people who don't pay taxes

[acorn54]

don't know if anyone was watching greta sustern on fox tonight. but there was an interesting statistic brought up by a senator that said twenty percent of the population gets seventy-five percent of their income from the government, and another twenty percent gets forty percent from the government. he went on to say that in five years seventy percent of the population will be getting more in benefits from the government than they are giving in taxes to the government.
evidently we are headed towards a social welfare state and really nothing can be done about it from what i see, as the benefits that people get are needed for them to survive.
i saw an interesting sign in my public library the other day that said "you work hard, you deserve food stamps". and by the sign was a stack of applications to apply for food stamps. use to be if you worked you made enough money to feed yourself. things seem to be getting worse and worse as the years past and i only see things as getting even worse.

[newtothegame]

don't know if anyone was watching greta sustern on fox tonight. but there was an interesting statistic brought up by a senator that said twenty percent of the population gets seventy-five percent of their income from the government, and another twenty percent gets forty percent from the government. he went on to say that in five years seventy percent of the population will be getting more in benefits from the government than they are giving in taxes to the government.
evidently we are headed towards a social welfare state and really nothing can be done about it from what i see, as the benefits that people get are needed for them to survive.
i saw an interesting sign in my public library the other day that said "you work hard, you deserve food stamps". and by the sign was a stack of applications to apply for food stamps. use to be if you worked you made enough money to feed yourself. things seem to be getting worse and worse as the years past and i only see things as getting even worse.

Not that I need to tell you this acorn.....But you basically said that "nothing can be done about this".
Well, this is where I believe your wrong. Maybe you and I arent able to do much about it but, it is a problem which will take care of itself!
Anyone who knows anything about math can see the numbers.
Our deficits keep growing, partly due to the expansion of entitlement programs. This along with the waste and fraud that is rampant in our government run programs will continue to "bust" us all.
So how do those in congress keep paying for these programs?? ONLY one way...TAXES. They can shift money here or there but the fact is that in order to pay for it, they must get revenue. Since the goverment makes no products, the only option they have is to either borrow more from the chinese or tax the current population (and future).
The "haves" as some here like to call them, continue to get more and more taxes laid at their feet. The "have nots" continue to collect those entitlements that are paid for by the "haves".
The part that the progressives don't understand is that yes....as of now, there is a balance which the "haves" are willing to live with. Progressives continue to subsidize the "have nots" in order to control a voting block.
(Why would anyone recieving government entitlements benefits ever vote against those people who are funding those programs???).
The progressives have a huge problem though....there is NEVER enough for them. They always want more and more. Just look at some of the libs on this forum who actually claim and believe that Obama is conservative!!! Those same libs actually say he hasnt gone far enough and is too "central". So they will continue to go to the well. We are rapidly approaching a time when there will be no more people to raise taxes on. As it stands now, its almost 50/50 of those who pay taxes and those who don't in america.
So next, they go after business. Problem with this theory is business is in it for a profit. Anything less then a profit in the private sector causes business to fail. And unlike GM, AIG, etc etc, the government can not prop up all businesses. So businesses will be forced to cut back employees to maintain any profit margins (to which regardless of what people think) shareholder are entitled to. As profits shrink, shareholders (investors) starting shrinking as well. After all, why would anyone wish to invest in a business that is not profitable?? As investors shrink...expansion shrinks and less people become employed! More people then hit the government teets and now need assistance. The government needs more funds to support this...and so goes that downhill snowball.
It will come to an end whether you or I stop it. In my opinion, its fate has already been determined.

[fast4522]

This is exactly why a flat tax is the more fair tax, because everyone pays. The downside is you have to lay off most of the IRS and tax accountants, sounds good to the hard working right?

[DRIVEWAY]

Family of four earning $50,000 pays no federal income tax.

Real estate taxes either on their home or through rent will be $2500-$5000 depending upon state.
State income and sales taxes are good for another $2500-$5000.
FICA = $3150.
Let's ignor gas, alcohol, gambling, tolls and government fees.
This means taxes of $8150 to $13,150. That's a minimum of 16%-26% in taxes.

Everybody pays taxes.

[Tom]

Not nearly enough.

[newtothegame]

Family of four earning $50,000 pays no federal income tax.

Real estate taxes either on their home or through rent will be $2500-$5000 depending upon state.
State income and sales taxes are good for another $2500-$5000.
FICA = $3150.
Let's ignor gas, alcohol, gambling, tolls and government fees.
This means taxes of $8150 to $13,150. That's a minimum of 16%-26% in taxes.

Everybody pays taxes.

Ever heard of homestead exemptions???? Thats just one hole in your logic.
Next, if they are struggling as you would suggest....maybe they shouldnt be drinking alcohol and gambling. Sounds like if they have kids and only make 50,000 a year...maybe their priorities are a bit screwy with alcohol and gambling.

Next, because they are below the 4 times the poverty level, what kind of government entitlements do they recieve if any?

[acorn54]

well i dont know if it is the end of the country
it seems in europe they seem to have a situation where the majority get most of their income from the government, and i think we are just becoming like them, a social welfare state.

[DRIVEWAY]

Ever heard of homestead exemptions???? Thats just one hole in your logic.
Next, if they are struggling as you would suggest....maybe they shouldnt be drinking alcohol and gambling. Sounds like if they have kids and only make 50,000 a year...maybe their priorities are a bit screwy with alcohol and gambling.

Next, because they are below the 4 times the poverty level, what kind of government entitlements do they recieve if any?

These people are paying taxes. Let's deal in facts not emotions. Alcohol and gambling taxes were just examples of taxes that were excluded from my analysis of taxes paid. Take the time to read what is posted before you react.

My point is a simple one. Everyone pays taxes and everyone thinks they pay to much. What percent of the TEA party members do you think earn $50,000 or less. One group for sure are the retirees.

Most likely a family of four with $50,000 in income receives no government entitlements. Unless they receive some kind of credit for education of their children, they just pay between 16-26% of their income in taxes. However, they pay zero in federal income taxes.

The homestead rebate is just a return of a small percentage of taxes already paid. Tell the elderly you don't approve of homestead rebates.

The key to tax reform or fairness is to face the facts.

[Tom]

That facts are the government spends far too much money on crap it has no business spending money on. Your president even said a few billion was chump change. That is the problem. To many people pay no federal income tax - fine, but cut spending, don't come take it from me.

Any FOOL could cut the federal budge by at least 50% without a calculator.

[jognlope]

Tom Coburn was just on MSNBC and was saying he tried to get the 109 or so programs for early children education costing billions to be funneled into one program but nobody wants to even do that. Is there some benefit of borrowing from China they're keeping secret?

[GaryG]

I just got back from mailing my check, so I am in a particularly snarly mood. On the one hand I am thankful for the ability to earn a decent living. On the other, I think of the Obama fans who contribute nothing that are dividing up our tax dollars to pay for the cadillacs.

[DRIVEWAY]

That facts are the government spends far too much money on crap it has no business spending money on. Your president even said a few billion was chump change. That is the problem. To many people pay no federal income tax - fine, but cut spending, don't come take it from me.

Any FOOL could cut the federal budge by at least 50% without a calculator.

Not to say that you are a fool, but let's hear what you would do with ---
Military
Social Security/Medicare
Highways
National Parks
Welfare
Medicaid

Get out your knife and cut.

[boxcar]

Not to say that you are a fool, but let's hear what you would do with ---
Military
Social Security/Medicare
Highways
National Parks
Welfare
Medicaid

Get out your knife and cut.

You cut everything that doesn't benefit all directly or indirectly. You're a bright guy, so you'll figure out which of the above items fits the bill.

Boxcar
P.S. And I use the term "all" in the universal sense!

[ArlJim78]

Not to say that you are a fool, but let's hear what you would do with ---
Military
Social Security/Medicare
Highways
National Parks
Welfare
Medicaid

Get out your knife and cut.
cut them all. all government spending should be cut on average 10%, then future growth in total government spending pegged to a fixed percentage of GDP. when the GDP contracts so should government.

[GaryG]

when the GDP contracts so should government.Two things that never contract are salaries of union workers and salaries govt "civil servants". For most of us our income mirrors the ebb and flow of the economy.

[HUSKER55]

GLEN BECK did a spiel on the department of education and "rubber rooms."

I am in favor of cutting that department of educaton and letting the states deal with it.

I also think a national sales tax of 2% and NO ONE is exempt from would help.

It would also help if BO understood that all of his plans allow the manufactors to past the cost along to the consumer.

The public is taxed to death. Like one of GB's guest said, a flat tax of 12% and everyone pays and governemnt has to get along with that.

Obviously my pain killers are kicking in

JMHO

[Tom]

Not to say that you are a fool, but let's hear what you would do with ---
Military

Social Security/Medicare

Medicaid

Get out your knife and cut.

