USMB POLL: Repeal the 16th Amendment (Income Tax)

[dblack]

The idea that neither our taxing nor our spending should reflect the priorities and will of the people is just silly. Of course it should.

I agree. My issue isn't with taxation reflecting the priorities and will of the people, it's with using taxation to coerce behavior. Taxation shouldn't be punitive. That's what criminal law is for.

These aren't the 'powers of congress'. These are the application of congressional power. And the congressional power to tax and spend is something even you don't deny. You simply refer to it as a 'loophole', instead of a constitutional power. And taxing and spending policies reflecting the priorities of the people are what I'd hope congress would do. And what any government by the consent of the governed should do.

And I'd hope that equal protection for all would trump the priorities of the majority when they come into conflict.

If you offer a tax break for say, child care.....you're neither forcing someone to have kids, or forcing them to use child care. You're simply making it cheaper and easier.

In principle, prohibitive or negative law reflects the will, morals and ethics of the people. If they feel that alcohol hurts their society, they have every authority to forbid it. If they think that prohibiting alcohol costs their society more than it benefits them, they have every authority to repeal it. They can establish speeding laws, obscenity laws, conscription requirements, taxes and policies of virtually every description. And as long as these laws don't violate constitutional guarantees, they are expression of the consent of the governed.

And when enforced, prohibitive law absolutely the will of the people being forced on someone. The idea that prohibitive law isn't supposed to reflect the will, morality and ethics of the people is just fantasy nonsense. It does, its intended to, and it should.

This is contrasted starkly with positive laws that merely incentivise a particular outcome.

The contrast is merely psychological. It's a sales gimmick, but they are the same thing. Offering tax breaks to those who comply is no different than assessing penalties to those who don't. In either case, if you don't do as you're told, you pay higher taxes.

The entire basis of law is the enforcement of codified will.

This is definitely where we disagree. I think law should protect us from this kind of social coercion. It should protect people from bullies and thugs, regardless of whether the bullies and thugs are in the majority.

This really is where our perspectives cleft irreconcilably. But let me ask you....when has law ever been what you describe? It was never that way under the founders, since the founders, in any country, anywhere. Your speaking of an ivory tower fairy tale. Not the application of actual law with people. And its certainly not the government set up under the constitution.
...
The restrictions you demand we impose have never existed....anywhere. They don't reflect any system of law practiced under the constitution, by the founders, or by any government. Where law doesn't reflect the will, ethics or morality of....anyone. In anyway. Ever.

I'm admittedly talking about ideals - that's usually the point of a political discussion - and ideals are something we'll never reach but aim for regardless. I'm not interested in second-guessing the founders intentions, or wading through torturous "interpretations" of a 240 year-old document. Though you might not, I consider myself a genuine 'liberal' in that I believe we can, and should, strive for better government and refuse to accept the limited imagination of the past.

 

[Skylar]

I agree. My issue isn't with taxation reflecting the priorities and will of the people, it's with using taxation to coerce behavior. Taxation shouldn't be punitive. That's what criminal law is for.

Incentives aren't coercion. They're encouragement and reward. You can ignore any of the incentives you wish. And millions upon millions do exactly that. When 1 in 4 people never have children, its clearly not mandatory.

Second, these incentives can be reflections of what the people want. Most Americans want to get married. Most Americans want families. Most Americans want homes. Enacting policies to encourage that isn't 'coercing' people to get married, start families and buy homes. For most Americans, its making the realization of their goals easier and less expensive.

Same with roads, clean air, education, national parks, etc.. You're not 'cooercing' people into wanting these things or enjoying them. Incentives on either individual or state level merely makes the realization of these priorities already held by the people more plausible, easier and less expensive.

And frankly, that's exactly what a responsive government wielding the people's authority and acting for the common good should be doing.

And I'd hope that equal protection for all would trump the priorities of the majority when they come into conflict.

When such constitutional violations occur, equal protection does. But incentives rarely create equal protection violations. And usually only when they are denied a group that wishes to enjoy them as well.

