppression and tyranny have been working at this project for a very long time, on the order of centuries, not decades. And their light-fingered methods are second to none.

    No matter what "Brickhead" Tufts claims, the US Constitution makes it very clear that the only taxes which the Federal government may levy in Congress must be apportioned to the 50 States. That's exactly the same apportionment as the House of Representatives and the electors. Article I, Section 2: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union..." Like, if you can read, you know what that means. No PhD required. No law-degree required. No SCOTUS opinion required. It literally just says, "Direct taxes shall be apportioned." BOOM. And in case a later Congress might read this as "this is how direct taxes SHALL be laid, but it doesn't say how they SHALL NOT be laid", the Framers anticipated that serpentine maneuver, as well: "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken." (Art. 1, Sect. 9) In short: No taxation without representation. Article 16 directly contraverts one of the founding principles of the United States. But it technically passed, by one vote, under suspicious circumstances, so have some good old-fashioned DeMoCrAcY right up your ying-yang, America!!

    And then we had a century (and counting) of total war. Totally unconnected, of course!
    Jer. 11:18-20. "The Kingdom of God has come upon you." -- Matthew 12:28

  22. #19

    What is and what is not a direct tax

    Quote Originally Posted by mrsat_98 View Post
    Whose wages are you refering to ?

    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.

    As an advocate in adopting the Constitution, James Wilson (who was also a prominent delegate to the Constitutional Convention) pointed out during Pennsylvania’s ratification debates that:

    “In this Constitution, a power is given to Congress to collect imposts [an indirect type of tax], which is not given by the present Articles of Confederation. A very considerable part of the revenue of the United States will arise from that source; it is the easiest, most just, and most productive method of raising revenue; and it is a safe one, because it is voluntary. No man is obliged to consume more than he pleases, and each buys in proportion only to his consumption." Elliots VOL II, page 467 Wilson


    And this very characteristic identifying an indirect tax as a voluntary payment when buying articles of consumption, is again articulated, and more in depth during the Connecticut State Ratification debates by Oliver Ellsworth, who provides the following characteristics distinguishing a direct tax from one which is indirect.


    January 7, 1788. [On this Power of Congress to lay Taxes.]

    ”Direct taxation can go but little way towards raising a revenue. To raise money in this way, people must be provident; they must constantly be laying up money to answer the demands of the collector. But you cannot make people thus provident. If you would do any thing to the purpose, you must come in when they are spending, and take a part with them. This does not take away the tools of a man’s business, or the necessary utensils of his family: it only comes in when he is taking his pleasure, and feels generous; when he is laying out a shilling for superfluities, it takes twopence of it for public use, and the remainder will do him as much good as the whole.”

    Ellsworth goes on to note:

    “The experiments, which have been made in our own country, show the productive nature of indirect taxes. The imports into the United States amount to a very large sum. They never will be less, but will continue to increase for centuries to come. As the population of our country increases, the imports will necessarily increase. They will increase, because our citizens will choose to be farmers; living independently on their freeholds, rather than to be manufacturers, and work for a groat a day.”

    ”On the other hand, direct taxes are not voluntary, nor, in general, are they avoidable. And with respect to direct taxes, the anti-federalist minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania warned that direct taxation “…is a tax that, however oppressive in its nature, and unequal in its operation, is certain as to its produce and simple in its collection; it cannot be evaded like the objects of imposts or excise …” ___ See Connecticut ratification debates Elliot’s VOL II, page 191

    So, a few characteristics of an indirect tax are, it is voluntarily paid during the taxpayer’s consumption, and safe because no man is obliged to consume more than he pleases, and such a tax are costs added by government to things which individuals are free to acquired or reject, while direct taxes are those which are assessed to the individual by government, are oppressive, and not avoidable.

    The bottom line is, the poster who pretends a tax on earned wages is not a direct tax which requires apportionment defies the very words of those who framed our Constitution and participated in its ratification debates.

    The question is, why are there so many who pretend that the bread which working people earn when selling the property each has in their own labor, is not a direct tax and requires an apportionment?

    JWK


    “The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands; and to hinder him from employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property.” ___ Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1884)
    Last edited by johnwk; 03-24-2023 at 08:35 AM.

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by ClaytonB View Post
    the US Constitution makes it very clear that the only taxes which the Federal government may levy in Congress must be apportioned to the 50 States.
    The 16th Amendment, like ALL amendments, supercedes Congress.
    Since it was ratified by the States as an amendment, it, as an AMENDMENT, AMENDS the Constitution.

    The Amendments are the most powerful resource States have to affect Federal change.
    You and john just don't like that change. Neither do I, but it's the LAW. LEGALLY.
    "When Sombart says: "Capitalism is born from the money-loan", I should like to add to this: Capitalism actually exists only in the money-loan;" - Theodor Fritsch

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Snowball View Post
    The 16th Amendment, like ALL amendments, supercedes Congress.
    Since it was ratified by the States as an amendment, it, as an AMENDMENT, AMENDS the Constitution.