For starters.
Now, get me a financial statement that lists expenditures and we can continue.

While we're waiting, ALL legislative wages, perks, and budgets. Every member of Congress gets the exact same budget annually, from which ALL
his or her spending comes from - and it is not a hell of a lot. Any extra-ordinary expenditures that come up must be voted on and made pubic record.

All money to the arts and public radio.
Put PPS on pay per view.

[DRIVEWAY]

For starters.
Now, get me a financial statement that lists expenditures and we can continue.

While we're waiting, ALL legislative wages, perks, and budgets. Every member of Congress gets the exact same budget annually, from which ALL
his or her spending comes from - and it is not a hell of a lot. Any extra-ordinary expenditures that come up must be voted on and made pubic record.

All money to the arts and public radio.
Put PPS on pay per view.

I'm shocked that you claim a fool can reduce the federal budget by 50%, while you need a financial statement. Sounding more and more like a liberal to me.

All talk and no action.

[mostpost]

don't know if anyone was watching greta sustern on fox tonight. but there was an interesting statistic brought up by a senator that said twenty percent of the population gets seventy-five percent of their income from the government, and another twenty percent gets forty percent from the government. he went on to say that in five years seventy percent of the population will be getting more in benefits from the government than they are giving in taxes to the government.
evidently we are headed towards a social welfare state and really nothing can be done about it from what i see, as the benefits that people get are needed for them to survive.
i saw an interesting sign in my public library the other day that said "you work hard, you deserve food stamps". and by the sign was a stack of applications to apply for food stamps. use to be if you worked you made enough money to feed yourself. things seem to be getting worse and worse as the years past and i only see things as getting even worse.
In regards to the first bolded statement, I'm sure that most of the righties here will look at it as proof that some people are not working when they couod be working and living off the government. Certainly there are cases where that is true. But as of this year (2010) 26% of the working population is retired and collecting Social Security. Many of those people get 100% of their income from Social Security.
I am retired and receiving Social Security. For me, Social Security is 41% of my retirement income. Since I worked for the Government all but a small portion of my retirement is from the government. But I worked for 45 years and I contributed to both Social Security and to the Post Office pension plan.

As to the second bolded statement, you are right. It used to be if you worked you made enough money to feed yourself and your family. This is often no longer the case. Frequently you need two or even three jobs to get by. So it is not incongrous to say that a person works hard yet deserves (needs) Food Stamps.

[Tom]

No, by asking for FACTS, I am clearly not a lib, otherwise I would just pull items out of my ass.


What kind of a nitwit remark was that? You running for something? :lol:

You will notice I erased a couple of the line items 100% of the top of my head. Jognlope's education programs, too - gone buh bye.

[Tom]

Everyone who is on SS is getting screwed royally. They would be making FAR more money if they had NOT contributed a penny to SS and invested all that money in their own retirment accounts. SS is not a hand out. We are owed more that we are getting back.

[JustRalph]

Don't forget that a family with an Income up to 87k can now enroll their kids in the Chip program for free or discounted healthcare for their kids

[Black Ruby]

Everyone who is on SS is getting screwed royally. They would be making FAR more money if they had NOT contributed a penny to SS and invested all that money in their own retirment accounts. SS is not a hand out. We are owed more that we are getting back.

Sounds like maybe the government invested your Socialist Security money in non-evil corps like Enron, WorldComm, WaMu, and the like.

[Tom]

No, they took the money OUT if investments and used as a general fund.Now they have to come up with it when it is time to write the checks. The government is not capable of doing ANYTHING right or within a budget. It never has and it never will.

[bigmack]

Sounds like maybe the government invested your Socialist Security money in non-evil corps like Enron, WorldComm, WaMu, and the like.
Ooooo, good one.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/nose_picking.jpg

[johnhannibalsmith]

...
As to the second bolded statement, you are right. It used to be if you worked you made enough money to feed yourself and your family. This is often no longer the case. Frequently you need two or even three jobs to get by. So it is not incongrous to say that a person works hard yet deserves (needs) Food Stamps.

This is where I sound like a pure conservative...

It used to be that be when you said you made enough to feed your family - that was literally what you meant. You lived in a domicile that was congruent with your financial situation and if you owned a vehicle, it was probably exactly one vehicle. If you owned a television, it was probably one television. Kids slept on bunkbeds in one room, rode bicycles that lasted for a decade, and went to the movies with money they earned from selling lemonade or delivering the afternoon paper.

Now, too often, when people talk about "feeding the family" - they mean making the mortgage payment on the $500,000 home with five bedrooms and three baths, there's a flatscreen in every room, three computers with high-speed internet, a satelite dish, three cars, four cells on the friends and family network, a playstation 5, an Xbox 720, a new set of golf clubs, insurance for this and insurance for that............

There are people that are legitimately scraping by to live within their means and still support a family. But far, far, far too many of these examples of "poor" folks that just need a little help are limited more by unnecessary expenditure than they are by insufficient income. These people are depriving those that legitimately need it and help foster this bitterness towards public assistance from those that feel as though they have acted responsibly.

Again, I'm not going to sit here and deny that money from wages doesn't go quite as far as it once did - but at some point, even the hardened liberals have to see that as a society, we have become conditioned to expect so many more luxuries and then consider them essentials.

Being stupid and irresponsible has become some form of victimization and there has to be a point when one side concedes that there are those receiving help that need it and at the same time, one side that sees those that receive help that actually need a swift kick in the ass off of assistance so that they can finally grasp the concept of responsibility and realize what the true benefits of our society are.

[Tom]

If you have any of these things, you do not need food stamps:

1. Cable or satellite TV
2. Internet
3. ATV
4. Snowmobile
5. Youbet account
6. swimming pool
7. a dog
8. a boat
9. any booze in the house
10. cigarettes/cigars

[johnhannibalsmith]

11) A bathroom scale that registers loads over 300 pounds.

[newtothegame]

These people are paying taxes. Let's deal in facts not emotions. Alcohol and gambling taxes were just examples of taxes that were excluded from my analysis of taxes paid. Take the time to read what is posted before you react.

My point is a simple one. Everyone pays taxes and everyone thinks they pay to much. What percent of the TEA party members do you think earn $50,000 or less. One group for sure are the retirees.

Most likely a family of four with $50,000 in income receives no government entitlements. Unless they receive some kind of credit for education of their children, they just pay between 16-26% of their income in taxes. However, they pay zero in federal income taxes.

The homestead rebate is just a return of a small percentage of taxes already paid. Tell the elderly you don't approve of homestead rebates.

The key to tax reform or fairness is to face the facts.

I read EXACTLY what you wrote.....and your implication was that this group would pay 16-26% in taxes and based on that logic, you EXCLUDED things like alcohol and gambling. I took that to be a suggestion that they couldnt afford to do those things.
MY reply was that they shouldnt do those things or ANYTHING they can't afford. Be it gambling, or alcohol.
The homestead rebate is nothing like what your mentioning...at least where I live. The first 75,000 of my homes value is EXEMPT from taxes. My tax bill yearly is less then 100 dollars for my home property. So maybe it is YOU who need to understand what your tralking about before you spout off about facts in which you do not know.
And where did I say I didnt apporove of homestead rebates??? Again YOU should read before you spout off.
And you are right in the statement of in order to reform taxes or fairness, we must understand the facts. Do you understand that almost HALF of america pays ZERO? Now lets not attempt to make statements like I am "trying to get rid of our seniors". That couldnt be farther from the truth. But can you say that that same half that doesnt pay is unable to contribute in some way?
You would rather see that "wealthier" person pay in some cases up to 50% of his earnings wouldnt ya? Now you want to tallk about fair...show me the fairness in that scenario where the "wealthy" need to pay 30, 40, or even higher in taxes while other people recieve the fruits without paying in to the system???

[newtothegame]

Don't forget that a family with an Income up to 87k can now enroll their kids in the Chip program for free or discounted healthcare for their kids

Ralph...shhhhh your shooting all kinds of holes in Driveways example of a family of 50000.

[DRIVEWAY]

I read EXACTLY what you wrote.....and your implication was that this group would pay 16-26% in taxes and based on that logic, you EXCLUDED things like alcohol and gambling. I took that to be a suggestion that they couldnt afford to do those things.
MY reply was that they shouldnt do those things or ANYTHING they can't afford. Be it gambling, or alcohol.
The homestead rebate is nothing like what your mentioning...at least where I live. The first 75,000 of my homes value is EXEMPT from taxes. My tax bill yearly is less then 100 dollars for my home property. So maybe it is YOU who need to understand what your tralking about before you spout off about facts in which you do not know.
And where did I say I didnt apporove of homestead rebates??? Again YOU should read before you spout off.
And you are right in the statement of in order to reform taxes or fairness, we must understand the facts. Do you understand that almost HALF of america pays ZERO? Now lets not attempt to make statements like I am "trying to get rid of our seniors". That couldnt be farther from the truth. But can you say that that same half that doesnt pay is unable to contribute in some way?
You would rather see that "wealthier" person pay in some cases up to 50% of his earnings wouldnt ya? Now you want to tallk about fair...show me the fairness in that scenario where the "wealthy" need to pay 30, 40, or even higher in taxes while other people recieve the fruits without paying in to the system???

