Ted Cruz may not be the constitutional conservative he claims to be

[johnwk]

The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States.

John Roberts lists all known types of direct taxes in the paragraph you pulled that sentence from.

" A tax on going without health insurance does not fall within any recognized category of direct tax. It is not a capitation. Capitations are taxes paid by every person, "without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance." Hylton, supra, at 175 (opinion of Chase, J.) (emphasis altered). The whole point of the shared responsibility payment is that it is triggered by specific circumstances--earning a certain amount of income but not obtaining health insurance. The payment is also plainly not a tax on the ownership of land or personal property. The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States."

​

Bullshit!


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.'


Stop making crap up.

JWK​

Laughing......that's why you edited out John Roberts explicitly contradicting you, huh?

"That narrow view of what a direct tax might be persisted for a century. In 1880, for example, we explained that "direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate." Springer, supra, at 602. In 1895, we expanded our interpretation to include taxes on personal property and income from personal property, in the course of striking down aspects of the federal income tax. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 U. S. 601, 618 (1895). That result was overturned by the Sixteenth Amendment, although we continued to consider taxes on personal property to be direct taxes."

.​

Making more stuff up? What I actually did was provide the specific quote from Hamilton's brief in the Hylton carriage case which 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.'

It is interesting to note that during the framing of our Constitution, on AUGUST 18th of the Convention as recorded in Madison’s Notes on the Convention “Mr. King asked, what was the precise meaning of direct taxation? No one answered.” But having studied an abundance of historical documentation during the 1700s and when our Constitution was adopted to identify the distinctions between direct and indirect taxation, one thing I am certain of. There is a consistency in contemporary comments of the time and tax legislation of the time establishing 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, during the 1700s Delaware had a direct tax system which laid a general assessment which included the "lessees of tillable land and those 'fortunate in trade . . . agreeable to the profit arising thereon , and according to their best skill and judgement . . .' [An act raising one million three hundred and sixty thousand dollars in the Delaware State, between the first day of February and the first day of October in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty; and for other purposes therein mentioned (25 December, 1799) (DELAWARE); in laws of the state of Delaware, 1797, page 682; American Antiquarian Society (1956---,No 32030)

Hamilton's brief in the Hylton carriage case which Roberts quoted in the Obamacare 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.'



Stop making crap up.

JWK​

Why is it you always seem to have problems with what the constitution says???? Is it the simple English that confuses you or the words bigger then two syllables?

Seems that you and others see the phrase "income tax" in the Amendment, and that, my friend is delusional.


JWK

 

[thanatos144]

John Roberts lists all known types of direct taxes in the paragraph you pulled that sentence from.

" A tax on going without health insurance does not fall within any recognized category of direct tax. It is not a capitation. Capitations are taxes paid by every person, "without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance." Hylton, supra, at 175 (opinion of Chase, J.) (emphasis altered). The whole point of the shared responsibility payment is that it is triggered by specific circumstances--earning a certain amount of income but not obtaining health insurance. The payment is also plainly not a tax on the ownership of land or personal property. The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States."

​

Bullshit!


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.'


Stop making crap up.

JWK​

Laughing......that's why you edited out John Roberts explicitly contradicting you, huh?

"That narrow view of what a direct tax might be persisted for a century. In 1880, for example, we explained that "direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate." Springer, supra, at 602. In 1895, we expanded our interpretation to include taxes on personal property and income from personal property, in the course of striking down aspects of the federal income tax. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 U. S. 601, 618 (1895). That result was overturned by the Sixteenth Amendment, although we continued to consider taxes on personal property to be direct taxes."

.​

Making more stuff up? What I actually did was provide the specific quote from Hamilton's brief in the Hylton carriage case which 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.'

It is interesting to note that during the framing of our Constitution, on AUGUST 18th of the Convention as recorded in Madison’s Notes on the Convention “Mr. King asked, what was the precise meaning of direct taxation? No one answered.” But having studied an abundance of historical documentation during the 1700s and when our Constitution was adopted to identify the distinctions between direct and indirect taxation, one thing I am certain of. There is a consistency in contemporary comments of the time and tax legislation of the time establishing 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, during the 1700s Delaware had a direct tax system which laid a general assessment which included the "lessees of tillable land and those 'fortunate in trade . . . agreeable to the profit arising thereon , and according to their best skill and judgement . . .' [An act raising one million three hundred and sixty thousand dollars in the Delaware State, between the first day of February and the first day of October in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty; and for other purposes therein mentioned (25 December, 1799) (DELAWARE); in laws of the state of Delaware, 1797, page 682; American Antiquarian Society (1956---,No 32030)

Hamilton's brief in the Hylton carriage case which Roberts quoted in the Obamacare 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.'