    The Amendments are the most powerful resource States have to affect Federal change.
    You and john just don't like that change. Neither do I, but it's the LAW. LEGALLY.

    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.”?

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    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.”?
    Sixteenth Amendment

    The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

    THAT IS THE LAW.

    If you want to get rid of it, you need ANOTHER AMENDMENT.
    "When Sombart says: "Capitalism is born from the money-loan", I should like to add to this: Capitalism actually exists only in the money-loan;" - Theodor Fritsch

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Snowball View Post
    Sixteenth Amendment

    The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

    THAT IS THE LAW.
    And? Where have I suggested the Sixteenth Amendment is not the law? Did I not write the following in the OP?

    For the record, let us all acknowledge that the Sixteenth Amendment is part of our Constitution, and it declares:

    ”The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

    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?

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    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?
    you asked -- "what change?"

    So, now you acknowledge the law. Ok. And perhaps you acknowledge that the law changed.

    What remains to discuss?
    "When Sombart says: "Capitalism is born from the money-loan", I should like to add to this: Capitalism actually exists only in the money-loan;" - Theodor Fritsch



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Snowball View Post
    The 16th Amendment, like ALL amendments, supercedes Congress.
    Since it was ratified by the States as an amendment, it, as an AMENDMENT, AMENDS the Constitution.
    Roger that, cowboy!

    The Amendments are the most powerful resource States have to affect Federal change.
    No, the Constitutional Convention is the most powerful resource that States have. The Federal government was brought into this world by the States and it can be taken back out of this world by them. DC needs to get that through its thick skull. This has nothing to do with lawlessness, anarchy, civil war or any of that noise. It's a point of authority.

    You and john just don't like that change. Neither do I, but it's the LAW. LEGALLY.
    The problem is deeper than that. We know for a fact that there is a cabal of conspirators in our country that has been subverting this nation and its Constitution, going back to before its founding. The 2020 election-heist is just their latest stunt. The founding of the Federal Reserve in 1913 was Strategic Objective #1 (they had tried two previous times, and failed) -- the constitutional prohibition against implementing a direct, unapportioned tax was the dam that was holding it back. Once that obstacle was taken out of the way, the Fed was successfully founded and the US Government then launched a century of total, global war (funded by infinity-cash from the Fed) with the singular aim and objective of bringing about the Beast World Order tyranny we see descending upon our world today. You can bury your head in the sand, if you want, but the facts are so clear as to require no elaboration.

    The passage of the 16th amendment was wholly political. There was no widespread outcry from the American public for a national income tax. To argue the opposite case, you need to show when/where the man-on-the-street was clamoring for a national income-tax and what problems in their personal lives they were saying would be solved by this. Of course, there is no such historical evidence, because nothing like that ever happened. NO ordinary Americans were calling for a national income-tax. The fact that a super-majority of States is required to ratify an Amendment makes the case of the Establishment-apologists that much harder -- amendments have typically passed in response to a national crisis or political emergency that created a popular outcry which fueled the votes needed to create that super-majority and modify the Constitution. While it is true that the conspirators expertly played the procedural chess-moves required to usher through the 16th Amendment, there was no national outcry that this was a response to. So, we have this extraordinary measure implemented in the absence of any great emergency or political outcry; there was not even a sweeping popular movement whipped up through propaganda. The Amendment was passed quietly and appears (from lack of a better explanation) to have been facilitated by plain, old-fashioned palm-greasing and bribery.

    So, no, I don't accept some kind of technical, procedural "win" that was scored by the Cabal 110 years ago as a sufficient basis for overturning the Constitution on one of its core founding principles, that is, no taxation without representation. And if we're really going to make that kind of argument, then we can go back to the Boston Tea Party... no half-ass January 6th bull$#@! this time, a real Con-con led by the 13-founding-colonies to strip the Feds naked and force them to account for themselves without running for shelter in their bought-and-paid-for special-pleading tax-courts, DoJ, SCOTUS, etc. If the Clowns want to make this a question of force, the people win. We The People created the Federal government, not the other way around. The arrogant prince has forgotten his place in the King's household. No one is indispensable. Absolutely no one. We The People have the power to call a constitutional-convention, to convene grand juries, to appoint special prosecutors, and to bring charges against Feds in State courts during an interregnum while the Federal government is re-constituted. This is not a game.

    Last edited by ClaytonB; 03-24-2023 at 10:16 AM.
    Jer. 11:18-20. "The Kingdom of God has come upon you." -- Matthew 12:28

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by ClaytonB View Post
    No, the Constitutional Convention is the most powerful resources that States have.
    A power that's never been used, and is STILL DELIMITED by it's collective majoritarian requirement.
    Therefore it is NOT a State power individually but rather only in the COLLECTIVE and expressed as a 2/3 Majority.

