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

[Skylar]

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 literally declaring you will ignore the dictionary on the meaning of words. That's bizarre. Why would I care what you 'accept'? You do realize that the meaning of words isn't based on your personal acceptance, right?

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

So exactly as I said.....its always someone's job to do the actual fighting for your 'war'. Which is why there will be no war. As your ilk all say the same thing.

 

[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

"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.

So, you finally agree that you were wrong. it's about time.


JWK

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Over 66% of USMB members are Patriots.

 

[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.

So, you finally agree that you were wrong. it's about time.


JWK

Wow.....you're just straight up delusional. Meanwhile, the USSC obliterates your claims yet again:

"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 can refuse to read it. But the world doesn't disappear just because you close your eyes. Nor does caselaw change just because its inconvenient to your argument.

You really have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Skylar]

Over 66% of USMB members are Patriots.

Um, we're not repealing the 16th amendment.

Get used to the idea.