Stop making crap up.

JWK​

Why is it you always seem to have problems with what the constitution says???? Is it the simple English that confuses you or the words bigger then two syllables?

Seems that you and others see the phrase "income tax" in the Amendment, and that, my friend is delusional.


JWK

You truly are one of the most obstinate stupid fucks on this board.

 

[johnwk]

Bullshit!


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.'


Stop making crap up.

JWK​

Laughing......that's why you edited out John Roberts explicitly contradicting you, huh?

"That narrow view of what a direct tax might be persisted for a century. In 1880, for example, we explained that "direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate." Springer, supra, at 602. In 1895, we expanded our interpretation to include taxes on personal property and income from personal property, in the course of striking down aspects of the federal income tax. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 U. S. 601, 618 (1895). That result was overturned by the Sixteenth Amendment, although we continued to consider taxes on personal property to be direct taxes."

.​

Making more stuff up? What I actually did was provide the specific quote from Hamilton's brief in the Hylton carriage case which 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.'

It is interesting to note that during the framing of our Constitution, on AUGUST 18th of the Convention as recorded in Madison’s Notes on the Convention “Mr. King asked, what was the precise meaning of direct taxation? No one answered.” But having studied an abundance of historical documentation during the 1700s and when our Constitution was adopted to identify the distinctions between direct and indirect taxation, one thing I am certain of. There is a consistency in contemporary comments of the time and tax legislation of the time establishing 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, during the 1700s Delaware had a direct tax system which laid a general assessment which included the "lessees of tillable land and those 'fortunate in trade . . . agreeable to the profit arising thereon , and according to their best skill and judgement . . .' [An act raising one million three hundred and sixty thousand dollars in the Delaware State, between the first day of February and the first day of October in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty; and for other purposes therein mentioned (25 December, 1799) (DELAWARE); in laws of the state of Delaware, 1797, page 682; American Antiquarian Society (1956---,No 32030)

Hamilton's brief in the Hylton carriage case which Roberts quoted in the Obamacare 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.'



Stop making crap up.

JWK​

Why is it you always seem to have problems with what the constitution says???? Is it the simple English that confuses you or the words bigger then two syllables?

Seems that you and others see the phrase "income tax" in the Amendment, and that, my friend is delusional.


JWK

You truly are one of the most obstinate stupid fucks on this board.

Why are you and others so insistent in adding words to our Constitution which are not there?


The 16th Amendment does not say Congress has power to lay and collect and income tax. Even the Supreme Court acknowledges the 16th Amendment does not grant power to Congress to lay and collect an income tax in a generic sense.

The Supreme Court writes:



“This is the text of the Amendment:

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

It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense” ___ BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., (1916)

Likewise, the 16th Amendment makes no mention to allow Congress to lay and collect a "direct tax" on incomes.



JWK



If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

 

[thanatos144]

Dude the constitution allows income taxes. It just does. Until it is amended it will keep proving you are a stupid fuck who refuses to realizes how dumb he is.

 

[Skylar]

The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States.

John Roberts lists all known types of direct taxes in the paragraph you pulled that sentence from.

" A tax on going without health insurance does not fall within any recognized category of direct tax. It is not a capitation. Capitations are taxes paid by every person, "without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance." Hylton, supra, at 175 (opinion of Chase, J.) (emphasis altered). The whole point of the shared responsibility payment is that it is triggered by specific circumstances--earning a certain amount of income but not obtaining health insurance. The payment is also plainly not a tax on the ownership of land or personal property. The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States."

​

Bullshit!


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.'


Stop making crap up.

JWK​

Laughing......that's why you edited out John Roberts explicitly contradicting you, huh?

"That narrow view of what a direct tax might be persisted for a century. In 1880, for example, we explained that "direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate." Springer, supra, at 602. In 1895, we expanded our interpretation to include taxes on personal property and income from personal property, in the course of striking down aspects of the federal income tax. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 U. S. 601, 618 (1895). That result was overturned by the Sixteenth Amendment, although we continued to consider taxes on personal property to be direct taxes."