The contrast is merely psychological.

No, it isn't. One is backed by violence. The other isn't. One has punishments if the act occurs. The other merely the lack of reward if it doesn't. They have very few similarities. No one has ever been shot to death for failing to use a child day care tax credit.

Offering tax breaks to those who comply is no different than assessing penalties to those who don't. In either case, if you don't do as you're told, you pay higher taxes.

Sure it is. You don't get a choice on the payment of penalties. You absolutely get a choice on receiving a reward. Hell, you can have kids and NOT claim the child credit if you don't want to. There's no law that requires you take it even if you qualify.

Try opting out of a speeding ticket because you don't want it once its been issued. You won't see the same results, as these aren't the same thing.

I'm admittedly talking about ideals - that's usually the point of a political discussion - and ideals are something we'll never reach but aim for regardless. I'm not interested in second-guessing the founders intentions, or wading through torturous "interpretations" of a 240 year-old document. Though you might not, I consider myself a genuine 'liberal' in that I believe we can, and should, strive for better government and refuse to accept the limited imagination of the past.

I'd ask you to consider the possibility that practical viability plays a major role in which systems are implemented, and which remain chat board curiosities. There's a reason why what you describe has not ever existed, nor likely ever will. The base line your perspective requires doesn't exist. There's no such thing as a moral and ethical void from which to start. Nor could such a baseline be discerned or maintained if it did.

People have pretty strong beliefs on how things should be. All systems become interpretative once people get involved. And there's no way you'd ever be able to create a system of laws that didn't reflect the people who created and enforced them. Nor, I'm arguing, would you want to.

 

[dblack]

I agree. My issue isn't with taxation reflecting the priorities and will of the people, it's with using taxation to coerce behavior. Taxation shouldn't be punitive. That's what criminal law is for.

Incentives aren't coercion. They're encouragement and reward. You can ignore any of the incentives you wish. And millions upon millions do exactly that.

And they pay the price for their non-compliance in higher taxes - taxes that are backed by coercion. You're trying to dress it up as something different, but it's not. Again, I cite the ACA's individual mandate as the prime example of this equivalence. The identical nature of a mandate backed by a penalty and a tax incentive was the basis of Roberts' ruling that the mandate was Constitutional. He knew that if he struck down the mandate, it would call into question the premise behind all federal tax policies targeted at manipulating behavior.

I consider that amoral cowardice on his part. Instead of ruling that the coercive individual mandate was acceptable law because it was "just a tax incentive", he could have, and should have, called out that all similarly structured tax incentives are, in point fact, just as coercive as the mandate. Actually, they are more coercive, because the mandate includes a nominal provision that prohibits criminal prosecution for non-payment. If you refuse to pay the extra taxes levied against you because you fail to maintain home debt, you will be criminally prosecuted.

Second, these incentives can be reflections of what the people want. Most Americans want to get married. Most Americans want families. Most Americans want homes. Enacting policies to encourage that isn't 'coercing' people to get married, start families and buy homes. For most Americans, its making the realization of their goals easier and less expensive.

Yes. The entire argument is about forcing the will of "most Americans" on the rest of us. That should only be allowed under certain circumstances. The minority should not forced to serve the whim of the majority.

And I'd hope that equal protection for all would trump the priorities of the majority when they come into conflict.

When such constitutional violations occur, equal protection does. But incentives rarely create equal protection violations. And usually only when they are denied a group that wishes to enjoy them as well.

Maybe I simply have a broader conception of equal protection of the law. But I don't think the law should cater to special interest groups and well-heeled lobbyists.

Offering tax breaks to those who comply is no different than assessing penalties to those who don't. In either case, if you don't do as you're told, you pay higher taxes.

Sure it is. You don't get a choice on the payment of penalties. You absolutely get a choice on receiving a reward. Hell, you can have kids and NOT claim the child credit if you don't want to. There's no law that requires you take it even if you qualify.