Federal income taxes may be zero but other taxes are significant.

While your paying $100 a year in real estate taxes the majority of people in the northeast are paying $5000-$10000 a year.

Don't know what income tax rates Louisiana has but the sales tax rate appears to be 4%. On an family income of $50,000, sales tax will easily be $1200. What other taxes apply in Louisiana are not clear.

Like I said no one wants to pay taxes and everyone thinks they pay too much.

Your insistance that half of america is not paying taxes is simply not true.:confused:

[hazzardm]

The homestead rebate is nothing like what your mentioning...at least where I live. The first 75,000 of my homes value is EXEMPT from taxes. My tax bill yearly is less then 100 dollars for my home property. So maybe it is YOU who need to understand what your tralking about before you spout off about facts in which you do not know.
And where did I say I didnt apporove of homestead rebates??? Again YOU should read before you spout off.


How the heck are public schools funded?? That is easily the largest chunk of our property taxes.

[ArlJim78]

Your insistance that half of america is not paying taxes is simply not true.:confused:
When speaking about the income tax I believe it is true.

[DRIVEWAY]

When speaking about the income tax I believe it is true.

If you mean federal income taxes then I agree.

But there are many other taxes that must be paid. There is not a shortage of taxes.

[newtothegame]

If you mean federal income taxes then I agree.

But there are many other taxes that must be paid. There is not a shortage of taxes.
I hope you used the term "shortage" meaning that there are many different taxes. Because if your using the term shortage to refer to not enough, well in terms of deficit...(which is us conservatives contention) there is a shortfall somewhere. And our arguement is ENOUGH in taxes! Lets try to fix it other ways...as in reduce SPENDING!

[DRIVEWAY]

I hope you used the term "shortage" meaning that there are many different taxes. Because if your using the term shortage to refer to not enough, well in terms of deficit...(which is us conservatives contention) there is a shortfall somewhere. And our arguement is ENOUGH in taxes! Lets try to fix it other ways...as in reduce SPENDING!

I'll agree with that.

I have a question about the state of Louisiana. How are vital services organized and funded?
I'm thinking about police, fire and schools. Just curious.

[jonnielu]

Family of four earning $50,000 pays no federal income tax.

Real estate taxes either on their home or through rent will be $2500-$5000 depending upon state.
State income and sales taxes are good for another $2500-$5000.
FICA = $3150.
Let's ignor gas, alcohol, gambling, tolls and government fees.
This means taxes of $8150 to $13,150. That's a minimum of 16%-26% in taxes.

Everybody pays taxes.

Your example is a bit off, FICA is an income tax plain and simple all day long. Not everyone pays income taxes, and hardly anyone is required to do so by law. Some taxes are legitimate, and for the most part those are taken with proper authority.

A state citizen paying income tax is conned into abdicating his/her authority to a foreign jurisdiction. Not everybody goes for that.

jdl

[jonnielu]

If you mean federal income taxes then I agree.

But there are many other taxes that must be paid. There is not a shortage of taxes.

Everyone that buys goods of any kind pay 100% of the federal income taxes involved in the production of those goods. Corporations and business do not pay taxes, they add the cost to the price of the goods, this is why an income tax is insidious and destructive.

jdl

[DRIVEWAY]

Your example is a bit off, FICA is an income tax plain and simple all day long. Not everyone pays income taxes, and hardly anyone is required to do so by law. Some taxes are legitimate, and for the most part those are taken with proper authority.

A state citizen paying income tax is conned into abdicating his/her authority to a foreign jurisdiction. Not everybody goes for that.

jdl

Do you mean by foreign jurisdiction the United States of America(USA)?

[newtothegame]

[/b]

I'll agree with that.

I have a question about the state of Louisiana. How are vital services organized and funded?
I'm thinking about police, fire and schools. Just curious.
Honestly, driveway...I am not sure. I am relatively positive that most of the local jurisdictions provide for these services (fire police etc etc) through taxes. There are also other grants and the like that help to fund these programs. But, I will also tell you that like most states, Louisiana is in a budget crunch this year. One thing I like though, jindal has gone on the record saying that it will NOT come from tax increases. This will mean that there will be accountability in and at the state level to get each office, division under control.
I am providing a web site which may help to answer some of your questions.......
http://www.lma.org/state_funding_resources.htm

[jonnielu]

Do you mean by foreign jurisdiction the United States of America(USA)?

The jurisdiction of the District of Columbia is foreign to that of the states. There is a reason it is called a district, and it is the same reason that they call their extremely limited jurisdiction within your state, a district.

Look it up, it is right there in the Constitution. There is even a reward for you if you understand this fundamental (to America) concept.

jdl

[DRIVEWAY]

The jurisdiction of the District of Columbia is foreign to that of the states. There is a reason it is called a district, and it is the same reason that they call their extremely limited jurisdiction within your state, a district.

Look it up, it is right there in the Constitution. There is even a reward for you if you understand this fundamental (to America) concept.

jdl

Thanks for your response. As far as interpreting the constitution, I'll leave that to the Supreme Court. But if you want to elaborate on your interpretation, please proceed.

[jonnielu]

Thanks for your response. As far as interpreting the constitution, I'll leave that to the Supreme Court. But if you want to elaborate on your interpretation, please proceed.

Politicians interpret the Constitution, in an effort to BS those without the courage to trust in it, or to clothe themselves in it.

Dred Scott left it to the court, Sam Adams didn't. One pledged his sacred honor to a cause of bringing about a free country, the other asked his equals to interpret for him. The Constitution simply says what it says, you bring the power.... or not.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution states:

The Congress shall have the power to exercise exclusive Legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by Cession of particular states, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States..." (what is now Washington D.C.)

jdl

[chickenhead]

[i][color=#333333]The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.



Yeah, except the right to institute an income tax on the citizens of the States is expressly given the Congress by way of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution.

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.

[NJ Stinks]

This is where I sound like a pure conservative...

It used to be that be when you said you made enough to feed your family - that was literally what you meant. You lived in a domicile that was congruent with your financial situation and if you owned a vehicle, it was probably exactly one vehicle. If you owned a television, it was probably one television. Kids slept on bunkbeds in one room, rode bicycles that lasted for a decade, and went to the movies with money they earned from selling lemonade or delivering the afternoon paper.

Now, too often, when people talk about "feeding the family" - they mean making the mortgage payment on the $500,000 home with five bedrooms and three baths, there's a flatscreen in every room, three computers with high-speed internet, a satelite dish, three cars, four cells on the friends and family network, a playstation 5, an Xbox 720, a new set of golf clubs, insurance for this and insurance for that............

There are people that are legitimately scraping by to live within their means and still support a family. But far, far, far too many of these examples of "poor" folks that just need a little help are limited more by unnecessary expenditure than they are by insufficient income. These people are depriving those that legitimately need it and help foster this bitterness towards public assistance from those that feel as though they have acted responsibly.

Again, I'm not going to sit here and deny that money from wages doesn't go quite as far as it once did - but at some point, even the hardened liberals have to see that as a society, we have become conditioned to expect so many more luxuries and then consider them essentials.

Being stupid and irresponsible has become some form of victimization and there has to be a point when one side concedes that there are those receiving help that need it and at the same time, one side that sees those that receive help that actually need a swift kick in the ass off of assistance so that they can finally grasp the concept of responsibility and realize what the true benefits of our society are.

I agree with your general premise, John. It amazes me how people have no qualms about living above their means.

Somehow living within one's means became something somebody else was supposed to do.

[boxcar]

I agree with your general premise, John. It amazes me how people have no qualms about living above their means.

Somehow living within one's means became something somebody else was supposed to do.

You mean...just like paying your own way in this world, yes?

Boxcar

[jonnielu]

"We the People" through the United States Constitution do provide for taxes as our forefathers did understand that monies would need to be raised to support government. They made provision for two different types of taxation, direct and indirect. Before we examine these differences let's consider Webster's definition of a tax: "a monetary charge imposed by legislative or other public authority upon persons or property for public purposes. A forced contribution of wealth to meet the public needs of government."

An indirect tax is built into or attached to the price of an item we buy. Sales taxes are an example of an indirect tax, also import duties attached to an item imported from elsewhere are indirect taxes. Another basic type of indirect tax is the excise tax: "an internal tax, duty, or impost levied upon the manufacture, sale, or consumption of a commodity within a country, and usually forming an indirect tax that falls upon the ultimate consumer"--Webster. Examples of excise taxes are those on gasoline, tires, alcohol, and cigarettes.

