New York Times 1991

[bigrebnc1775]

What happen America? How did you get so far off course?

The Supreme Court ruled today that taxpayers who sincerely believe the Federal income tax laws do not apply to them cannot be convicted of criminal tax violations, even if there is no rational basis for their belief.

But at the same time, the Court said a belief that the tax is unconstitutional, as opposed to inapplicable, is not a shield against criminal liability for refusal to pay taxes.

Ruling 6 to 2, the Court set aside the 1988 conviction of a commercial airline pilot who, under the influence of a group of tax protesters, concluded that the income tax was unconstitutional and that his wages were not income within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code.

The pilot's victory may be shortlived, and the impact on Federal tax enforcement is likely to be limited. While there has been confusion in lower Federal courts over how to handle prosecutions in which taxpayers believe the tax laws do not apply to them, most courts already appear to be applying the approach the Court took today.

Supreme Court Ruling Supports Tax Protester - NYTimes.com

 

[PoliticalChic]

What happen America? How did you get so far off course?

The Supreme Court ruled today that taxpayers who sincerely believe the Federal income tax laws do not apply to them cannot be convicted of criminal tax violations, even if there is no rational basis for their belief.

But at the same time, the Court said a belief that the tax is unconstitutional, as opposed to inapplicable, is not a shield against criminal liability for refusal to pay taxes.

Ruling 6 to 2, the Court set aside the 1988 conviction of a commercial airline pilot who, under the influence of a group of tax protesters, concluded that the income tax was unconstitutional and that his wages were not income within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code.

The pilot's victory may be shortlived, and the impact on Federal tax enforcement is likely to be limited. While there has been confusion in lower Federal courts over how to handle prosecutions in which taxpayers believe the tax laws do not apply to them, most courts already appear to be applying the approach the Court took today.

Supreme Court Ruling Supports Tax Protester - NYTimes.com

What???

Are you opposed to income taxes???
How very conservative of you!!!
The Founders would agree.

Interesting that the function of same is one of those beliefs that separate Liberals and Conservatives.

The former see same as a way to institute material fairness, social justice.

....while the latter as a way for the government to pay its bills...and any excess returned in tax cuts.

History points to Progressives, as well, for taxation.
From chapter eight of "Hostile Takeover," by Matt Kibbee:


1. Through the early 20th century, taxes tended to be low. And higher taxes designed to pay war debts would be paid down quickly and temporary taxes eliminated.

2. As is usual with government policy, taxes crept up over time.



3. The Civil War produced the first tax on personal income: the Revenue Act of 1861. Interestingly, it was called an ‘indirect’ tax, defined as taxing an ‘event:’ a tax on the event of receiving income….therefore it didn’t have to be ‘apportioned,’ merely imposed uniformly throughout all areas “not in rebellion.”

a. The tax was moderately progressive, 3% on all income over $800. This meant that most workers didn’t have to pay any tax. Revenue Act of 1861 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

4. The following year, due to a greater need, Congress increased both the rates and the progressivity. The exemption was lowered to $600 @ 3%, and a new 5% on income over $10,000. This, then was the first “progressive,” not flat tax. The law also imposed a duty on paymasters to deduct and withhold the income tax, and to send the withheld tax to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Revenue Act of 1862 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. After the war exemptions were increased, and rates lowered, and in 1872, the tax was abolished.

b. But, having had a taste of taking and using free money, politicians passed more than 60 bills designed to reinstate the income tax over the next 20 years.
David G. Davies, “United States Taxes and Tax Policy,” p. 22.



5. Socialist, Populist, and Progressive movements paralleled this move, and this desire based on “taxing the rich.” In 1894, the Democrat-controlled Congress passed a bill that included a flat income tax…but part included taxes on income from real estate and personal property, and this triggered a court challenge as a direct tax infracting the Constitution’s apportionment rule,…

a. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895), aff'd on reh'g, 158 U.S. 601 (1895), with a ruling of 5–4, was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the unapportioned income taxes on interest, dividends and rents imposed by the Income Tax Act of 1894 were, in effect, direct taxes, and were unconstitutional because they violated the provision that direct taxes be apportioned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollock_v._Farmers'_Loan_&_Trust_Co.

b. Interesting decision, since the same principles had been upheld vis-à-vis the 1861 Revenue Act…. Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1881),[1] was a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the Federal income tax imposed under the Revenue Act of 1864. Springer v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



6. The Progressives were horrified! They had been focused on forcing the “money class” to pay “in proportion to their ability to pay…’ which, essentially was the first half of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” From each according to his ability, to each according to his need - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. The Progressives launched a campaign designed to reverse this decision, and that culminated with the ratification of the 16th Amendment, in 1913.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What happen America? How did you get so far off course?

The Supreme Court ruled today that taxpayers who sincerely believe the Federal income tax laws do not apply to them cannot be convicted of criminal tax violations, even if there is no rational basis for their belief.

But at the same time, the Court said a belief that the tax is unconstitutional, as opposed to inapplicable, is not a shield against criminal liability for refusal to pay taxes.

Ruling 6 to 2, the Court set aside the 1988 conviction of a commercial airline pilot who, under the influence of a group of tax protesters, concluded that the income tax was unconstitutional and that his wages were not income within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code.

The pilot's victory may be shortlived, and the impact on Federal tax enforcement is likely to be limited. While there has been confusion in lower Federal courts over how to handle prosecutions in which taxpayers believe the tax laws do not apply to them, most courts already appear to be applying the approach the Court took today.

Supreme Court Ruling Supports Tax Protester - NYTimes.com

What???

Are you opposed to income taxes???
How very conservative of you!!!
The Founders would agree.

Interesting that the function of same is one of those beliefs that separate Liberals and Conservatives.

The former see same as a way to institute material fairness, social justice.

....while the latter as a way for the government to pay its bills...and any excess returned in tax cuts.

History points to Progressives, as well, for taxation.
From chapter eight of "Hostile Takeover," by Matt Kibbee:


1. Through the early 20th century, taxes tended to be low. And higher taxes designed to pay war debts would be paid down quickly and temporary taxes eliminated.

2. As is usual with government policy, taxes crept up over time.



3. The Civil War produced the first tax on personal income: the Revenue Act of 1861. Interestingly, it was called an ‘indirect’ tax, defined as taxing an ‘event:’ a tax on the event of receiving income….therefore it didn’t have to be ‘apportioned,’ merely imposed uniformly throughout all areas “not in rebellion.”

a. The tax was moderately progressive, 3% on all income over $800. This meant that most workers didn’t have to pay any tax. Revenue Act of 1861 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

4. The following year, due to a greater need, Congress increased both the rates and the progressivity. The exemption was lowered to $600 @ 3%, and a new 5% on income over $10,000. This, then was the first “progressive,” not flat tax. The law also imposed a duty on paymasters to deduct and withhold the income tax, and to send the withheld tax to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Revenue Act of 1862 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. After the war exemptions were increased, and rates lowered, and in 1872, the tax was abolished.

b. But, having had a taste of taking and using free money, politicians passed more than 60 bills designed to reinstate the income tax over the next 20 years.
David G. Davies, “United States Taxes and Tax Policy,” p. 22.



5. Socialist, Populist, and Progressive movements paralleled this move, and this desire based on “taxing the rich.” In 1894, the Democrat-controlled Congress passed a bill that included a flat income tax…but part included taxes on income from real estate and personal property, and this triggered a court challenge as a direct tax infracting the Constitution’s apportionment rule,…

a. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895), aff'd on reh'g, 158 U.S. 601 (1895), with a ruling of 5–4, was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the unapportioned income taxes on interest, dividends and rents imposed by the Income Tax Act of 1894 were, in effect, direct taxes, and were unconstitutional because they violated the provision that direct taxes be apportioned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollock_v._Farmers'_Loan_&_Trust_Co.

b. Interesting decision, since the same principles had been upheld vis-à-vis the 1861 Revenue Act…. Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1881),[1] was a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the Federal income tax imposed under the Revenue Act of 1864. Springer v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



6. The Progressives were horrified! They had been focused on forcing the “money class” to pay “in proportion to their ability to pay…’ which, essentially was the first half of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” From each according to his ability, to each according to his need - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. The Progressives launched a campaign designed to reverse this decision, and that culminated with the ratification of the 16th Amendment, in 1913.

Yes I oppose anything that is unconstitutional

 

[tinydancer]

Living in the land of liberals for most of my adult life (conservatives have only now really started to rock on after a long and bitter battle) the answer to everything with liberals is to tax more.

You don't like people smoking. Tax them.

You don't like soft drinks aka soda. Tax them.

You don't like <fill in the blank> Tax them.

It's the liberal way.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Living in the land of liberals for most of my adult life (conservatives have only now really started to rock on after a long and bitter battle) the answer to everything with liberals is to tax more.

You don't like people smoking. Tax them.

You don't like soft drinks aka soda. Tax them.

You don't like <fill in the blank> Tax them.

It's the liberal way.

One other part of the liberal equation you left out, is spend, tax and spend tax and spend.......

 

[Rozman]

Living in the land of liberals for most of my adult life (conservatives have only now really started to rock on after a long and bitter battle) the answer to everything with liberals is to tax more.

You don't like people smoking. Tax them.

You don't like soft drinks aka soda. Tax them.

You don't like <fill in the blank> Tax them.

It's the liberal way.

I have seen an argument here that said America was at it's best when they were taxed over 92%..just before Reagan worked to have them reduced...

Do we really want to be taxed over 90%...

Not only do I say no...
I say hell no....

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The reason an income tax was ruled unconstitutional by the courts was because it's not uniformed

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Living in the land of liberals for most of my adult life (conservatives have only now really started to rock on after a long and bitter battle) the answer to everything with liberals is to tax more.

You don't like people smoking. Tax them.

You don't like soft drinks aka soda. Tax them.

You don't like <fill in the blank> Tax them.

It's the liberal way.

I have seen an argument here that said America was at it's best when they were taxed over 92%..just before Reagan worked to have them reduced...

Do we really want to be taxed over 90%...

Not only do I say no...
I say hell no....

It's the liberal mindset, take from others what you yourself are unwilling to give.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The 16th Amendment, the income tax, has been the subject of many Supreme Court decisions. The IRS always cites to the Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916), to inform the public that the income tax was held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court. What the IRS doesn’t inform the public about Mr. Frank Brushaber, the central character in the Supreme Court case, is that he was a withholding agent for several foreign investors in the Union Pacific Railroad, acting as their fiduciary.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

what happen america? How did you get so far off course?

The supreme court ruled today that taxpayers who sincerely believe the federal income tax laws do not apply to them cannot be convicted of criminal tax violations, even if there is no rational basis for their belief.

But at the same time, the court said a belief that the tax is unconstitutional, as opposed to inapplicable, is not a shield against criminal liability for refusal to pay taxes.

Ruling 6 to 2, the court set aside the 1988 conviction of a commercial airline pilot who, under the influence of a group of tax protesters, concluded that the income tax was unconstitutional and that his wages were not income within the meaning of the internal revenue code.

The pilot's victory may be shortlived, and the impact on federal tax enforcement is likely to be limited. While there has been confusion in lower federal courts over how to handle prosecutions in which taxpayers believe the tax laws do not apply to them, most courts already appear to be applying the approach the court took today.

supreme court ruling supports tax protester - nytimes.com

imgine that income tax ruled unconstitutional.