You really don't get what I'm saying?? The coercion isn't on the people receive the tax break, it's on everyone else. They're forced to pay higher taxes because they don't jump through the right hoops. Which is the equivalent of a mandate with a penalty. Obama got this. Roberts got this. Surely you can work through the logic.

I'm admittedly talking about ideals - that's usually the point of a political discussion - and ideals are something we'll never reach but aim for regardless. I'm not interested in second-guessing the founders intentions, or wading through torturous "interpretations" of a 240 year-old document. Though you might not, I consider myself a genuine 'liberal' in that I believe we can, and should, strive for better government and refuse to accept the limited imagination of the past.

I'd ask you to consider the possibility that practical viability plays a major role in which systems are implemented, and which remain chat board curiosities. There's a reason why what you describe has not ever existed, nor likely ever will. The base line your perspective requires doesn't exist. There's no such thing as a moral and ethical void from which to start. Nor could such a baseline be discerned or maintained if it did.

I've considered it a great deal. And chief among the issues of "practical viability" that prevent us cleaning up the tax code are the vested financial interests that benefit from them. The home mortgage tax incentive will never go away as long as bankers are making a killing on home loans. The ACA individual mandate is here to stay as long as the insurance industry can use it to ensure profits. It's no coincidence that the vast majority of these "incentives" serve the financial interests of powerful Washington lobbies.

People have pretty strong beliefs on how things should be. All systems become interpretative once people get involved. And there's no way you'd ever be able to create a system of laws that didn't reflect the people who created and enforced them. Nor, I'm arguing, would you want to.

Again, I'm not suggesting that. I'm saying there should be clear, predictable limits on the power of the majority to force the rest of us to bend to their will.

 

[johnwk]

The 16th Amendment, as pointed out to you so many times before, mentions nothing about repealing the requirement that "direct taxes" are required to be apportioned. If a tax on incomes takes the form of a direct tax, it is forbidden unless apportioned!

The 16th amendment does however explicitly and unambiguously eliminate apportionment requirements for income tax.

.

Not if it takes the form of a direct tax. See the Eisner case.

Additionally, the 16th does not mention "income tax", but rather "taxes upon incomes", and the source of income cannot be taxed!


JWK

 

[Contumacious]

[



Meaning that your imaginary definition of income isn't supported by either the Senate or the USSC. So who, other than yourself, are you citing?

REPEATING

Eisner vs Macomber


"Brief as it is, it indicates the characteristic and distinguishing attribute of income essential for a correct solution of the present controversy. The Government, although basing its argument upon the definition as quoted, placed chief emphasis upon the word "gain," which was extended to include a variety of meanings; while the significance of the next three words was either overlooked or misconceived. "Derived — from — capital;" — "the gain — derived — from — capital," etc. Here we have the essential matter: not a gain accruing to capital, not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value proceeding from the property, severed from the capital however invested or employed, and coming in, being "derived," that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal; — that is income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description." Id at 207

So , HOW would a wages recipient earn "income"

The Senate admitted that it had NO IDEA what it was taxing pp 162-165.


It had no idea what "income was"

Now if the US Senators had no idea what "income" was or what they were taxing - what makes you believe that the states knew what they were taxing?


How do you know that you calculate "income" from Capital different than from "labor"?

You have no objections because as a parasite tax consumer the more monies allocated to you the merrier.

With regard to taxing earned wages that would be considered a direct tax and requiring an apportionment!



“Capitation taxes, so far as they are levied upon the lower ranks of people, are direct taxes upon the wages of labor.” Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, id. at pg. 540.


JWK

Skylar is conflicted by interest since he is either a tax consuming parasite or a government employee. He does not explain the inconsistencies. He merely treats SCOTUS rulings as if they were the gospel truth. One of the Founding Fathers complaints was the Courts in England would rule that things were Constitutional when they weren't.