A direct tax is one that is levied directly on your earnings, or property. It is this type that we must examine more closely to see if it is being correctly levied by the federal government and within the bounds of its charter, our Constitution. With these basic definitions in mind, let's look at what the U. S. Constitution, "the supreme law of the land," says about taxes.

Article I, Section 8 reads :

"The Congress shall have rite power to lay" and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common Defense, and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States..." (Emphasis added)

Take note that the word "Taxes" is not included with "Duties, Imposts, and Excises" when uniformity throughout the United States is mentioned. Was this an accident? For very good reason, No. The laying and collecting of taxes had been set out previously in the Constitution.

Article I, Section 2 states, "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective members..." Webster defines "apportion" this way: "to divide and assign in proportion; allot". Specifically, to assign...among the States in proportion to population, as provided in the U. S. Constitution.

In simple terms, if income is to be taxed directly (as it is today), it must be apportioned according to the population of each state. Upholding that point of the Constitution, the Supreme Court ruled a previous attempt at an income tax by Congress (in 1894) unconstitutional specifically on this point. In 1895's Pollock v. Fanner's Loan and Trust, 158 U.S. 601, the high court ruled that a direct tax not based on apportionment is not legal. (But our tax system today includes the same unconstitutional element!)

"First. We adhere to the opinion already announced, that, taxes on real estate being indisputably direct taxes, taxes on the rents or income of real estate are equally direct taxes.

"Second. We are of opinion that taxes on personal property, or on the income of personal property, are likewise direct taxes.

"Third. The tax imposed by sections twenty-seven to thirty-seven, inclusive, of the act of 1894, so far as it falls on the income of real estate and of personal property, being a direct tax within the meaning of the Constitution, and, therefore, unconstitutional and void because not apportioned according to representation, all those sections, constituting one entire scheme of taxation, are necessarily invalid. " (Emphasis added)

According to this authority, technically, a direct tax would correctly be levied from the federal government on each state, and the state would then apportion it among its citizens. A correct application, for example, would be for Congress to submit a budget for the year, to be apportioned amongst the states according to their respective populations. With California raising a much larger amount then Montana, or Delaware. Nothing in our Constitution provides for a "graduated, progressive income tax." But, the Constitution states clearly that a tax on income, a direct tax, must be apportioned to the states according to population. The Supreme Court holds that this is true.

The reasons for this have to do with the realities of federal jurisdiction, the founders well understood the danger of a powerful central government. Our Constitution is designed to provide the people with a chain of constraint on the central government, but the federal government has no direct jurisdiction over the citizenry of the several states. This is demonstrated by consideration of:

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 U.S. Constitution

The Congress shall have the power to excercise exclusive Legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by Cessionof particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress,become the seat of the Government of the United States..." [that is, what is now Washington D.C.]

The clause continues by stating that Congress may also "excercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which same shall be..." (that would consist of federal buildings, federal land in the several States, and U.S. possessions such as Guam, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, etc.)

This is the limit, Congress does not have the power to excercise exclusive legislation outside of these areas. These designated areas are the extent of Congressional jurisdiction as authorized by the Constitution of "We the People". All other areas would come under the jurisdiction of the individual States. So, the great question to be asked is how in the world could you have come under the jurisdiction of the federal government?

When confronted with such evidence of our income tax systems illegal foundation, most supporters or brain dead promoters of the system point to the Constitutions 16th Amendment which clearly contradicts Article 1, Section 2 stated previously. Supposedly, this Amendment makes the whole idea of an income tax work. Let's question that idea.

"Inasmuch as most good things are produced by labor, it follows that all such things of right belong to those whose labor has produced them. But it has happened, in all ages of the world, that some have labored, and others have without labor enjoyed a large proportion of the fruits. This is wrong and should not continue. To secure to each laborer the whole product of his labor as nearly as possible, is a worthy subject of any good government."

- Abraham Lincoln

The 16th Amendment to the Constitution reads, "The Congress shall have the 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. " (Emphasis added.) It seems pretty straight forward, written and done.

At first, it seems obvious that the 16th amendment legalizes the tax on our salaries, wages, earnings and dividends, despite its clear conflict with the "direct taxes shall be apportioned" clause in Article I, Section 2. It is an amendment, right? It must be correct and proper. (or, is it not?) Fortunately, this proposition has been questioned and duly challenged.

The Supreme Court has ruled that this 16th "Amendment" does not amend the Constitution, and, it does not provide Congress any new authority to tax! How can it be an amendment? To understand how this amendment came to exist, let's look at what was passed by Congress and then ratified by the states. Then at what the Supreme Court has ruled this "amendment" really means.

Upon reading the debate on the income tax bill in the Congressional Record of the 1st Session of the 63rd Congress it quickly becomes apparent that the senators had no agreement (or determination) on what "income" is... the very thing they had set out to tax. There was no decision, for instance, whether it meant "receipts of every sort" or "profits or gains".

Senator Cummins of Iowa, an ally in the move to pass the amendment:

"It is not for Congress to interpret what it (income) means; it is for the courts of the country to say... If it were within the power of Congress to enlarge the meaning of the word "income." it could, as I suggested a moment ago, obliterate all difference between income and principal, and obviously the people did not intend to give to Congress the power to levy a direct tax upon all the property of this country without apportionment. " (Emphasis added)

In this statement, the Senator recognizes the authority of the court to decide issues of constitutionality, regardless of what Congress might decide. And, recognizes that the authority of the people is given to the government only through the Constitution. Yet the IRS today claims to have power and authority beyond and outside the Constitution.

When Senator Cummins was asked by Senator Williams of Mississippi, "Does the Senator think it is useless in a tax bill to try to define the thing you propose to tax?" Cummins replied, "I do think in this instance that it is worse than useless; I think it is dangerous. " The rest of Congress seems to have agreed,--they never did define what would be meant by the word "income".

So even with this huge hole and the obvious contradiction to the existing Constitution this amendment passed through Congress and was ratified by enough states to be added. What we must understand about our system of government is that our founding fathers knew that our elected representatives might not always act in the best interest of the citizenry. So, they designed the system in a way that true and ultimate authority could remain in the hands of "We the people" through the Constitution. But, it is up to us to exercise our right and authority by challenging any contradictory or nonsensical laws our Congress may pass.

So now, with the addition of the 16th amendment, it would seem that income (whatever that is), could be taxed by the federal government. Although the framers of the "law" failed to define its key word, certainly the IRS could come up with one; after all, that's what they deal with every day. They couldn't collect an income tax if they didn't know what "income" was, right? Yet nowhere in the IRS Code is there a definition of this concept!

Of course that hasn't kept them from defining "gross income" as "all income from whatever source derived. " Neat trick, defining a word by substituting a term that includes it, then using the same undefined word to define the first undefined term. Using the word to define itself, they make it seem to be defined since they have built upon it. Yet it is only air, just like their agency is "90% bluff" by their own admission. Since defining a word sets limits on it, their leaving it undefined keeps it unlimited---to their great advantage, if left unchallenged.

The Supreme Court, hasn't been fooled by such "double talk". Its ruling is,

...that the citizen is exempt from taxation, unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language, and that where the construction of a tax is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor upon whom the tax is sought to be laid." (Spreckles Sugar Refining Co. v. McClain, 192 U.S. 397 at page 416)

Understand the importance of this decision. Right here the Court pronounced the tax illegal. Blowing another hole in the 16th amendment with the undefined "income". And, the IRS Code of 9,602 sections that is built on the 16th amendment is anything but "clear and unequivocal"!