.​

Making more stuff up?

So you've completely abandoned good old Justice Roberts then? Despite quoting Roberts in NFIB v. Sebelius (2012), you now refuse to discuss either the case or your quote.

It doesn't take much to run you off, as you simply don't know the cases you cite. You merely ape the lone sentence you were given......without ever having read the cases they are from.

THINK, John.

What I actually did was provide the specific quote from Hamilton's brief in the Hylton carriage case which 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.'

Laughably irrelevant. Hamition's brief in the Hilton Carriage case says nothing of the 16th amendment. As it occured in 1796.....while the 16th amendment passed in 1913.

Making your citations of 1796 both irrelevant and bizarre....as you don't seem to understand that amendments change the constitution. As regardless of what Hamilton thougth in 1796......apportionment requirements for taxes on incomes were lifted in 1913.

You're genuinely unprepared for this conversation John. You don't even understand that amendments change the constitution. Making your uninformed and baseless personal opinions about the 16th amendment meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish.

 

[Skylar]

Dude the constitution allows income taxes. It just does. Until it is amended it will keep proving you are a stupid fuck who refuses to realizes how dumb he is.

John is just mindlessly repeating whatever tax conspiracy website he's apeing. He has no idea what he's talking about.....ignoring the very cases he's citing.

For crying out loud, he doesn't even understand that an amendment to the constitution changes the constitution itself. As he's citing Hamilton's 'original intent' as if it has the slightest relevance to taxes on income AFTER the 16th amendment.

 

[Skylar]

John Roberts lists all known types of direct taxes in the paragraph you pulled that sentence from.

" A tax on going without health insurance does not fall within any recognized category of direct tax. It is not a capitation. Capitations are taxes paid by every person, "without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance." Hylton, supra, at 175 (opinion of Chase, J.) (emphasis altered). The whole point of the shared responsibility payment is that it is triggered by specific circumstances--earning a certain amount of income but not obtaining health insurance. The payment is also plainly not a tax on the ownership of land or personal property. The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States."

​

Bullshit!


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.'


Stop making crap up.

JWK​

Laughing......that's why you edited out John Roberts explicitly contradicting you, huh?

"That narrow view of what a direct tax might be persisted for a century. In 1880, for example, we explained that "direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate." Springer, supra, at 602. In 1895, we expanded our interpretation to include taxes on personal property and income from personal property, in the course of striking down aspects of the federal income tax. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 U. S. 601, 618 (1895). That result was overturned by the Sixteenth Amendment, although we continued to consider taxes on personal property to be direct taxes."

.​

Making more stuff up? What I actually did was provide the specific quote from Hamilton's brief in the Hylton carriage case which 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.'

It is interesting to note that during the framing of our Constitution, on AUGUST 18th of the Convention as recorded in Madison’s Notes on the Convention “Mr. King asked, what was the precise meaning of direct taxation? No one answered.” But having studied an abundance of historical documentation during the 1700s and when our Constitution was adopted to identify the distinctions between direct and indirect taxation, one thing I am certain of. There is a consistency in contemporary comments of the time and tax legislation of the time establishing 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, during the 1700s Delaware had a direct tax system which laid a general assessment which included the "lessees of tillable land and those 'fortunate in trade . . . agreeable to the profit arising thereon , and according to their best skill and judgement . . .' [An act raising one million three hundred and sixty thousand dollars in the Delaware State, between the first day of February and the first day of October in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty; and for other purposes therein mentioned (25 December, 1799) (DELAWARE); in laws of the state of Delaware, 1797, page 682; American Antiquarian Society (1956---,No 32030)

Hamilton's brief in the Hylton carriage case which Roberts quoted in the Obamacare 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.'



Stop making crap up.

JWK​

Why is it you always seem to have problems with what the constitution says???? Is it the simple English that confuses you or the words bigger then two syllables?

Seems that you and others see the phrase "income tax" in the Amendment, and that, my friend is delusional.


JWK

Show us any court ruling that draws any distinction between 'taxes on income' and 'income taxes'.

There is no such case, as there is no such distinction.

You've quite literally imagined it.

 

[Skylar]

It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense” ___ BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., (1916)

Likewise, the 16th Amendment makes no mention to allow Congress to lay and collect a "direct tax" on incomes.