Asssuming for argument's sake that the 16th was ---somehow - Constitutional , by which I mean compatible with the Constitution (1787) then the senate explains that income would be a profit erived from Capital


Capital $1000

Profits and the end of taxable year $50.00

Taxable income $50.00


Labor


wages $1000.00

deposit that money in savings account - received $50.00 interest

Taxable income ( interest) $50.00



But the fascists TAX the total amount of wages received instead of the INCOME D-E-R-I-V-E-D from wages

If you are a fascist , government supremacist or parasite , then you want the most amount of money to go to the government coffers because according to them the government bureaucrats - NOT the wage earner - have the right to spend the money.


And so it goes.

.





.

 

[johnwk]

[



Meaning that your imaginary definition of income isn't supported by either the Senate or the USSC. So who, other than yourself, are you citing?

REPEATING

Eisner vs Macomber


"Brief as it is, it indicates the characteristic and distinguishing attribute of income essential for a correct solution of the present controversy. The Government, although basing its argument upon the definition as quoted, placed chief emphasis upon the word "gain," which was extended to include a variety of meanings; while the significance of the next three words was either overlooked or misconceived. "Derived — from — capital;" — "the gain — derived — from — capital," etc. Here we have the essential matter: not a gain accruing to capital, not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value proceeding from the property, severed from the capital however invested or employed, and coming in, being "derived," that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal; — that is income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description." Id at 207

So , HOW would a wages recipient earn "income"

The Senate admitted that it had NO IDEA what it was taxing pp 162-165.


It had no idea what "income was"

Now if the US Senators had no idea what "income" was or what they were taxing - what makes you believe that the states knew what they were taxing?


How do you know that you calculate "income" from Capital different than from "labor"?

You have no objections because as a parasite tax consumer the more monies allocated to you the merrier.

With regard to taxing earned wages that would be considered a direct tax and requiring an apportionment!



“Capitation taxes, so far as they are levied upon the lower ranks of people, are direct taxes upon the wages of labor.” Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, id. at pg. 540.


JWK

Skylar is conflicted by interest since he is either a tax consuming parasite or a government employee. He does not explain the inconsistencies. He merely treats SCOTUS rulings as if they were the gospel truth. One of the Founding Fathers complaints was the Courts in England would rule that things were Constitutional when they weren't.

Asssuming for argument's sake that the 16th was ---somehow - Constitutional , by which I mean compatible with the Constitution (1787) then the senate explains that income would be a profit erived from Capital


Capital $1000

Profits and the end of taxable year $50.00

Taxable income $50.00


Labor


wages $1000.00

deposit that money in savings account - received $50.00 interest

Taxable income ( interest) $50.00



But the fascists TAX the total amount of wages received instead of the INCOME D-E-R-I-V-E-D from wages

If you are a fascist , government supremacist or parasite , then you want the most amount of money to go to the government coffers because according to them the government bureaucrats - NOT the wage earner - have the right to spend the money.


And so it goes.

.
.

He intentionally ignores that the source is not to be taxed but the profit or gain which are the characteristics defining "income". Additionally, he suggests the 16th Amendment declares:

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

Of course, in Flint vs Stone Tracy the Court explains how laying and collecting a tax calculated from incomes is made indirect, by taxing the "privilege" of being a corporation and then measuring the amount of tax to be paid from the income derived from the "privilege".

Finally, the paid poster in question also ignores what is and what is not a "direct tax'. During the framing of our Constitution the question was asked what is a "direct tax". But no one answered. However, if one takes the time to study actually taxes considered to be direct during the time period our constitution was being framed, there seems to be a consistency that direct taxes are those assessed to the individual by government, while indirect taxes are costs added by government to things which individuals are free to acquired or reject. For example, Hamilton's brief in the Hylton carriage case says: 'The following are presumed to be the only direct taxes: Capitation or poll taxes, taxes on lands and buildings, general assessments, whether on the whole property of individuals, or on their whole real or personal estate. All else must, of necessity, be considered as indirect taxes.'

And here we are today when a general assessment is made upon the annual earning of a wage earner which is then pretended to not be a direct tax and requiring an apportionment.

It's amazing how these parasites can lie.