So, since Congress failed to define what the 16th amendment supposedly created a tax on, it has fallen to the court to define the word. Actually the Supreme Court has done so repeatedly and very clearly since the adoption of the "amendment" in 1913, for example in Merchants' Loan and Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509(March, 1921):

"...there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by the decisions of this court." (Emphasis added)

And what was that meaning? "A corporate profit." In other words, if you have no "corporate profit", you have no taxable income! And, as if that is not enough, the supreme court has ruled that the 16th Amendment did not amend the Constitution, and without amendment to the Constitution there is no legal foundation for a tax on our income. Meaning that the IRS has no basis in law for collecting tax on income within the 50 States. If this notion makes you skeptical, read this excerpt from the decision in Brushaber v, Union Pacific RR, 240 U.S. 1, Jan, 1916:

"...the proposition and the contentions under it [the Sixteenth "Amendment"] ...would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another; that is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned... This result instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitations on the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have intended to accomplish(,) would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion." (Emphasis added)

In other words, by passing the "amendment" into "law," Congress had to violate the fundamental principles of taxation contained in the articles of the Constitution itself. The Brushaber Court also stated:

"...the two great subdivisions embracing the complete and perfect delegation of the power to tax and the two correlated limitations as to such power were thus aptly stated by Mr. Chief Justice Fuller in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, ... "In the matter of taxation, the Constitution recognizes the two great classes of direct and indirect taxes, and lays down two rules by which their imposition must be governed, namely: The rule of apportionment as to direct taxes, and the rule of uniformity as to duties, imposts and excises. "... In the whole history of the Government down to the time of the adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment...no question has been anywhere made as to the correctness of these propositions. " (Emphasis added)

By contradicting the Constitution, Congress had cut the new "amendment" off from its real source of legality for application to individual Sovereign citizens. This principle is stated in Sixteenth American Jurisprudence (Second Edition, Sect. 256):

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, whether federal or state, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose, since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it... No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

As if that were not enough, one of the pillars of Constitutional law, the famous Marbury v. Madison verdict of 1803 speaks very clearly and strong:

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution (before and after its 1787 ratification) are null and void... The Constitution is superior to any ordinary Act of the Legislature; the Constitution, and not such ordinary Act, must govern the case to which they both apply...

Since the basic tax principles ("propositions") in the articles of the Constitution had never been questioned as to correctness, Congress had created no amendment, legitimizing this legislation would have required altering the articles of the Constitution itself.

We can take note that neither Brushaber nor Pollock has ever been overturned...or even challenged! Instead they were affirmed by the ruling in Evans v. Gore (1920): "The Sixteenth...does not justify the taxation of persons (Citizens) or things (their property) previously immune...it does not extend taxing power to new or excepted (Citizens)...

So, the key to understanding this whole mess seems to be an understanding of the boundaries of federal jurisdiction, and of the word "income", now defined after passage of the 16th amendment as corporate profit, or a gain in capital. The Constitution, previous to the 16th, places the Sovereign citizen outside of federal jurisdiction and forbids direct taxation without apportionment. If the 16th were to be applied to Sovereign persons, saying that they have incomes within federal jurisdiction and are therefore subject to the tax, it would clearly defy the Constitution itself. Therefore, the courts definition of income causes the 16th to be applicable to business entities (corporations), or federal citizens/subjects as an excise tax. The courts definition of "income" creates the situation that the 16th cannot be applied to Sovereign citizens and their wages without violating the previous provisions of the Constitution. Put another way, the 16th can be applied to those under federal jurisdiction as they would be the only persons or entities having income according to the courts definition. This resolves the debacle in a way that the IRS however can still point to the 16th amendment and hope that you think that you are subject to federal jurisdiction and have an income, because if you will think so, and send in your money, it is good for them.

In the year of the Brushaber decision, the same court handed down another ruling which clarified the issue of the "amendment" further, bolstering its usefulness if not, its legitimacy. In Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 U.S. 103, the court stated,

"by the previous ruling (Brushaber) it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the...power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation' to which it inherently belonged..." (Emphasis added)

Here we have it, no new power of taxation, and now income taxation cannot be taken out of the class of indirect taxes. Excise taxes, legally placed on items of privilege, like the privilege of doing business as a corporation, a government chartered entity. A Sovereign American citizen is not chartered by the government, but is a citizen by right. But, today it seems more than ever, we must know our rights in order to retain them.

We should also take notice that this decision refers to "the power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning" and reason that Congressional power to tax income would be found in its Constitutional authority to exclusive legislation within the area of federal jurisdiction. Meaning that Congress always had authority to tax income within the boundaries of its Constitutionally limited jurisdiction. What was the need for the 16th Amendment? Perhaps so that you would think that it applies to you.

To get the best grip on the 16th amendment, it may be necessary to again step back in time as best we can. The average American would have a much different perspective in 1913 then what we have today. The federal government of 1913 was quite small in comparison to the parasitic usurpation giant we see today. The people, and their states, were aware that they had rights and power.

I would think that in such a setting, the idea of taxing income might have been frowned upon by the people. Of course the populists in office marketed it to the ordinary folks as a "soak the rich" plan. This was not a hard sell because, for the most part, people knew that their earnings were safe as a result of their rights. It would only be those other people that would be taxed, those that Congress had jurisdiction over. The evil, mean, rotten corporations. Those horrible capitalistic rich people that were making corporate profits, and those foreigners. That was okay, most people would not be at all affected and they knew it. So, Congress proposed an amendment to make everything seem very official. And, the unsuspecting people let them have it. Not thinking for a minute that their grandchildren would be duped into "voluntary compliance".

Today, we live in a TV sound bite society and we have been indoctrinated to the idea that the 16th amendment grants to Congress an almighty unstoppable power to tax everything and everyone. Because that is what we think, that is what we get. The truth is that Congress is limited by the Constitution, unless "we the people" do not hold with those limits.

The fact that government sought a Constitutional amendment to tax the property of people serves to show how sacred private property once was in this country. Congress already possessed the complete power to tax all things within it's lawful jurisdiction. An amendment was sought in the hope that an income tax would then be acceptable to people. At the time, Congress was also only seeking to tax those within its jurisdiction. Corporations, foreigners, federal employees, and federal citizens. Still, the Sovereign people had to be wooed into agreement with the 16th amendment. The income tax affected very few in the early years of the twentieth century and because of that, the sovereign people did not suspect that this would only be the beginning of assault on the true spirit of the Constitution.

In reality, the 16th amendment is today just as powerless in taxing Sovereign Citizens as it was the day before ratification. So, what has changed in 87 years? Only the mind of the average Citizen. The only difference that we have today is that most people believe that Congress is the master while the people are the servant. It is all in your mind, the founders believed and held with the unalienable rights of mankind. And, so it came to be that America flourished. Now, the people that make America work think that they owe half of everything to their masters in Congress. From this belief comes all of the waste, incompetence, and outright stupidity that pervades government today.

Today many citizens are quietly leaving the tax system. (When former IRS Commissioner Roscoe Egger resigned (April, 1986), he admitted publicly that 35 million Americans no longer file personal tax returns.)

[johnhannibalsmith]

I enjoyed that post Jonnielu and appreciate the effort put forth to make it.

[chickenhead]

Other than being wrong, that's a pretty impressive spread.


Lets take this one:

So, since Congress failed to define what the 16th amendment supposedly created a tax on, it has fallen to the court to define the word. Actually the Supreme Court has done so repeatedly and very clearly since the adoption of the "amendment" in 1913, for example in Merchants' Loan and Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509(March, 1921).

And your summary, of:

"...there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by the decisions of this court." (Emphasis added)

And what was that meaning? "A corporate profit." In other words, if you have no "corporate profit", you have no taxable income!

Say what? That is what you think they found in that ruling? Lets look into it a bit.

Well, first, speaking directly to your (or whoever you copied froms) assertion -- they define the definition of income, as derived from the Corporate Excise Tax:

The Corporation Excise Tax Act of August 5, 1909 (36 Stat. 11, 112), was not an income tax law, but a definition of the word 'income' was so necessary in its administration that in an early case it was formulated as 'A gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined.' Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 , 34 S. Sup. Ct. 136, 140 (58 L. Ed. 285).

This definition, frequently approved by this court, received an addition, in its latest income tax decision, which [255 U.S. 509, 518] is especially significant in its application to such a case as we have here, so that it now reads:

'Income may be defined as a gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it be understood to include profit gained through sale or conversion of capital assets.'

OK, so there we have the definition, approved by the Court of the definition of corporate "income". This is apparently where your reading ends, but they are just getting warmed up.

They go on to say:

It is obvious that these decisions in principle rule the [255 U.S. 509, 519] case at bar if the word 'income' has the same meaning in the Income Tax Act of 1913 that it had in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909,

If the definition of Income used is the same for personal Income Tax as it is for Corporate Tax, then this case is already decided. So, is it Mr. Court?

..there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act, and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court.

they should have added, as a foot note, no room for doubt except by johhnielu. MOREOVER, in direct contradiction to your closing argument, about original intent, the Court goes on to state:

this Court has consistently refused to enter into the refinements of lexicographers or economists, and has approved, in the definitions quoted, what it believed to be the commonly understood meaning of the term which must have been in the minds of the people when they adopted the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Notwithstanding the full argument heard in this case and in the series of cases now under consideration, we continue entirely satisfied with that definition, and, since the fund here taxed was the amount realized from the sale of the stock in 1917, less the capital investment [255 U.S. 509, 520] as determined by the trustee as of March 1, 1913, it is palpable that it was a 'gain or profit' 'produced by' or 'derived from' that investment, and that it 'proceeded' and was 'severed' or rendered severable from it by the sale for cash, and thereby became that 'realized gain' which has been repeatedly declared to be taxable income within the meaning of the constitutional amendment and the acts of Congress.