Your poor, ignorant little soul. You were told to repeat that excerpt from Brushaber. But you've never actually read the case nor realized that the rest of the sentence you cited obliterates your entire argument:

It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense -- an authority already possessed and never questioned --or to limit and distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another, but that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived.

Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co

"all taxes on income"

Once again, your own source destroys your entire argument. You didn't even know that Brushaber in the very sentence you pulled your quote from contradicts every claim you've made.

No court has ever found that any tax on incomes under the 16th amendment must be apportioned.

Not one. Not Brushaber, not Eisner, nothing. You haven't read the cases, you haven't done the research necessary to comment on this topic intelligently. You're simply repeating whatever you're told to think from whatever tax conspiracy website you're apeing.

THINK.

 

[johnwk]

Dude the constitution allows income taxes. It just does. Until it is amended it will keep proving you are a stupid fuck who refuses to realizes how dumb he is.

Dude, that is not what is in contention above. What is in contention above is the erroneous assertion that the 16th Amendment grants power to Congress to lay and collect an "income tax". Even our Supreme Court has dispelled this myth!

The Supreme Court writes:



“This is the text of the Amendment:

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

It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to confer power to levy incomes taxes in a generic sense” ___ BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., (1916)

Likewise, the 16th Amendment makes no mention to allow Congress to lay and collect a "direct tax" on incomes.



JWK



If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

 

[thanatos144]

Dude the constitution allows income taxes. It just does. Until it is amended it will keep proving you are a stupid fuck who refuses to realizes how dumb he is.

Dude, that is not what is in contention above. What is in contention above is the erroneous assertion that the 16th Amendment grants power to Congress to lay and collect an "income tax". Even our Supreme Court has dispelled this myth!

The Supreme Court writes:



“This is the text of the Amendment:

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

It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to confer power to levy incomes taxes in a generic sense” ___ BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., (1916)

Likewise, the 16th Amendment makes no mention to allow Congress to lay and collect a "direct tax" on incomes.



JWK



If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

where do you get your stupid ideas from??? Who is shaping your obvious gullibility? Savage?

 

[Skylar]

Dude the constitution allows income taxes. It just does. Until it is amended it will keep proving you are a stupid fuck who refuses to realizes how dumb he is.

Dude, that is not what is in contention above. What is in contention above is the erroneous assertion that the 16th Amendment grants power to Congress to lay and collect an "income tax". Even our Supreme Court has dispelled this myth!

No, they haven't. The Supreme Court affirmed the authority to tax on incomes:

The Supreme Court writes:



“This is the text of the Amendment:

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

It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to confer power to levy incomes taxes in a generic sense” ___ BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., (1916)

And when you don't omit the REST of the sentence inf Brushaber....your entire pseudo-legal narrative completely implodes.

It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense -- an authority already possessed and never questioned --or to limit and distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another, but that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived.

BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., (1916)

There's the word 'income tax' right there. Which you ignorantly insisted had nothing to do with 'taxes on income'. And your own source just obliterated your silly argument. Which you would have known if you'd bothered to research it.

John......you need to read these cases before you try and talk about them. Just reciting whatever you're told to think by whatever tax conspiracy website you frequent is woefully inadequate.

 

[Skylar]

Dude the constitution allows income taxes. It just does. Until it is amended it will keep proving you are a stupid fuck who refuses to realizes how dumb he is.

Dude, that is not what is in contention above. What is in contention above is the erroneous assertion that the 16th Amendment grants power to Congress to lay and collect an "income tax". Even our Supreme Court has dispelled this myth!

The Supreme Court writes:



“This is the text of the Amendment:

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

It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to confer power to levy incomes taxes in a generic sense” ___ BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., (1916)

Likewise, the 16th Amendment makes no mention to allow Congress to lay and collect a "direct tax" on incomes.



JWK



If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

where do you get your stupid ideas from??? Who is shaping your obvious gullibility? Savage?

John isn't a thinker. He just recites tax conspiracies......never having read any of the cases he claims to cite.

 

[johnwk]

Dude the constitution allows income taxes. It just does. Until it is amended it will keep proving you are a stupid fuck who refuses to realizes how dumb he is.

Dude, that is not what is in contention above. What is in contention above is the erroneous assertion that the 16th Amendment grants power to Congress to lay and collect an "income tax". Even our Supreme Court has dispelled this myth!