JWK



They are not “liberals”. They are conniving parasites who use the cloak of government force to steal the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create.

 

[Skylar]

Not if it takes the form of a direct tax. See the Eisner case.

Oh, I have. I even quoted the portion where you were proven laughably, comically wrong:

"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."

As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income.

Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)

You simply ignore Eisner and pretend that if you ignore it that it no longer applies. Alas, our law isn't based on your willful ignorance. Even your citation of Eisner proves you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about:

“[T]his amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes....This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.”

Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920),

"Except as it applies to income". The Eisner case explicitly exempts income from the apportionment clause. Every time you deny it, I just quote the ruling and you lose again.

Really, John....you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Additionally, the 16th does not mention "income tax", but rather "taxes upon incomes", and the source of income cannot be taxed!

Says you, citing you. And as was proven above, you're straight up clueless. Rendering your opinions uselessly uninformed.

 

[Skylar]

[



Meaning that your imaginary definition of income isn't supported by either the Senate or the USSC. So who, other than yourself, are you citing?

REPEATING

Eisner vs Macomber


"Brief as it is, it indicates the characteristic and distinguishing attribute of income essential for a correct solution of the present controversy. The Government, although basing its argument upon the definition as quoted, placed chief emphasis upon the word "gain," which was extended to include a variety of meanings; while the significance of the next three words was either overlooked or misconceived. "Derived — from — capital;" — "the gain — derived — from — capital," etc. Here we have the essential matter: not a gain accruing to capital, not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value proceeding from the property, severed from the capital however invested or employed, and coming in, being "derived," that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal; — that is income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description." Id at 207

So , HOW would a wages recipient earn "income"

The Senate admitted that it had NO IDEA what it was taxing pp 162-165.


It had no idea what "income was"

Now if the US Senators had no idea what "income" was or what they were taxing - what makes you believe that the states knew what they were taxing?


How do you know that you calculate "income" from Capital different than from "labor"?

You have no objections because as a parasite tax consumer the more monies allocated to you the merrier.

With regard to taxing earned wages that would be considered a direct tax and requiring an apportionment!



“Capitation taxes, so far as they are levied upon the lower ranks of people, are direct taxes upon the wages of labor.” Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, id. at pg. 540.


JWK

Skylar is conflicted by interest since he is either a tax consuming parasite or a government employee.

Or....I just know far about this topic than you do.

He does not explain the inconsistencies. He merely treats SCOTUS rulings as if they were the gospel truth. One of the Founding Fathers complaints was the Courts in England would rule that things were Constitutional when they weren't.

I treat the USSC's rulings as authoritative. And a far better source than you citing yourself.

You can choose to ignore the Supreme Court if you wish. But no one gives a shit. As your willful ignorance has no effect on our laws whatsoever.

Asssuming for argument's sake that the 16th was ---somehow - Constitutional , by which I mean compatible with the Constitution (1787) then the senate explains that income would be a profit erived from Capital

How can you have an unconstitutional amendment? Explain that process to me. ANd of course, what evidence do you have that income tax is, in fact, unconstitutional. You keeping making a claim...and then abandoning it. Running to another claim, and then tossing it on the garbage heap too.

Its like a rhetorical game of whack-a-mole.

Capital $1000

Profits and the end of taxable year $50.00

Taxable income $50.00


Labor


wages $1000.00

deposit that money in savings account - received $50.00 interest

Taxable income ( interest) $50.00

Everything from 'labor wages' on isn't part of the Senate debate. That's just you making shit up. And your imagination doesn't determine constitutionality, legality, or any legal definition.

But the fascists TAX the total amount of wages received instead of the INCOME D-E-R-I-V-E-D from wages

Wages are income. Our laws specifically include compensation for services as income.

26 U.S. Code § 61 - Gross income defined

(a)General definition
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities;
(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.

26 U.S. Code 61 - Gross income defined LII Legal Information Institute

Remember, Cont.....you citing yourself means exactly jack shit. While the legal definitions of the law are authorirative. While I'm sure that you believe that any definition you make up binds the courts and the law, it really doesn't. You citing yourself has no legal relevance to any issue we're discussing.

Me, citing the law, does.

If you are a fascist , government supremacist or parasite , then you want the most amount of money to go to the government coffers because according to them the government bureaucrats - NOT the wage earner - have the right to spend the money.

Or...someone informed on what the law actually says. Rather than what you wish the law would say. You simply don't know what you're talking about Cont. And your ignorance has no more relevance to the law than your made up pseudo legal gibberish.

 

[Skylar]

He intentionally ignores that the source is not to be taxed but the profit or gain which are the characteristics defining "income". Additionally, he suggests the 16th Amendment declares:

More accurately, I'm just citing the law on what income means:

(a)General definition
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities;
(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.

26 U.S. Code 61 - Gross income defined LII Legal Information Institute

Your made up definitions of income are completely irrelevant to the law, this discussion, or any court ruling. The law's definitions are immediately relevant.

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

And the 16th amendment lifted apportionment requirements for income taxes. As your own source confirms:

"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."

As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income.

Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)

And you've already cited the Eisner ruling as accurate and authoritative. So you can't ignore it now. Every time you deny it, I'll just quote this passage from your own source again....and you instantly lose.

Each time. Every time.

Of course, in Flint vs Stone Tracy the Court explains how laying and collecting a tax calculated from incomes is made indirect, by taxing the "privilege" of being a corporation and then measuring the amount of tax to be paid from the income derived from the "privilege".

Flint V Stone Tracy was in 1911. The 16th amendment wasn't passed until 1913. Making the Flint ruling irrelevant to the 16th amendment, as the 16th amendment didn't exist when the Flint ruling was issued.

All of which you already know. You just really hope we don't.

So what else have you got?

 

[johnwk]

Not if it takes the form of a direct tax. See the Eisner case.

Oh, I have. I even quoted the portion where you were proven laughably, comically wrong:

"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."

As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income.

Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)

You simply ignore Eisner and pretend that if you ignore it that it no longer applies. Alas, our law isn't based on your willful ignorance. Even your citation of Eisner proves you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about:
.

You simply ignore the distinction between direct and indirect taxation and that the 16th amendment does not say:

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

You also ignore the Flint Case which partially explains the distinction between a direct vs indirect tax calculated from incomes.

Finally you also ignore your own words that the 16th Amendment granted no new power of taxation to Congress, and so, the Flint case is very appropriate to cite.

Your not only funny, but pathetically funny.

JWK

 

[Skylar]

Not if it takes the form of a direct tax. See the Eisner case.

Oh, I have. I even quoted the portion where you were proven laughably, comically wrong:

"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."

As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income.

Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)

You simply ignore Eisner and pretend that if you ignore it that it no longer applies. Alas, our law isn't based on your willful ignorance. Even your citation of Eisner proves you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about:
.

You simply ignore the distinction between direct and indirect taxation and that the 16th amendment does not say:

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

You also ignore the Flint Case which partially explains the distinction between a direct vs indirect tax calculated from incomes.

Finally you also ignore your own words that the 16th Amendment granted no new power of taxation to Congress, and so, the Flint case is very appropriate to cite.

Your not only funny, but pathetically funny.

JWK

"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."

As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income.

Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)

You're welcome.

 

[JFK_USA]

We need to stop all Federal taxation.

We then need to reduce the size of the Federal government to the bare necessity like Defense, courts, state department, CIA, Veterans and not a whole lot more. Absolutely no welfare, subsidizes entitlements or bailouts. No government transfer payments. We don't need to be funding departments of this and departments of that like HUD, Energy, Education, ATF, Labor, HHS etc.

Then we need to figure out a way to fund that government in a way so that every American has to pay its share. No free rides.

The Founding Fathers had ALREADY figured that out.

The ONLY thing the motherfuckers need to do is

Repeal the Sixteenth and Seventeenths "Amendments"

Abolish the Federal Reserve Board

Restore the GOLD Standard.


.

.

The Founding Fathers had ALREADY figured out that future generations were entitled to live the way THEY desired, so allowed for an amendment process

Excuse me , fucktard, but adopting socialism/communism is NOT part of the Amendment process.


.

If 3/4th of the states ratify it, then yeah that's what goes in the constitution.

 

[Skylar]

We need to stop all Federal taxation.

We then need to reduce the size of the Federal government to the bare necessity like Defense, courts, state department, CIA, Veterans and not a whole lot more. Absolutely no welfare, subsidizes entitlements or bailouts. No government transfer payments. We don't need to be funding departments of this and departments of that like HUD, Energy, Education, ATF, Labor, HHS etc.

Then we need to figure out a way to fund that government in a way so that every American has to pay its share. No free rides.

The Founding Fathers had ALREADY figured that out.

The ONLY thing the motherfuckers need to do is

Repeal the Sixteenth and Seventeenths "Amendments"

Abolish the Federal Reserve Board

Restore the GOLD Standard.


.

.

The Founding Fathers had ALREADY figured out that future generations were entitled to live the way THEY desired, so allowed for an amendment process

Excuse me , fucktard, but adopting socialism/communism is NOT part of the Amendment process.


.

If 3/4th of the states ratify it, then yeah that's what goes in the constitution.

There's no process within our legal system that trumps an amendment. It could be...anything.

 

[Contumacious]

We need to stop all Federal taxation.

We then need to reduce the size of the Federal government to the bare necessity like Defense, courts, state department, CIA, Veterans and not a whole lot more. Absolutely no welfare, subsidizes entitlements or bailouts. No government transfer payments. We don't need to be funding departments of this and departments of that like HUD, Energy, Education, ATF, Labor, HHS etc.

Then we need to figure out a way to fund that government in a way so that every American has to pay its share. No free rides.

The Founding Fathers had ALREADY figured that out.

The ONLY thing the motherfuckers need to do is

Repeal the Sixteenth and Seventeenths "Amendments"

Abolish the Federal Reserve Board

Restore the GOLD Standard.


.

.

The Founding Fathers had ALREADY figured out that future generations were entitled to live the way THEY desired, so allowed for an amendment process

Excuse me , fucktard, but adopting socialism/communism is NOT part of the Amendment process.


.

If 3/4th of the states ratify it, then yeah that's what goes in the constitution.

That is a declaration or war.


.

 

[Skylar]

We need to stop all Federal taxation.

We then need to reduce the size of the Federal government to the bare necessity like Defense, courts, state department, CIA, Veterans and not a whole lot more. Absolutely no welfare, subsidizes entitlements or bailouts. No government transfer payments. We don't need to be funding departments of this and departments of that like HUD, Energy, Education, ATF, Labor, HHS etc.

Then we need to figure out a way to fund that government in a way so that every American has to pay its share. No free rides.

The Founding Fathers had ALREADY figured that out.

The ONLY thing the motherfuckers need to do is

Repeal the Sixteenth and Seventeenths "Amendments"

Abolish the Federal Reserve Board

Restore the GOLD Standard.


.

.

The Founding Fathers had ALREADY figured out that future generations were entitled to live the way THEY desired, so allowed for an amendment process

Excuse me , fucktard, but adopting socialism/communism is NOT part of the Amendment process.


.

If 3/4th of the states ratify it, then yeah that's what goes in the constitution.

That is a declaration or war.


.

Again who by who? And fought by who?

Surely not you on any side.

 

[Contumacious]

The Founding Fathers had ALREADY figured that out.

The ONLY thing the motherfuckers need to do is

Repeal the Sixteenth and Seventeenths "Amendments"

Abolish the Federal Reserve Board

Restore the GOLD Standard.


.

.

The Founding Fathers had ALREADY figured out that future generations were entitled to live the way THEY desired, so allowed for an amendment process

Excuse me , fucktard, but adopting socialism/communism is NOT part of the Amendment process.


.