Remember, this was the Court of 1921 making this decision. Do you think they had a better handle on the original intent of 1913 than you do?

[johnhannibalsmith]

Other than being wrong, that's a pretty impressive spread...


And a fine rebuttal. I thoroughly enjoy these discussions.

[only11]

don't know if anyone was watching greta sustern on fox tonight. but there was an interesting statistic brought up by a senator that said twenty percent of the population gets seventy-five percent of their income from the government, and another twenty percent gets forty percent from the government. he went on to say that in five years seventy percent of the population will be getting more in benefits from the government than they are giving in taxes to the government.
evidently we are headed towards a social welfare state and really nothing can be done about it from what i see, as the benefits that people get are needed for them to survive.
i saw an interesting sign in my public library the other day that said "you work hard, you deserve food stamps". and by the sign was a stack of applications to apply for food stamps. use to be if you worked you made enough money to feed yourself. things seem to be getting worse and worse as the years past and i only see things as getting even worse.
Im a case worker for the state of florida..heres some info Cuban refugees receive anywhere from $180 to $550 in food stamps and same goes for cash ..they also receive free medicaid for 8 months ..kids received medcaid til 18..the mexicans are the worst there kids receive benefits (not the parents because they wont have a SS number and are illegal) but there live in boyfriend or husband work underneath the table AND GET PAID CASH....They act like America OWES THEM FREAKING JOKE..

[boxcar]

The Corporation Excise Tax Act of August 5, 1909 (36 Stat. 11, 112), was not an income tax law, but a definition of the word 'income' was so necessary in its administration that in an early case it was formulated as 'A gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined.' Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 , 34 S. Sup. Ct. 136, 140 (58 L. Ed. 285).

This definition, frequently approved by this court, received an addition, in its latest income tax decision, which [255 U.S. 509, 518] is especially significant in its application to such a case as we have here, so that it now reads:

'Income may be defined as a gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it be understood to include profit gained through sale or conversion of capital assets.'

Chick asks:
If the definition of Income used is the same for personal Income Tax as it is for Corporate Tax, then this case is already decided. So, is it Mr. Court?

You tell us, Mr. Lawyer! Just how does a PERSON realize a profit or gain off his labor when he collects his paycheck? Assuredly, companies (i.e. corporations) can profit off of labor, but how do workers profit therefrom?

Boxcar

[chickenhead]

Lets tackle another one.

Brushaber v, Union Pacific RR, 240 U.S. 1, Jan, 1916

you generalize the sentiment of the Court with the statement:

In other words, by passing the "amendment" into "law," Congress had to violate the fundamental principles of taxation contained in the articles of the Constitution itself.

derived from this statement:

"...the proposition and the contentions under it [the Sixteenth "Amendment"] ...would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another...(Emphasis added)

But you have an outright lie right in your first sentence. [the Sixteenth Amendment]. Sharp eyed readers would question this straight away, as the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not and was not a "proposition" or a "contention".

They are referring the argument being made against the 16th Amendment, referrencing the argument they are deciding upon in the earlier paragraphs:

the bill alleged twenty-one constitutional objections specified in that number of paragraphs or subdivisions. As all the grounds assert a violation of the Constitution, it follows that, in a wide sense, they all charge a repugnancy of the statute to the 16th Amendment

The various propositions are so intermingled as to cause it to be difficult to classify them. (editors note
: sound familiar? :lol: ) We are of opinion, however, [240 U.S. 1, 11] that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it

so, after the Court called the Argument against the 16 Amendment erroneous and confused, they go on to say, as you quoted:

But it clearly results that the proposition and the contentions [240 U.S. 1, 12] under it, if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another...

i.e, acceding to the arguments proffered, the arguments that arise from an erroneous understanding of what the 16th Amendment is -- would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another -- they are decidedly NOT talking about the 16th Amendment itself. And they certainly DID NOT find that the 16th Amendment did so. They utterly rejected those arguments.

And then thy go on to explain how the 16th Amendment, as it's been applied, is in harmony with other parts of the Constitution. And decide that yes, the government has every right to collect those taxes.

It's really only through outright lying that its been made to look otherwise.

Again, who is it that's relying on soundbites and a lack of knowledge of history to get away with their fraud? Being blatantly dishonest in your argumentation hints at who that might be.

[chickenhead]

The Corporation Excise Tax Act of August 5, 1909 (36 Stat. 11, 112), was not an income tax law, but a definition of the word 'income' was so necessary in its administration that in an early case it was formulated as 'A gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined.' Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 , 34 S. Sup. Ct. 136, 140 (58 L. Ed. 285).

This definition, frequently approved by this court, received an addition, in its latest income tax decision, which [255 U.S. 509, 518] is especially significant in its application to such a case as we have here, so that it now reads:

'Income may be defined as a gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it be understood to include profit gained through sale or conversion of capital assets.'

Chick asks:


You tell us, Mr. Lawyer! Just how does a PERSON realize a profit or gain off his labor when he collects his paycheck? Assuredly, companies (i.e. corporations) can profit off of labor, but how do workers profit therefrom?

Boxcar

A more valid question is what in this case is being taxed. The courts have specifically stated over and over again that income taxes on labor are INDIRECT taxes, despite johnnie definition examples above. There was some changes over time on whether incomes taxes on things like rents or dividends were direct or indirect, but not on labor income. They are a tax on an activity, the activity being earning a wage from labor.

And the trick is in the definition itself, the “from whatever source derived.”

People like Johnnie will expend so much effort trying to prove that something like this is not constitutional, using case law to bolster his point, despite the fact that case law is unequivocally against him (proof of this being that we do have income taxes, have had them long before the 16th amendment, and have had them since.)

What should really be the question, is forget the Constitution for a moment, forget the case law -- because case law and the Constitution only says what CAN be done, it doesn't say what MUST be done. People forget this all the time.

People that don't like something about income taxes would have a hell of lot more success simply arguing for a better tax code, better designed. They will have zero success arguing that 100 years of settled constitutional law is "wrong". It's already been decided. But it's not a mandate, of any kind.

[boxcar]

A more valid question is what in this case is being taxed. The courts have specifically stated over and over again that income taxes on labor are INDIRECT taxes, despite johnnie definition examples above. There was some changes over time on whether incomes taxes on things like rents or dividends were direct or indirect, but not on labor income. They are a tax on an activity, the activity being earning a wage from labor.

And the trick is in the definition itself, the “from whatever source derived.”

People like Johnnie will expend so much effort trying to prove that something like this is not constitutional, using case law to bolster his point, despite the fact that case law is unequivocally against him (proof of this being that we do have income taxes, have had them long before the 16th amendment, and have had them since.)

What should really be the question, is forget the Constitution for a moment, forget the case law -- because case law and the Constitution only says what CAN be done, it doesn't say what MUST be done. People forget this all the time.

People that don't like something about income taxes would have a hell of lot more success simply arguing for a better tax code, better designed. They will have zero success arguing that 100 years of settled constitutional law is "wrong". It's already been decided. But it's not a mandate, of any kind.

Okay...so, let's go back to another ruling:

In simple terms, if income is to be taxed directly (as it is today), it must be apportioned according to the population of each state. Upholding that point of the Constitution, the Supreme Court ruled a previous attempt at an income tax by Congress (in 1894) unconstitutional specifically on this point. In 1895's Pollock v. Fanner's Loan and Trust, 158 U.S. 601, the high court ruled that a direct tax not based on apportionment is not legal. (But our tax system today includes the same unconstitutional element!)

"First. We adhere to the opinion already announced, that, taxes on real estate being indisputably direct taxes, taxes on the rents or income of real estate are equally direct taxes.

"Second. We are of opinion that taxes on personal property, or on the income of personal property, are likewise direct taxes.

Not to argue the "direct" or "indirect" thingie with you; but I think you have to concede that both the courts and congress can trip over themselves in contradictions. If earned money, i.e. earned wages can't be categorized as one's personal property, then what should it be categorized as?

In fact, the megabytes of irony here is that this Marxist tax system gives government DIRECT and PREDOMINANT control over people's personal property! Why do you think Marx championed this tax system!? Marx in his Communist Manifesto when writing about "economic justice" or "economic equality" (i.e. equal outcomes) said about the progressive income tax:

In the most advanced countries the following will be pretty generally applicable: a heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Is it any wonder that congress when passing the Income Tax Laws decades ago refused to define the very term for which the laws were written!? It would have been political suicide for them to have exposed their real intentions to the American people. Instead, the spineless cowards acquiesced their legislative authority to the Courts! After all, the people don't get to vote on who sits on the bench, do we? But I digress...

Sadly, The People were lied to by congress from the very beginning about the 16th Amendment. The Income Tax was marketed as a revenue stream to help pay for the war effort and it was supposed to be TEMPORARY. And it's been all downhill for the people ever since that great lie!