No, they haven't. The Supreme Court affirmed the authority to tax on incomes:

The Supreme Court writes:



“This is the text of the Amendment:

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

It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to confer power to levy incomes taxes in a generic sense” ___ BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., (1916)

And when you don't omit the REST of the sentence inf Brushaber....your entire pseudo-legal narrative completely implodes.

It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense -- an authority already possessed and never questioned --or to limit and distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another, but that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived.

BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., (1916)

There's the word 'income tax' right there. Which you ignorantly insisted had nothing to do with 'taxes on income'. .

So now you insist on lying about what I have written. How sweet of you to lie. What I have been saying and correctly so is:

The 16th Amendment does not say Congress has power to lay and collect and income tax. Even the Supreme Court acknowledges the 16th Amendment does not grant power to Congress to lay and collect an income tax in a generic sense.

The Supreme Court writes:



“This is the text of the Amendment:

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

It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense” ___ BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., (1916)

Likewise, the 16th Amendment makes no mention to allow Congress to lay and collect a "direct tax" on incomes.



JWK



If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

 

[johnwk]

The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States.

John Roberts lists all known types of direct taxes in the paragraph you pulled that sentence from.

" A tax on going without health insurance does not fall within any recognized category of direct tax. It is not a capitation. Capitations are taxes paid by every person, "without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance." Hylton, supra, at 175 (opinion of Chase, J.) (emphasis altered). The whole point of the shared responsibility payment is that it is triggered by specific circumstances--earning a certain amount of income but not obtaining health insurance. The payment is also plainly not a tax on the ownership of land or personal property. The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States."

​

Bullshit!


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.'


Stop making crap up.

JWK​

Laughing......that's why you edited out John Roberts explicitly contradicting you, huh?

"That narrow view of what a direct tax might be persisted for a century. In 1880, for example, we explained that "direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate." Springer, supra, at 602. In 1895, we expanded our interpretation to include taxes on personal property and income from personal property, in the course of striking down aspects of the federal income tax. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 U. S. 601, 618 (1895). That result was overturned by the Sixteenth Amendment, although we continued to consider taxes on personal property to be direct taxes."

.​

Making more stuff up?

So you've completely abandoned good old Justice Roberts then? Despite quoting Roberts in NFIB v. Sebelius (2012), you now refuse to discuss either the case or your quote.

It doesn't take much to run you off, as you simply don't know the cases you cite. You merely ape the lone sentence you were given......without ever having read the cases they are from.

THINK, John.

What I actually did was provide the specific quote from Hamilton's brief in the Hylton carriage case which 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.'

Laughably irrelevant. Hamition's brief in the Hilton Carriage case says nothing of the 16th amendment. As it occured in 1796.....while the 16th amendment passed in 1913.

Making your citations of 1796 both irrelevant and bizarre....as you don't seem to understand that amendments change the constitution. As regardless of what Hamilton thougth in 1796......apportionment requirements for taxes on incomes were lifted in 1913.

You're genuinely unprepared for this conversation John. You don't even understand that amendments change the constitution. Making your uninformed and baseless personal opinions about the 16th amendment meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish.

What Hamilton stated has nothing to do with the 16th Amendment? Then why did you quote what the Court stated in the Obamacare case with regard to "direct taxes"? Was Robert's statement which you quoted not with regard to "direct taxes", which are still required to be apportioned regardless of the 16th Amendment?

You wrote:

John Roberts lists all known types of direct taxes in the paragraph you pulled that sentence from.

__________
" A tax on going without health insurance does not fall within any recognized category of direct tax. It is not a capitation. Capitations are taxes paid by every person, "without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance." Hylton, supra, at 175 (opinion of Chase, J.) (emphasis altered). The whole point of the shared responsibility payment is that it is triggered by specific circumstances--earning a certain amount of income but not obtaining health insurance. The payment is also plainly not a tax on the ownership of land or personal property. The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States."

NFIB v. Sebelius (2012)

Notice that income taxes aren't listed anywhere as a direct tax.
________

Now in response to your post and the meaning of direct taxes, let us look at the facts.