If 3/4th of the states ratify it, then yeah that's what goes in the constitution.

That is a declaration or war.


.

Again who by who? And fought by who?

Surely not you on any side.

The nation can not survive when half of the population is enslaved.

I understand that as a fascist you believe you have a right to tyrannize, confiscate and enslave.

But others do not - before long the shit will hit the fan.

.

 

[Skylar]

The Founding Fathers had ALREADY figured out that future generations were entitled to live the way THEY desired, so allowed for an amendment process

Excuse me , fucktard, but adopting socialism/communism is NOT part of the Amendment process.


.

If 3/4th of the states ratify it, then yeah that's what goes in the constitution.

That is a declaration or war.


.

Again who by who? And fought by who?

Surely not you on any side.

The nation can not survive when half of the population is enslaved.

I don't think slavery means what you think it means.

I understand that as a fascist you believe you have a right to tyrannize, confiscate and enslave.

I don't think fascist means what you think it means either.

But others do not - before long the shit will hit the fan.
.

And who pray tell are these 'others'? Remember, your ilk are all gung ho about patriotism. Until its time to do patriot shit. Like bleeding.

Then its always someone else's responsibility. Jeffersons don't win wars. Hamiltons do. And there's not a Hamilton among you.

 

[Contumacious]

Excuse me , fucktard, but adopting socialism/communism is NOT part of the Amendment process.


.

If 3/4th of the states ratify it, then yeah that's what goes in the constitution.

That is a declaration or war.


.

Again who by who? And fought by who?

Surely not you on any side.

The nation can not survive when half of the population is enslaved.

I don't think slavery means what you think it means.

I am certain that your Orwellian definition differs from reality.

I don't think fascist means what you think it means either.

If there is one single solitary government rule or regulation being imposed upon the economy and upon our social rights there is fascism whether or not the "official definition" agrees with me or not.


.

And who pray tell are these 'others'? Remember, your ilk are all gung ho about patriotism. Until its time to do patriot shit. Like bleeding.

Typical tyrannical position. Surrender all your rights or we will make you bleed.


.

 

[Skylar]

I am certain that your Orwellian definition differs from reality.

My definitions are pretty much the dictionary. This is my definition of fascism for example:

Fascism:

;a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

Fascism Define Fascism at Dictionary.com

You use fascism as a generic pejorative. Anyone who doesn't think like you becomes a 'fascist'. Or a 'communist'. Or some other seemingly random name that you don't understand the meaning of. Its actually kind of amusing to watch. Especially when you keep making the same mistake over and over.

If there is one single solitary government rule or regulation being imposed upon the economy and upon our social rights there is fascism whether or not the "official definition" agrees with me or not.

Yeah, why use the dictionary? Its not like its a source for the actual meaning of words or anything.

Typical tyrannical position. Surrender all your rights or we will make you bleed.

You're the one talking about 'declaring war'. And wars aren't fought without bleeding. Which is why your ilk won't be waging any. You're big about talking about wars. But aren't willing to fight to defend what you believe in. Its always someone else's responsibility to do the patriot thing.

Shrugs....chickenshit is as chickenshit does, I suppose.

 

[Contumacious]

You use fascism as a generic pejorative. Anyone who doesn't think like you becomes a 'fascist'. Or a 'communist'. Or some other seemingly random name that you don't understand the meaning of. Its actually kind of amusing to watch. Especially when you keep making the same mistake over and over.

If there is one single solitary government rule or regulation being imposed upon the economy and upon our social rights there is fascism whether or not the "official definition" agrees with me or not.

That is the definition used by the Austrian School of Economics and that is the ONLY one I will accept.

You're the one talking about 'declaring war'. And wars aren't fought without bleeding. Which is why your ilk won't be waging any. You're big about talking about wars. But aren't willing to fight to defend what you believe in. Its always someone else's responsibility to do the patriot thing.

Shrugs....chickenshit is as chickenshit does, I suppose.

I will use my Laptop and intellect as my weapon. Let others do what they must do.