    Quote Originally Posted by ClaytonB View Post
    So, no, I don't accept some kind of technical, procedural "win" that was scored by the Cabal 110 years ago as a sufficient basis for overturning the Constitution on one of its core founding principles, that is, no taxation without representation.
    "No taxation without representation" has always been a scam. Our ancestors WERE REPRESENTED. We just don't like what their representatives APPROVED.
    "When Sombart says: "Capitalism is born from the money-loan", I should like to add to this: Capitalism actually exists only in the money-loan;" - Theodor Fritsch

  31. #27
    You and john just don't like that change. Neither do I, but it's the LAW. LEGALLY.
    Also, as to the accusation of special-pleading that Establishment-apologists always roll out whenever the working-man raises the question of whether the US national income-tax is truly Constitutional, this is a pernicious change-of-subject. The Establishment are the privileged class... because they are privileged and politically well-connected, they live off the largess of the public purse. That the working-man is paying into that public-purse and they are withdrawing from it does not reduce the working-man's political right to question the validity of the system, quite the opposite, those who are the beneficiaries of the status-quo system are the ones who are much more biased by the benefits they receive from it, and stand to lose if it is changed:



    While I stand to benefit a little if my income is not directly taxed by the Federal government, the Establishment apologists stand to lose much more than I stand to gain, that is, their vested-interests in this discussion which would bias/distort their perspective are vastly larger than my own. So, they should not raise the "you just don't want to pay taxes" red-herring in order to accuse dissenters of special-pleading, because that will snap back in their face a thousand times over.

    In all likelihood, I've paid most of the taxes that I will ever pay in my working life. I stand to gain very little from changing the national tax system. However, my children are just starting out their working lives. 100 years ago, a typical American was paying something on the order of 2-5% taxes, all told, whether through sales taxes, income taxes, whether State or Federal. Today, just 100 short years later, the typical American just starting out in their working life is easily paying ten times the rate that our great-grandparents were paying, and why? We have modern technology, we have the Internet, we have AI, we have all of these modern developments that should have driven down the costs of all aspects of life, especially those related to public infrastructure but, instead, we have been on a trajectory where the State is taking an ever-larger share of our real product, year-by-year. So where the promise of technological progress was that the common man, the typical household would become more and more wealthy as a byproduct of the overflowing abundance made possible through technology, what has actually happened instead is that more and more of the real product of the nation is captured by the welfare-warfare state and literally set fire in the desert overseas, or squandered on doomed, short-lived public-works projects like Pruitt-Igoe. In a nation where probably less than 10% of households could scrape together $100,000 in a life-crisis situation, we have dozens of billions of dollars flowing overseas to Ukraine and everywhere else in the world like money grows on trees. This insanity has been facilitated by the central bank, and the central bank was made possible only by national taxation without representation, established by the wholly-political 16th Amendment.

    It appears that I was born at the very last generation to at least break-even in this insane, century-long social-engineering project. My children are almost certainly facing a lifetime of destitution and dispossession. So, I don't want to hear it with this "you just want lower taxes" BS. While I would not turn down lower taxes, my primary motivation has nothing to do with the relatively minor benefit that elimination of direct national taxation would have on my own remaining paychecks until retirement. The Establishment-apologists, however, keep raking in those comfy 6-figure MIC-lobbyist salaries while the US MIC blows up the sunshine in deserts all around the world....
    Jer. 11:18-20. "The Kingdom of God has come upon you." -- Matthew 12:28

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by ClaytonB View Post
    This insanity has been facilitated by the central bank, and the central bank was made possible only by national taxation without representation, established by the wholly-political 16th Amendment.
    I have to repeat myself. C+P from Post #26..

    "No taxation without representation" has always been a scam. Our ancestors WERE REPRESENTED. We just don't like what their representatives APPROVED.

    It was made possible WITH Representation. That IS the problem. Representation IS the problem. It is WHY we are HERE.
    "When Sombart says: "Capitalism is born from the money-loan", I should like to add to this: Capitalism actually exists only in the money-loan;" - Theodor Fritsch

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    So, a few characteristics of an indirect tax are, it is voluntarily paid during the taxpayer’s consumption, and safe because no man is obliged to consume more than he pleases, and such a tax are costs added by government to things which individuals are free to acquired or reject, while direct taxes are those which are assessed to the individual by government, are oppressive, and not avoidable.

    The bottom line is, the poster who pretends a tax on earned wages is not a direct tax which requires apportionment defies the very words of those who framed our Constitution and participated in its ratification debates.

    The question is, why are there so many who pretend that the bread which working people earn when selling the property each has in their own labor, is not a direct tax and requires an apportionment?
    Cherry picking quotes again, are you? Ellsworth doesn’t speak for all of the Founders.