It is interesting to note that during the framing of our Constitution, on AUGUST 18th of the Convention as recorded in Madison’s Notes on the Convention “Mr. King asked, what was the precise meaning of direct taxation? No one answered.” But having studied an abundance of historical documentation during the 1700s and when our Constitution was adopted to identify the distinctions between direct and indirect taxation, one thing I am certain of. There is a consistency in contemporary comments of the time and tax legislation of the time establishing 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, during the 1700s Delaware had a direct tax system which laid a general assessment which included the "lessees of tillable land and those 'fortunate in trade . . . agreeable to the profit arising thereon , and according to their best skill and judgement . . .' [An act raising one million three hundred and sixty thousand dollars in the Delaware State, between the first day of February and the first day of October in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty; and for other purposes therein mentioned (25 December, 1799) (DELAWARE); in laws of the state of Delaware, 1797, page 682; American Antiquarian Society (1956---,No 32030)

Hamilton's brief in the Hylton carriage case which Roberts quoted in the Obamacare 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.'


So, as it turns out a "general assessment" on profit [income] as quoted by Roberts in the Obamacare case, which was laid in Delaware in 1780 turns out to be a direct tax, and is mentioned in the list of taxes considered to be direct


JWK

 

[Skylar]

Dude the constitution allows income taxes. It just does. Until it is amended it will keep proving you are a stupid fuck who refuses to realizes how dumb he is.

Dude, that is not what is in contention above. What is in contention above is the erroneous assertion that the 16th Amendment grants power to Congress to lay and collect an "income tax". Even our Supreme Court has dispelled this myth!

No, they haven't. The Supreme Court affirmed the authority to tax on incomes:

The Supreme Court writes:



“This is the text of the Amendment:

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

It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to confer power to levy incomes taxes in a generic sense” ___ BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., (1916)

And when you don't omit the REST of the sentence inf Brushaber....your entire pseudo-legal narrative completely implodes.

It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense -- an authority already possessed and never questioned --or to limit and distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another, but that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived.

BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., (1916)

There's the word 'income tax' right there. Which you ignorantly insisted had nothing to do with 'taxes on income'. .

So now you insist on lying about what I have written. How sweet of you to lie. What I have been saying and correctly so is:

The 16th Amendment does not say Congress has power to lay and collect and income tax. Even the Supreme Court acknowledges the 16th Amendment does not grant power to Congress to lay and collect an income tax in a generic sense.

The Supreme Court writes:



“This is the text of the Amendment:

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

It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense” ___ BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., (1916)

And as noted above, when you finish that sentence from Brushaber, your argument implodes:

It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense -- an authority already possessed and never questioned --or to limit and distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another, but that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived.

BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., (1916)

You insist that the 16th amendment lifted no apportionment requirements for taxes on incomes. The Brushaber court says that the 16th amendment did lift apportionment requirements.

You lose.

Likewise, the 16th Amendment makes no mention to allow Congress to lay and collect a "direct tax" on incomes.

You're clearly confused. Congress can already collect direct taxes. Why would the 16th amendment need to 'allow' congress to do so? What the 16th amendment did was remove any apportionment requirements on taxes on incomes.

You insist that the 16th amendment didn't lift any apportionment requirements on taxes on income.

You lose again.

You're simply not prepared for this conversation, John. You haven't read the cases you were told to cite. You have no idea how our system of government works. You weren't even aware that an amendment changes the constitution. Rendering your personal opinion uninformed and baseless pseudo-legal gibberish.

 

[Skylar]

What I actually did was provide the specific quote from Hamilton's brief in the Hylton carriage case which says:

The Hylton carriage case is irrelevant as a century later Pollock found that a tax on income from real property was a direct tax.

"That narrow view of what a direct tax might be persisted for a century. In 1880, for example, we explained that "direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate." Springer, supra, at 602. In 1895, we expanded our interpretation to include taxes on personal property and income from personal property, in the course of striking down aspects of the federal income tax. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 U. S. 601, 618 (1895). That result was overturned by the Sixteenth Amendment, although we continued to consider taxes on personal property to be direct taxes."

NFIB v. Sebelius (2012)

Until the 16th amendment, tax on income from personal property WERE a direct tax. Says who? Says Justice Roberts, your own source in the Sebelius ruling, your own ruling. Citing Pollock, another ruling you've cited.

The reason that Robert's didn't include income taxes in the list of direct taxes in the Sebelius ruling is bolded above: "That result was overturned by the Sixtheenth Amendment".

Nixing both your babble about Hylton and your babble about the 16th Amendment.

Yet again, you're ignoring your own source. Twice. First with Pollock extending direct taxation status to taxes on income from property. Second with Sebelius recognizing that Pollock's findings on income taxes being direct taxes were overturned by 16th amendment.

Which you would have known....if you'd bothered to research the topic. But you don't think, you don't research, you just regurgitate blocks of irrelevant text without understanding it. And without reading the actual rulings your quotes from from.

Your uninformed and baseless personal opinion is again debunked.

 

[bendog]

Ted sort of reminds me of Slipping Jimmy

 

[johnwk]

The reason that Robert's didn't include income taxes in the list of direct taxes in the Sebelius ruling is bolded above: "That result was overturned by the Sixtheenth Amendment".

.

The Sixteenth Amendment intentionally avoided allowing a direct tax on incomes!

When proposed, on June 17th 1909, the 16th Amendment originally read as follows:

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes without apportionment among the several states according to population.”

Had this wording been ratified as the 16th Amendment which declared Congress “… shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes without apportionment …” there would be no question that the proposed amendment was intentionally written to allow Congress to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes without having to apportion the tax.

But the wording in the proposed amendment which would have granted a power to Congress "to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes without apportionment …” was intentionally changed on June 28th, 1909 to read as follows:

"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."

In fact, the power to lay and collect a direct tax on incomes without apportionment was changed to only allow a tax on incomes without apportionment, which left intact the protections in our Constitution which declares "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."


On July 12, 1909, the resolution proposing the Sixteenth Amendment as modified was passed by the Congress and was submitted to the state legislatures for ratification.

At this point in time the question raised is how may Congress lay and collect a tax on incomes which takes the form of an indirect tax which does not require an apportionment? And the answer to this question is found in Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911) Decided March 13, 1911 before the 16th Amendment is ratified. The tax question in Flint is referred to as the Corporate tax of 1909.

This tax, expressly stated in the act is to be equivalent to 1 per centum of the entire net income over and above $5,000 received from all sources during the year. The court goes on to explain:

"Within the category of indirect taxation, as we shall have further occasion to show, is embraced a tax upon business done in a corporate capacity, which is the subject-matter of the tax imposed in the act under consideration."

The Court goes on to say:

"The tax under consideration, as we have construed the statute, may be described as an excise upon the particular privilege of doing business in a corporate capacity, i. e., with the advantages which arise from corporate or quasi corporate organization; or, when applied to insurance companies, for doing the business of such companies. As was said in the Thomas Case, 192 U. S. supra, the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of [220 U.S. 107, 152] privileges, and the element of absolute and unavoidable demand is lacking. If business is not done in the manner described in the statute, no tax is payable."

"If we are correct in holding that this is an excise tax, there is nothing in the Constitution requiring such taxes to be apportioned according to population. Pacific Ins. Co. v. Soule, 7 Wall. 433, 19 L. ed. 95; Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 , 26 L. ed. 253; Spreckels Sugar Ref. Co. v. McClain, 192 U.S. 397 , 48 L. ed. 496, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 376."

Two years after this case is decided the 16th Amendment is finally ratified on Feb. 3rd, 1913, and it merely confirms what the court has already stated in Flint, that Congress has power to lay and collect taxes on incomes without having to apportion the tax, but keep in mind the tax on incomes takes the form of an indirect tax which only requires uniformity.


The bottom line is, in some cases a tax on “incomes” is an indirect tax and does not require an apportionment, but in other cases historical evidence indicates it can take the form of a direct tax and must therefore be apportioned to be within the four walls of our Constitution.

The simple truth is, the 16th Amendment did not remove the protection that any tax laid, regardless of the name placed upon the tax, if it is direct, it requires an apportionment among the States. And let us not forget the last time this was confirmed was in the recent Obamacare case in which Justice Roberts wrote:

”The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States.”

Now, getting back to what Ted Cruz proposes for tax reform, which is more in line with the subject of the thread, he supports keeping alive the socialist friendly and notoriously evil tax calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other lawfully earned incomes which is the very vehicle used by our Washington Establishment to keep the heel of government on the necks of the American People. Additionally, it is most remarkable that Cruz tells us he will shut down the IRS, but proposes the very type of tax which requires the IRS to stay open. And I find that disingenuous.


JWK



If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)