Boxcar

[chickenhead]

Not to argue the "direct" or "indirect" thingie with you; but I think you have to concede that both the courts and congress can trip over themselves in contradictions. If earned money, i.e. earned wages can't be categorized as one's personal property, then what should it be categorized as?

The easiest way to look at the difference is to consider the $100 in your pocket. How much tax will you owe the Fed on that $100 if its in your pocket next year? None. It's your property, they don't tax it.

What they do tax are transactions. They taxed the earning of that money. That's an action they are taxing, not the property itself. Taxing transactions are indirect, taxing the *being* of something is Direct. Your property taxes are direct. Just the existence of that house incurs them. Fed taxes on sales gains from that house are indirect, they are taxing the transaction, not the house. It's the transaction that incurs them, not the property itself.

Subtle, and a distinction most would consider meaningless? Sure, but its not, that how things were written many many long years ago.

It's worth considering, as a possibility at least, that the Founding Fathers, as landed gentry and being primarily people with significant assets, rather than working people -- that perhaps they were too myopic? For normal folks, earnings are everything. If the Founding Fathers had been workers rather than owners, might earnings have been protected akin to assets? It's possible...

[boxcar]

The easiest way to look at the difference is to consider the $100 in your pocket. How much tax will you owe the Fed on that $100 if its in your pocket next year? None. It's your property, they don't tax it.

What they do tax are transactions. They taxed the earning of that money. That's an action they are taxing, not the property itself. Taxing transactions are indirect, taxing the *being* of something is Direct. Your property taxes are direct. Just the existence of that house incurs them. Fed taxes on sales gains from that house are indirect, they are taxing the transaction, not the house. It's the transaction that incurs them, not the property itself.

Subtle, and a distinction most would consider meaningless? Sure, but its not, that how things were written many many long years ago.

It's worth considering, as a possibility at least, that the Founding Fathers, as landed gentry and being primarily people with significant assets, rather than working people -- that perhaps they were too myopic? For normal folks, earnings are everything. If the Founding Fathers had been workers rather than owners, might earnings have been protected akin to assets? It's possible...

Interesting explanation, Chick! But how does that square with what Jon posted earlier?

Article I, Section 2 states, "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective members..." Webster defines "apportion" this way: "to divide and assign in proportion; allot". Specifically, to assign...among the States in proportion to population, as provided in the U. S. Constitution.

In simple terms, if income is to be taxed directly (as it is today), it must be apportioned according to the population of each state. Upholding that point of the Constitution, the Supreme Court ruled a previous attempt at an income tax by Congress (in 1894) unconstitutional specifically on this point. In 1895's Pollock v. Fanner's Loan and Trust, 158 U.S. 601, the high court ruled that a direct tax not based on apportionment is not legal. (But our tax system today includes the same unconstitutional element!)

"First. We adhere to the opinion already announced, that, taxes on real estate being indisputably direct taxes, taxes on the rents or income of real estate are equally direct taxes.

"Second. We are of opinion that taxes on personal property, or on the income of personal property, are likewise direct taxes.

"Third. The tax imposed by sections twenty-seven to thirty-seven, inclusive, of the act of 1894, so far as it falls on the income of real estate and of personal property, being a direct tax within the meaning of the Constitution, and, therefore, unconstitutional and void because not apportioned according to representation, all those sections, constituting one entire scheme of taxation, are necessarily invalid. " (Emphasis added)

Are not wages "income of personal property"? Are not collected rents a business transaction? Yet, they are classified as direct taxes! And what exactly are taxes on personal property if not wages?

Boxcar

[chickenhead]

income from personal property, in that decision, were explicitely meant to be rents from real estate, and dividends from bonds and the like. i.e. income that is produced from personal property. By the nature of them, their intrinsic linkage to the property itself, that they are one and the same. So a tax on that would be a direct tax, and require apportionment

But then the 16th Amendment came along and removed the apportionment requirement for direct taxes, making that whole distinction kind of moot anyway.

But income from labor was never at issue, it just has never been defined that way.

[boxcar]

income from personal property, in that decision, were explicitely meant to be rents from real estate, and dividends from bonds and the like. i.e. income that is produced from personal property. By the nature of them, their intrinsic linkage to the property itself, that they are one and the same. So a tax on that would be a direct tax, and require apportionment

But then the 16th Amendment came along and removed the apportionment requirement for direct taxes, making that whole distinction kind of moot anyway.

But income from labor was never at issue, it just has never been defined that way.

You're right, now it's a moot point. However, you explanation to my question cannot be correct because in that SC decision, there were TWO points raised as to what constituted direct taxes. In point one, it talks about income from real estate. Point two, however, talks about "taxes on personal property", which must differ from those taxes talked about in the First Point.

Also, your take on the FF's being a wee bit myopic on tax issues in the Constitution because of their wealth doesn't ring true given their historical circumstances AND their general Judeao-Christian world view. The entire thrust of the Constitution was to put strict limits on government power because of these two reasons. Why in the world would they grant government virtually unlimited power to tax its citizens? The FFs knew full well what would come to past: They knew the Have Nots would vote for politicians who were in favor of taxing the Haves in exchange for the votes of the Have Nots.

It certainly wasn't any accident that the entire progressive tax scheme was conceived by God-hating secular humanists. If you think the likes of Marx or Engels has brought civilization into another Age of Enlightenment, then you must think the Founding Father were a bunch of misguided stooges by comparison.

Also, I would remind you that according to the Good Book, the Root of All Evil is the Love of Money. The Progressive Income Tax System makes it all too easy for the Takers in society and for their all-too-willing thieving proxies in government to ceaselessly engage in lust-fests for others' money.

Boxcar

[Robert Goren]

They just trying to get the rich into heaven.;)

[chickenhead]

However, you explanation to my question cannot be correct because in that SC decision, there were TWO points raised as to what constituted direct taxes. In point one, it talks about income from real estate. Point two, however, talks about "taxes on personal property", which must differ from those taxes talked about in the First Point.

a quote from the settlement should help here:

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

income derived from real estate (1), and invested personal property (stocks and bonds, interest income and dividends) (2), alone.

They are explicit that they are not speaking about general business, privileges (gifts?), or employments (income from labor), because those have already been found to be excise (indirect) tax, and therefore don't require apportionment.

[boxcar]

a quote from the settlement should help here:



income derived from real estate (1), and invested personal property (stocks and bonds, interest income and dividends) (2), alone.

They are explicit that they are not speaking about general business, privileges (gifts?), or employments (income from labor), because those have already been found to be excise (indirect) tax, and therefore don't require apportionment.

Your quote was from the same court ruling in which the two points were stated?

Boxcar

[chickenhead]

yep

[jonnielu]

income from personal property, in that decision, were explicitely meant to be rents from real estate, and dividends from bonds and the like. i.e. income that is produced from personal property. By the nature of them, their intrinsic linkage to the property itself, that they are one and the same. So a tax on that would be a direct tax, and require apportionment

But then the 16th Amendment came along and removed the apportionment requirement for direct taxes, making that whole distinction kind of moot anyway.

But income from labor was never at issue, it just has never been defined that way.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that you work as a head double talker down at the IRS office, in some distrct or another. You are certainly qualified.

We can take note that neither Brushaber nor Pollock has ever been overturned...or even challenged! Instead they were affirmed by the ruling in Evans v. Gore (1920): "The Sixteenth...does not justify the taxation of persons (Citizens) or things (their property) previously immune...it does not extend taxing power to new or excepted (Citizens)...


In Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 U.S. 103, the court stated,
"by the previous ruling (Brushaber) it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the...power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation' to which it inherently belonged..." (Emphasis added)

jdl

[jonnielu]

a quote from the settlement should help here:



income derived from real estate (1), and invested personal property (stocks and bonds, interest income and dividends) (2), alone.

They are explicit that they are not speaking about general business, privileges (gifts?), or employments (income from labor), because those have already been found to be excise (indirect) tax, and therefore don't require apportionment.

Maybe you should explain the difference between an "excise" tax, and a "direct" tax, and how the federal jurisdiction would lawfully apply one or the other.

You've got the double talk down real well, if the IRS and Congress didn't already have so many great cons working for them, I'd bet they'd love to have you on the roster.

jdl

jdl

[chickenhead]

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that you work as a head double talker down at the IRS office, in some distrct or another. You are certainly qualified.

That's pretty funny if you knew me. But I'm just a concerned citizen who takes opportunities to learn something new.

We can take note that neither Brushaber nor Pollock has ever been overturned...or even challenged! Instead they were affirmed by the ruling in Evans v. Gore (1920): "The Sixteenth...does not justify the taxation of persons (Citizens) or things (their property) previously immune...it does not extend taxing power to new or excepted (Citizens)...

Exactly, those things were never immune prior to Pollock, prior to the 16th, prior to anything. From inception up to passage of the 16th Amendment, they just required apportionment if they were to be taxed.

And that is exactly Pollock said, IF you are to tax income from these things, income which by the nature of it we consider to be a Direct tax on the underlying thing, THEN it must be apportioned. That's it, that's the entire ruling. There was never any question in Pollock of whether it could be taxed. Yes, it could. There is no doubt about that, whatsoever. And that is pre 16th Amendment of course.

So when you read

"The Sixteenth...does not justify the taxation of persons (Citizens) or things (their property) previously immune"

that is exactly right -- because no income ever was immune, that flows from Art 1 Sec 8. All that was removed was the requirement of apportionment. The ability to tax that income is not a new power. The ability to tax was always there.

That is what the Supreme Court has said, and subsequently, that is the law.

[jonnielu]

That's pretty funny if you knew me. But I'm just a concerned citizen who takes opportunities to learn something new.



Exactly, those things were never immune prior to Pollock, prior to the 16th, prior to anything. From inception up to passage of the 16th Amendment, they just required apportionment if they were to be taxed.

And that is exactly Pollock said, IF you are to tax income from these things, income which by the nature of it we consider to be a Direct tax on the underlying thing, THEN it must be apportioned. That's it, that's the entire ruling. There was never any question in Pollock of whether it could be taxed. Yes, it could. There is no doubt about that, whatsoever. And that is pre 16th Amendment of course.

So when you read



that is exactly right -- because no income ever was immune, that flows from Art 1 Sec 8. All that was removed was the requirement of apportionment. The ability to tax that income is not a new power. The ability to tax was always there.

That is what the Supreme Court has said, and subsequently, that is the law.

Is that within the district, or without the district?

Our founders clearly understood that a central government was but a power hungry beast that would constantly seek to usurp the authority of the people. Our Constitution was designed to enable "We the People" to have the benefit of a national government and union of the several states while providing all necessary constraints of the people on the beast. It is what we will allow to government, not the other way around. Our Constitution also makes some hard and fast reservations of rights to the people such as the "Bill of Rights", this was intended to clearly spell out those things which government could never infringe.
The true brilliance of the founders is seen in the Constitution's article 1 section 8 which limits the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress. I am convinced that this was done in a fit of foresight on the part of the founders. They knew that the limitations on tyrants would have to be held by the people and not the central government. By limiting the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress, the founders built into the Constitution a limit on Congress in lawfully putting its arm on people. For Congress is supposed and intended to be that federal branch that is truly "of the people". Should Congress have lawful jurisdiction over the states and the people, then the several states could legislate against some one of the states, Such as deciding to build all of the prisons in one state. Or, to control the people with taxation perhaps.

The limits of Congress exclusive legislation functions to operate as a shield against the central government having any direct access to, or influence over the citizens of the several states. Although any individual citizen can lawfully access and influence the operation of the central government. This was intended as a measure to prevent the central government from usurping the power of the states. This is the Constitutional chain that the people have on federal government.

Today, after 60 years of incremental liberalism, many politicians that administrate the octopus known as our federal government, might suggest to us that our forefathers, fresh from the struggle, sat down and wrote up a Constitution that provides for federal jurisdiction over, and unlimited taxation of "we the people". So that the federal government could impose all sorts of regulation and transfer wealth from those who have to those who haven't. I've got to say, even without much study. That notion doesn't seem very much possible.

jdl

[chickenhead]

Maybe you should explain the difference between an "excise" tax, and a "direct" tax, and how the federal jurisdiction would lawfully apply one or the other.

Where you go wrong, is that you think your opinion of what a direct tax is trumps the Constitution itself. The contradiction you see is by substituting your own opinion in place of what the Constitution actually says.

"We the People" through the United States Constitution do provide for taxes as our forefathers did understand that monies would need to be raised to support government. They made provision for two different types of taxation, direct and indirect.

Exactly correct.

Article I, Section 2 states,
"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective members...

Article I, Section 8 reads :
"The Congress shall have rite power to lay" and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common Defense, and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States..."

So here we have the two controlling parts of the US Constitution.

They lay out:
A.) Direct taxes. These taxes must be apportioned among the states.
B.) Duties, Imposts, Excises. Called Indirect, because they are set in contrast to "Direct". Only requirement here is that they are applied equally.

I think we are all in agreement so far. That's how the original Constitution read.

There were a variety of Income taxes levied by the Government over the 1800's. None of them were apportioned amongst the States, all income taxes were, however, applied uniformly amongst the States. They were considered excise taxes.

This is the law until 1895, and the Pollock case.

The Supreme Court at that point ruled that some specific types of income were not in fact open to excise taxes, but instead would qualify as direct taxes. Specifically income generated by property (real estate and bonds).

All other types of income, except those specifically mentioned, were still considered to be excise, and therefore indirect taxes.

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

So here we are now in 1895, any tax on income not generated by property is indirect (more specifically, an excise tax). Any income on tax generated by property is direct.

Along comes the 16th Amendment.

"The Congress shall have the 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. "

So, what did the 16th Amendment do? It says that taxes on any and all incomes can be laid by Congress without apportionment. Lets revisit the earlier part of the Constitution, specifically Article 1 Sec 2:


"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective members...

Now your question is, how can this be? Art. 1 Sec says direct taxes must be apportioned, and the 16th Amendment says that income taxes, from any source, do not require apportionment. BY DEFINITION of the US CONSTITUTION, taxes on income are not direct taxes, after the addition of the 16th Amendment. It is not arguable that they are direct.

If they were direct they'd require apportionment, and they don't require apportionment. All parts of the Constitution are equally controlling. The 16th Amendment undid Pollock by nature of explicitly defining the thing that was open to interpretation by the Courts prior to the Amendment.

Income taxes became by definition indirect taxes. Which is why you can find so many quotes from the Supreme Court post 16th Amendment like:

In Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 U.S. 103, the court stated,
"by the previous ruling (Brushaber) it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the...power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation' to which it inherently belonged..."

Read that 100 times please! All the 16th Amendment did was put (all) income taxation BACK INTO (as it existed pre-Pollock) the category of indirect taxation.

And, since it was done by Constitutional Amendment, it is no longer something open to opinion by the Courts. It ended the discussion. Income taxes are DEFINED as being indirect in the Constitution itself, thanks to the 16th Amendment.

[jonnielu]

Where you go wrong, is that you think your opinion of what a direct tax is trumps the Constitution itself. The contradiction you see is by substituting your own opinion in place of what the Constitution actually says.



Exactly correct.





So here we have the two controlling parts of the US Constitution.

They lay out:
A.) Direct taxes. These taxes must be apportioned among the states.
B.) Duties, Imposts, Excises. Called Indirect, because they are set in contrast to "Direct". Only requirement here is that they are applied equally.

I think we are all in agreement so far. That's how the original Constitution read.

There were a variety of Income taxes levied by the Government over the 1800's. None of them were apportioned amongst the States, all income taxes were, however, applied uniformly amongst the States. They were considered excise taxes.

This is the law until 1895, and the Pollock case.

The Supreme Court at that point ruled that some specific types of income were not in fact open to excise taxes, but instead would qualify as direct taxes. Specifically income generated by property (real estate and bonds).

All other types of income, except those specifically mentioned, were still considered to be excise, and therefore indirect taxes.



So here we are now in 1895, any tax on income not generated by property is indirect (more specifically, an excise tax). Any income on tax generated by property is direct.

Along comes the 16th Amendment.



So, what did the 16th Amendment do? It says that taxes on any and all incomes can be laid by Congress without apportionment. Lets revisit the earlier part of the Constitution, specifically Article 1 Sec 2:



Now your question is, how can this be? Art. 1 Sec says direct taxes must be apportioned, and the 16th Amendment says that income taxes, from any source, do not require apportionment. BY DEFINITION of the US CONSTITUTION, taxes on income are not direct taxes, after the addition of the 16th Amendment. It is not arguable that they are direct.

If they were direct they'd require apportionment, and they don't require apportionment. All parts of the Constitution are equally controlling. The 16th Amendment undid Pollock by nature of explicitly defining the thing that was open to interpretation by the Courts prior to the Amendment.

Income taxes became by definition indirect taxes. Which is why you can find so many quotes from the Supreme Court post 16th Amendment like:



Read that 100 times please! All the 16th Amendment did was put (all) income taxation BACK INTO (as it existed pre-Pollock) the category of indirect taxation.

And, since it was done by Constitutional Amendment, it is no longer something open to opinion by the Courts. It ended the discussion. Income taxes are DEFINED as being indirect in the Constitution itself, thanks to the 16th Amendment.

Okay, so far we have it in your expert opinion (concurring with scotus) that federal income taxes are indirect taxes. Now, how many pages will it take for you to admit that they are specifically excise taxes?

jdl