    The Springer opinion delved into the history of the direct tax clause:

    It does not appear that an attempt was made by any one [at the constitutional convention] to define the exact meaning of the language employed [the term “direct taxes”].

    In the twenty-first number of the Federalist, Alexander Hamilton, speaking of taxes generally, said:

    "Those of the direct kind, which principally relate to land and buildings, may admit of a rule of apportionment. Either the value of the land or the number of the people may serve as a standard."

    The thirty-sixth number of that work, by the same author, is devoted to the subject of internal taxes. It is there said, "They may be subdivided into those of the direct and those of the indirect kind." In this connection land taxes and poll taxes are discussed. The former are commended and the latter are condemned. Nothing is said of any other direct tax. In neither case is there a definition given or attempted of the phrase "direct tax."…

    Hamilton left behind him a series of legal briefs, and among them one entitled "Carriage tax." See vol. vii. p. 848, of his works. This paper was evidently prepared with a view to the Hylton case, in which he appeared as one of the counsel for the United States. In it he says:
    "What is the distinction between direct and indirect taxes? It is a matter of regret that terms so uncertain and vague in so important a point are to be found in the Constitution. We shall seek in vain for any antecedent settled legal meaning to the respective terms. There is none. We shall be as much at a loss to find any disposition of either which can satisfactorily determine the point."

    There being many carriages in some of the states, and very few in others, he points out the preposterous consequences if such a tax be laid and collected on the principle of apportionment instead of the rule of uniformity. He insists that if the tax there in question was a direct tax, so would be a tax on ships, according to their tonnage. He suggests that the boundary line between direct and indirect taxes be settled by "a species of arbitration," and that direct taxes be held to be only "capitation or poll taxes, and taxes on lands and buildings, and general assessments, whether on the whole property of individuals or on their whole real or personal estate. All else must, of necessity, be considered as indirect taxes."
    Then there’s the Report on Direct Taxes that Secretary of the Treasury Oliver Wolcott, Jr. prepared in 1796. It surveyed the various types of taxes levied by the states and noted that many of them imposed taxes on the profits of professions, merchants, and manufacturers. Regarding these taxes, the report stated, “It is presumed, that taxes of this nature cannot be considered as of that description which the constitution requires to be apportioned among the States.
    https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampag....db&recNum=443

    Look, there is no consensus on the historical meaning of “direct tax” as used in the Constitution. I could cite a boatload of articles by law professors whose opinions on this issue range all over the place, but I doubt very much that you would ever read any of them (except maybe those by Eric Jensen). The plain fact is that beginning with the Hylton case in 1796 SCOTUS has limited direct taxes to capitations and taxes on the ownership of property.* It has rejected avoidability as the defining characteristic of an indirect tax and has rejected the claim that a tax on pay-for-work is a direct tax.

    *For what it’s worth, I think Hylton was wrongly decided. The carriage tax in that case looks suspiciously like a property tax. Moreover, I think the Court blew it in the Obamacare case in not holding the individual mandate was a direct tax. But I don’t delude myself by ignoring the cases and pretending that my view of what the law should be is what the law really is.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Snowball View Post
    I have to repeat myself. C+P from Post #26..

    "No taxation without representation" has always been a scam. Our ancestors WERE REPRESENTED. We just don't like what their representatives APPROVED.

    It was made possible WITH Representation. That IS the problem. Representation IS the problem. It is WHY we are HERE.
    Yes, you can bury your head in the sand and pretend there hasn't been a Cabal infiltrating this country from before day one. If you want to assert that the 16th Amendment was the product of representation of the American people, please show the historical evidence of the mass public outcry that created the super-majority required to pass that amendment. What was the crisis? What was happening in the US from 1911 to 1913 that was causing main-street Americans to cry out for a direct, unapportioned national income tax?

    The Cabal's retort is, "We played the right chess-moves and we won through technicality, but a win is a win." But that's a two-way street... if we want to get that technical, we can call a Con-con, dissolve the Federal government, convene grand juries, appoint special-prosecutors, and start filing charges against all Federal crooks in State courts, while we re-constitute our national government. Yep, that's a question of distributed coordination and political force. But if the Cabal wants to make this a contest of force, then let it be so. We The People will win that contest!
    Jer. 11:18-20. "The Kingdom of God has come upon you." -- Matthew 12:28

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Does the Uniform Law Commission violate the U.S. Constitution?
    By Weston White in forum U.S. Constitution
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-14-2020, 06:07 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2016, 06:27 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-08-2010, 06:30 AM
  4. FED: Federal Reserve earned $45 billion in 2009
    By bobbyw24 in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-12-2010, 06:03 AM
  5. Delegates Earned Today?
    By libertythor in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-06-2008, 10:21 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •