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

[johnwk]

Apparently you do not agree with the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction...

Where you get this?. What can you quote from the linked posts that brings you to this conclusion?

I documented my sources concerning the fundamental rules of constitutional construction.


JWK

you linked to a description of something. You claimed something. you have a point to make?

you wrote: Apparently you do not agree with the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction...
yet, how you came to this conclusion is baffling

I made my point. You seem to ignore the fundamental rules of constitutional construction.

JWK

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

Huh? You never offer evidence of this, so this is something you've decided has to be true because?

Let's cut the nonsense. Do you support enforcing the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted? It's a yes or no question.


JWK





Those who reject and ignore abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

 

[Contumacious]

Remember folks, even if it true, that the Sixteenth Amendment was VALIDLY ADOPTED Congress intended to tax INCOME not the SOURCE.

Neither skylar nor any other tax consuming parasites have been able to show that Congress intended to tax wages or salaries

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD 1909

 

[Skylar]

Remember folks, even if it true, that the Sixteenth Amendment was VALIDLY ADOPTED Congress intended to tax INCOME not the SOURCE.

Neither skylar nor any other tax consuming parasites have been able to show that Congress intended to tax wages or salaries

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD 1909

The 16th amendment says 'from whatever source derived'. It wasn't limited to the specific examples that senators used to illustrate the operation of an income tax. You've presented nothing to indicate that 'from whatever source derived' means anything other than what it says.

And of course, the courts have found that income means exactly what it means in plain, simple English.

For the present purpose, we require only a clear definition of the term "income," as used in common speech, in order to determine its meaning in the amendment....

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

Eisner v. Macomber (1920)

With the USSC being delegated the authority and duty to interpret the constitution. Which the 16th amendment is part of.

 

[Skylar]

And direct taxes, which includes taxes on property, are subject to the rule of apportionment!

JWK

Income taxes are not subject to the rule of apportionment. The 16th amendment such apportionment requirements. Worse, for you, only a tax on income derived from real property would be considered a direct tax. All other forms of income tax would be considered an indirect tax. Which doesn't have any apportionment requirements.

As usual, John.....you just don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Contumacious]

Remember folks, even if it true, that the Sixteenth Amendment was VALIDLY ADOPTED Congress intended to tax INCOME not the SOURCE.

Neither skylar nor any other tax consuming parasites have been able to show that Congress intended to tax wages or salaries

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD 1909

The 16th amendment says 'from whatever source derived'. It wasn't limited to the specific examples that senators used to illustrate the operation of an income tax. You've presented nothing to indicate that 'from whatever source derived' means anything other than what it says.

And of course, the courts have found that income means exactly what it means in plain, simple English.

For the present purpose, we require only a clear definition of the term "income," as used in common speech, in order to determine its meaning in the amendment....

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

Eisner v. Macomber (1920)

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"

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



.

 

[Contumacious]

Remember folks, even if it true, that the Sixteenth Amendment was VALIDLY ADOPTED Congress intended to tax INCOME not the SOURCE.

Neither skylar nor any other tax consuming parasites have been able to show that Congress intended to tax wages or salaries

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD 1909

The 16th amendment says 'from whatever source derived'. It wasn't limited to the specific examples that senators used to illustrate the operation of an income tax. You've presented nothing to indicate that 'from whatever source derived' means anything other than what it says.

And of course, the courts have found that income means exactly what it means in plain, simple English.

For the present purpose, we require only a clear definition of the term "income," as used in common speech, in order to determine its meaning in the amendment....

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

Eisner v. Macomber (1920)

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"

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



.

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"

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


.

 

[Skylar]

Property isn't taken from one person and given to another. Property is taken from one person in the form of taxation. That money is spent on all sorts of programs that benefit us individually and collectively. 'Your' money isn't given anyone. Our money is. As the money is no longer yours. Its ours. And its not spent on one program. Its spend on thousand of programs. Some you might agree with. Some you wouldn't. All enacted by duly elected representatives weilding the sovereign authority of the people they represent.

Ideally, yes. That's how it's supposed to work. But in reality, it goes a different way. For example:

I don't consider that situation to be particularly immoral or unjust. Lets try a different scenario:

Lets say that legislator A runs for office on a platform of home ownership for families and wins. He then co-sponsors tax breaks for home owners and tax breaks for parents with children. And with his support, this legislation passes and becomes law. He is engaging in 'social engineering' by the standards you've offered. He's clearly attempting to encourage both homeownership and family through incentives. You might characterized it as 'attempting to force and control the actions of its people'.

Yes. That's exactly what it is. This IS the problem. The taxation power has been co-opted and converted from a means of financing legitimate government services to an all-purpose tool for manipulating society. It's essentially Congress doing an end-run around Constitutional limits on their power.

Every power excercised by Congress in taxing and spending is constitutionally granted. There's no constitutional prohibition for granting a tax cut for, well....anything. So the 'end run' argument is moot. As there are no such constitutional violations in providing tax breaks.

We're left with the 'manipulation of society' argument. Which at least is a rational step back from the the 'control', 'coersion' and 'completely contrary to freedom' hysterics of earlier posters. And your 'manipulation' is merely the government enacting policies with the authority of the people for the benefit of the people with the consent of the people. Government is *supposed* to be responsive to the will and priorities of the people. And their tax policy would reflect these priorities. As would their regulatory policies, their funding priorities, etc.

The government isn't a tabula rasa because the people it represents aren't a tabula rasa. The people have priorities. And a responsive government should work to act on those priorities. That's why we have elections. Because different people have different priorities. And the priorities of the majority should be the focus of the officials elected to represent them.

The ACA brought this fact out into the light. If Congress had passed a law fining everyone who failed to buy health insurance it would have been readily struck down as unconstitutional. But, even though ACA does effectively the exact same thing, it's all good (according to Justice Roberts) because it's implemented as a tax incentive. That's why they implemented it implemented as a 'tax penalty', and why they setup the IRS to collect it.

Taxing and spending are both within the authority of Congress. And we've been making similar judgment calls since the first session of congress, creating a Bank of the United States to carry out our business. Or within only a few years of the ratification of the constitution, enacting subsidies for certain fishermen, or creating healthcare systems for sailors. Systems with mandatory participation.

This is nothing new. If we've 'abandoned the constitution', we've done it from the very first session of congress.

I would disagree. He has been duly elected, ran on a platform of homeownership and family, and helped enact the policies he said he was going to enact. He's weilding the people's authority for policies that benefit the people he represents. In this case we have government acting in the interests of the common good, intent on benefiting the people. And with the tax break making both home ownership and children less expensive, helping to encourage a 'positive' outcome: more families owning homes.

I don't consider that situation to be unjust or immoral. As government is wielding the authority of the people for the benefit of the people with the consent of the people. And that's something I think government should absolutely do.

No, this is absolutely what government must NOT do. The consent of the people is not unconditional. We agree to give government power over our lives only in very specific circumstances, regardless of whether they represent the majority.[/quote]

I disagree that this is absolutely what goernment must NOT do. Government should be responsive to the will and prioirities of the people. Its policies should reflect those priorities. That's what elections are for. To who see which priorities, to see which policies should be enacted.

I fail to see the 'immoral' or 'unjust' part of that process. As for the limits of the consent of the people, those have been articulated by the courts in their interpretation of the constitution. Such limits exist. But not where you're drawing your lines.

The morality or justice of a given policy should be based on the intent and outcome of that policy. Not merely its existence.

No. It's not. Government is supposed to prevent this kind of thing from happening. Government is supposed to prevent people from forcing their will on others. It's supposed to protect our freedom to live our lives as we wish, not impose conformity to the will of the majority.

First, any law is 'forcing your will on someone'. If you set up a speed limit, if you define a marriage, if you establish business laws....and you enforce those laws, you're 'forcing your will on others'. The entire basis of law is the enforcement of codified will. The question is, whose will? In the past, it was the King's. In the present, its the peoples.

That's not to say that such laws are unlimited. There are constitutional restrictions on the exercise of the will of the people. But within those limits, the law reflecting the will of the people is what is supposed to happen. And the enforcement of those laws is the enforcement of the will of the people. Which is what government is supposed to do.

Your entire conception of government ignores this. Our laws don't.

Second, a tax break for say, raising children isn't forcing someone to have children. A tax break on home ownership isn't forcing someone to buy a house. They simply make each easier and less expensive. Such policies encourage an outcome that reflects the priorities of the people that elected the officials that created them for the benefit of those people. And responding to the priorities of the people is exactly what government is supposed to do.

 

[Skylar]

Remember folks, even if it true, that the Sixteenth Amendment was VALIDLY ADOPTED Congress intended to tax INCOME not the SOURCE.

Neither skylar nor any other tax consuming parasites have been able to show that Congress intended to tax wages or salaries

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD 1909

The 16th amendment says 'from whatever source derived'. It wasn't limited to the specific examples that senators used to illustrate the operation of an income tax. You've presented nothing to indicate that 'from whatever source derived' means anything other than what it says.

And of course, the courts have found that income means exactly what it means in plain, simple English.

For the present purpose, we require only a clear definition of the term "income," as used in common speech, in order to determine its meaning in the amendment....

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

Eisner v. Macomber (1920)

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"

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



.

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"

As you'll note for the sentence immediately preceding the one you just bolded, the courts were referring specifically to the gain derived from capital. They aren't discussing gains derived from labor in that passage.The courts have already recognized that income can be gain derived from capital or from labor or from a combination of the two.

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

Eisner vs Macomber

The Eisner court never stated that income can only be derived from gain derived from capital. They specifically stated that income can be defined as gain derived from labor. Absolutely annihilating your argument.

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

With 'from any source derived' covering the issue soundly. They clearly weren't applying the restrictions you imagine.

And the courts recognizing that income can be defined as being gains derived from labor.

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?

 

[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.

 

[dblack]

Property isn't taken from one person and given to another. Property is taken from one person in the form of taxation. That money is spent on all sorts of programs that benefit us individually and collectively. 'Your' money isn't given anyone. Our money is. As the money is no longer yours. Its ours. And its not spent on one program. Its spend on thousand of programs. Some you might agree with. Some you wouldn't. All enacted by duly elected representatives weilding the sovereign authority of the people they represent.

Ideally, yes. That's how it's supposed to work. But in reality, it goes a different way. For example:

I don't consider that situation to be particularly immoral or unjust. Lets try a different scenario:

Lets say that legislator A runs for office on a platform of home ownership for families and wins. He then co-sponsors tax breaks for home owners and tax breaks for parents with children. And with his support, this legislation passes and becomes law. He is engaging in 'social engineering' by the standards you've offered. He's clearly attempting to encourage both homeownership and family through incentives. You might characterized it as 'attempting to force and control the actions of its people'.

Yes. That's exactly what it is. This IS the problem. The taxation power has been co-opted and converted from a means of financing legitimate government services to an all-purpose tool for manipulating society. It's essentially Congress doing an end-run around Constitutional limits on their power.

Every power excercised by Congress in taxing and spending is constitutionally granted. There's no constitutional prohibition for granting a tax cut for, well....anything. So the 'end run' argument is moot. As there are no such constitutional violations in providing tax breaks.

That's my point. It's a loophole that lets them use the power of discriminatory taxation to give themselves broad power to dictate behavior. It's a loophole that's been co-opted by powerful financial interests to achieve their goals. It needs to be closed.

We're left with the 'manipulation of society' argument. Which at least is a rational step back from the the 'control', 'coercion' and 'completely contrary to freedom' hysterics of earlier posters.

It wasn't meant to be a step back. It's the same thing.

This is nothing new. If we've 'abandoned the constitution', we've done it from the very first session of congress.

Ok. I don't care. It's fucked up and needs to change.

I disagree that this is absolutely what goernment must NOT do. Government should be responsive to the will and prioirities of the people. Its policies should reflect those priorities. That's what elections are for. To who see which priorities, to see which policies should be enacted.

Actually, the powers of Congress aren't supposed to be determined by elections. If they were, consent of the governed would be impossible and every election would be, potentially, a life or death battle.

As for the limits of the consent of the people, those have been articulated by the courts in their interpretation of the constitution. Such limits exist. But not where you're drawing your lines.

They screwed it up, and it's up to us to fix it.

First, any law is 'forcing your will on someone'.

No. In principle and in reality, just laws protect us from those who would force their will on us. They don't force others to bend to the will of the majority for convenience sake.

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.

That's not to say that such laws are unlimited. There are constitutional restrictions on the exercise of the will of the people. But within those limits, the law reflecting the will of the people is what is supposed to happen. And the enforcement of those laws is the enforcement of the will of the people. Which is what government is supposed to do.

Your entire conception of government ignores this. Our laws don't.

Not at all. I just think we need far more substantial limits on state power than what the Court's current interpretation of the Constitution provides.

Second, a tax break for say, raising children isn't forcing someone to have children. A tax break on home ownership isn't forcing someone to buy a house. They simply make each easier and less expensive. Such policies encourage an outcome that reflects the priorities of the people that elected the officials that created them for the benefit of those people. And responding to the priorities of the people is exactly what government is supposed to do.

This is just a head game. You could write every one of these incentives as mandates, with fines as punishment, and the would function exactly the same. The home mortgage tax incentive, for example, is effectively a fine on people who fail to carry a mortgage,

 

[Skylar]

That's my point. It's a loophole that lets them use the power of discriminatory taxation to give themselves broad power to dictate behavior. It's a loophole that's been co-opted by powerful financial interests to achieve their goals. It needs to be closed.

That's not a 'loophole'. That's just straight up the constitutional authority they've been granted. And the founders were well aware of what they called the 'power of the purse'. 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.

We're left with the 'manipulation of society' argument. Which at least is a rational step back from the the 'control', 'coercion' and 'completely contrary to freedom' hysterics of earlier posters.

It wasn't meant to be a step back. It's the same thing.

But its not. 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.

Making all those melodramatic terms more suitable for a fainting couch rather than our system of spending.

This is nothing new. If we've 'abandoned the constitution', we've done it from the very first session of congress.

Ok. I don't care. It's fucked up and needs to change.

I disagree. I think govenrment is supposed to be responsive to the people. And that its taxing and spending priorities and policy should reflect that. And apparently so has congress from the very first session onward. The ink was still drying on the constitution when the policies that you claim to oppose were enacted by the founding fathers.

Which mean that my perspective has an excellent pedigree.

I disagree that this is absolutely what goernment must NOT do. Government should be responsive to the will and prioirities of the people. Its policies should reflect those priorities. That's what elections are for. To who see which priorities, to see which policies should be enacted.

Actually, the powers of Congress aren't supposed to be determined by elections. If they were, consent of the governed would be impossible and every election would be, potentially, a life or death battle.

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.

As for the limits of the consent of the people, those have been articulated by the courts in their interpretation of the constitution. Such limits exist. But not where you're drawing your lines.

They screwed it up, and it's up to us to fix it.

I don't think its a screw up. But a constitutional power. One the founders recognized was extremely powerful. One that many of these same men used in the first session of congress onward. And I don't think the government being responsive to the priorities of the people and encouraging outcomes that the people support and that benefit society to be anything that needs to be 'fixed'. Its what's supposed to happen.

First, any law is 'forcing your will on someone'.

No. In principle and in reality, just laws protect us from those who would force their will on us. They don't force others to bend to the will of the majority for convenience sake.

No. 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 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.

Law is and always has been about codifying the will, morality and ethical priorities of whom ever creates the law. In our case, that is the people. As a constitutional republic, such laws are subject to constitutional guarantees. But barring any such violation, the will of the people is the guiding principle of our laws.

And it *should* reflect their will and priorities.

Not at all. I just think we need far more substantial limits on state power than what the Court's current interpretation of the Constitution provides.

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.

People are going to disagree. On interpretation, on the meaning of terms, on priority, on philosophy. And our laws reflect those disagreements. There is no way to expunge them from law without expunging the people being governed from the process. As almost every 'line' you're drawing is spectacularly, almost epically vague, interpretative and subjective. And someone else will draw them differently.

Meaning that even hypothetically, the system of law you propose is utterly untenable. As there's no such thing as the moral and ethical void that your baseline requires. And if there were, we'd disagree on where it was, what it was supposed to mean, how to interpret and implement it the moment we involved people. With our laws predictably and inevitably reflecting our own perspectives, changing as we change.

You can't remove people from law. And you can't remove perspectives and interpretation from people.

 

[Skylar]

"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"

Repeating: the passage you just cited isn't about wage earner acquiring gains derived from labor. Its specifically about gains derived from capital. As made ludicrous clear by the USSC, who laid out the terms '"Derived — from — capital;" — "the gain — derived — from — capital," in the sentence immediately preceding the one you bolded.

They aren't talking about wage earners there, nor describing the process by which wage earners would be taxed. Making your citation pointless and irrelevant.

The courts did however affirm that income can be defined as gains derived from labor:

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

Eisner vs Macomber

And Bob's your uncle.

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

Then none of the restrictions you've cited actually exist. As the Senate clearly didn't articulate them. And 'from any source derived' covers any eventuality.

Including income defined as gains derived from labor.

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?

And which state has complained that they didn't understand what income was when they ratified the 16th amendment? Like your 'Law that never was' idiocy, you're lamenting about problems that *no State* has ever raised.

Its just you. Citing you. And you're nobody.

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

The courts have never held that gains derived from labor aren't income under the 16th amendment. Or that taxes on such income violated any constitutional principle, or had to be apportioned.

So what restriction are you referring to? Like all of the above, your 'solution' is desperately searching for a problem. And you can't find one.

 

[johnwk]

Remember folks, even if it true, that the Sixteenth Amendment was VALIDLY ADOPTED Congress intended to tax INCOME not the SOURCE.

Neither skylar nor any other tax consuming parasites have been able to show that Congress intended to tax wages or salaries

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD 1909

Additionally, direct taxes are still required to be apportioned. And what separates direct from indirect taxes is partially explained in Flint vs Stone Tracy upholding the Corporate Excise tax of 1909 as indirect and not requiring an apportionment!

JWK

“He has erected a multitude of new offices , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ___Declaration of Independence

 

[Skylar]

Remember folks, even if it true, that the Sixteenth Amendment was VALIDLY ADOPTED Congress intended to tax INCOME not the SOURCE.

Neither skylar nor any other tax consuming parasites have been able to show that Congress intended to tax wages or salaries

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD 1909

Additionally, direct taxes are still required to be apportioned.

Income taxes aren't, even if they are derived from income from real property. They're explicitly exempted from the apportionment clause per the 16th amendment.

'From any source derived' in the 16th amendment pretty much covers it.

 

[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]

[



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!

Income taxes are exempt from the appointment requirement. Income taxes apply on income from 'whatever source derived'.

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.

16th amendment

You can ignore the 16th amendment if you wish. But it doesn't change just because its inconvenient to your argument.

And the courts certainly aren't going to ignore the 16th amendment just because you choose to ignore it. And haven't.

 

[Votto]

Votto

Every time I find a new angle in which imperial cultural marxists have wrought destruction upon this nation, I realize that it's the 16th Amendment that gives them the funding to carry out their treason against the Constitution of the United States. From the welfare state (democrats) to the imperialists (republicans), it seems that both of them fund their Big Government Tyranny (internally and externally) by garnishing our wages.

We pay for the destruction of our own liberties at home and the desolation of foreign nations abroad.

You hate the US Constitution!

The 16th amendment is there because god told the framers to put an amendment process in place so future generations could make things better.

Shame on you!

Actually, SCOTUS found the federal income tax unconstitutional, which forced Progressives to add it to the Constitution.

The Founders never intended for this to happen. In fact, they were paranoid about an all powerful federal government as it was.

The framers?

Another error has been in ascribing to the intention of the Convention which formed the
Constitution, an undue ascendency in expounding it. Apart from the difficulty of verifying
that intention it is clear, that if the meaning of the Constitution is to be sought out of
itself, it is not in the proceedings of the Body that proposed it, but in those of the State
Conventions which gave it all the validity & authority it possesses.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/mss/mjm/23/23_0903_0911.pdf
​

In other words, you don't know what you are talking about.

Justice Ginsburg quoted in the PPACA:

The Framers understood that the “general Interests of the Union” would change over time, in ways they could not anticipate. Accordingly, they recognized that the Constitution was of necessity a “great outlin[e],” not a detailed blueprint, see McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 407 (1819), and that its provisions included broad concepts, to be “explained by the context or by the facts of the case,” Letter from James Madison to N. P. Trist (Dec. 1831), in 9 Writings of James Madison 471, 475 (G. Hunt ed. 1910).
​

and the Progressives did not add the 16th amendment, the American people did.


Votto is not so smaht

Don't take my word for it, here is what Madison said about the Constitution. You know, the man who is oftern referred to as the father of the Constitution.

Now do you ever read anything about US history other than what Progressives write about it?

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America."

so stupid you do not realize you just pulled a dueling quotes.

btw - Your quote comes from a speech Madison gave: On the Cod Fishery Bill, granting Bounties.

You consistently ignore all evidence that challenges your misunderstandings of what you've read or stumbled upon while using search engines.

Madison was of the opinion that you could not look to the framers for meaning, or intentions (as you do) but to the people in the conventions who ratified the document and gave it validity. So if you're going to quote Madison, you'd better do your homework -- and that involves more than searching online for out-of-context quotes. Madison is also not the final word on anything, but like the early Bishops of Rome, a first amongst equals.

The founders/framers/ratifiers never intended future generations to be hamstrung to intent in the way you put forth. This is why they put in an amendment process, and that in and of itself presupposes we get to do what we like using the processes available to us in the document. We stay true to our own beliefs and values and are able to change anything and everything in the Constitution.

My only point here is that the Founders were concerned that the federal government might become too powerful. That is why the elected to provide a way for states to amend the Constitution under Article V. State have the right to come together and amend the Constitution, which is the only way to limit federal power.

Even if I pulled a quote from every Founding Father that backs my views, you still would not give a damn. Admit it. As you say, whoever has the power decides such things. Unfortunately, the more power people have the more harm they can and do inflict. That is what Progressives fail to grasp. Power in government was intentionally separated and was designed to keep one another in line. Unfortunately, Progressives detest this sort of governance. They would much rather having one man or group of men running everything. And so it goes, the President now decides everything from how our children are educated to what doctors we see. The President also has an army of unelected bureaucrats to regulate us to death that are essentially laws. This is not democracy, this is tyranny.

The creation of the 16th amendment was the engine for the collectivization. Now states do the bidding of the Federal government or sacrifice that much needed federal check they depend upon instead of running their own affairs like they used to do.

What is needed now are states to rise up and amend the Constitution. Now that the federal government has run up insurmountable debt, doing away with the federal income tax is impossible because they need to pay it down. However, what they can do is impose an amendment to force them to balance a budget, hell, just pass a budget would be a miracle. Then they need to impose term limits. Polls show that about 80% of Americans favor both of these amendments.

Of course, where is the support for these amendments from corporate cronies who make everything happen behind the scene? What financial gain can corporations expect from such amendments? There is none that I know of. In fact, corporations would be averse to power being decentralized like it used to be, that is because today they simply need to focus on buying off bureaucrats within the federal government verses trying to buy off every legislator within the 50 states.

As we know, money rules the world which is they corporations will continue to support the collective push of both major parties to have the federal government rule all of our lives and the world.

 

[johnwk]

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.

16th amendment

You can ignore the 16th amendment if you wish. But it doesn't change just because its inconvenient to your argument.

And the courts certainly aren't going to ignore the 16th amendment just because you choose to ignore it. And haven't.

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!



In Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), a case dealing with direct vs. indirect taxation and the taxing of income, the tax was struck down as being direct and not apportioned. The Court stated:


“[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.”



A few years latter in another case dealing with direct vs. indirect taxation, in BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929), the Court emphatically stated “As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.”


And let us not forget that even Justice Roberts stated in the Obama case:



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

Why do you refuse to accept the fact that "direct taxes" are still required to be apportioned?


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)

 

[Skylar]

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.

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.

16th Amendment

And apportionment is the only requirement of direct taxes. With that eliminated for income taxes, what other possible unconstitutional restriction for income taxes can exist? The only requirement for indirect taxes is that the same rates apply across the country.

In Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), a case dealing with direct vs. indirect taxation and the taxing of income, the tax was struck down as being direct and not apportioned. The Court stated:

And let me fix it for you with a little bold:

“[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'. Did you even read the passage you just quoted? Because you clearly didn't read the ruling. As only one sentence before it utterly obliterates your entire line of reasoning:

"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)

The courts explicitly and without the slightest ambiguity destroy your entire argument. Which you either know, having read the ruling. In which case you explicitly misrepresented the findings of the Eisner court. Or should have known. In which case you're simply not suffeciently informed to discuss this topic intelligently.

Ignorant or intentionally misleading. Pick which.

Oh, and here's the entire ruling for those who want to study up. The Eisner court just destroys, absolutely destroys the claim that the 16th amendment didn't lift the apportionment requirements for taxes on income.

Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189 1920 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

A few years latter in another case dealing with direct vs. indirect taxation, in BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929), the Court emphatically stated “As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.”

Wow. Really? Bromley?

Bromley v. McCaughn isn't about income tax. But gift taxes. And gifts aren't recognized as income by the law, nor did anyone in the case argue they were. For crying out loud, the tax was applied to the DONOR. Not the recipient. Thus, what possible relevance does it have to a discussion of whether or not the 16th amendment lifts the apportionment requirements on income?

And nobody argued that the gift tax was income tax. This from the accompanying brief with the ruling:

A tax upon income is a direct tax (Pollock v. Farmer's Loan Trust Co. 157 U.S.) permitted only because the 16th Amendment removed the prohibitions against the levying of that particular tax. Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189.

That the gift tax is not an income tax (is payable by the donor), and is not apportioned, is so obvious as to not require argument.

Mr. Ira Jewell Williams, with whom Messrs. Ira Jewell Williams, Jr., and Francis Shunk Brown were on the brief, for Bromley.
Casetext

And they're right of course. Its is so obvious as to not require an argument. Justice Stone who wrote the court's opinion on the matter never even mentions the 16th amendment. Nor ever finds that gift taxes are income taxes. Or even mentions such an idea.

You do. Citing yourself. And you're nobody.

You may want to read the cases you're citing. Because you clearly don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

 

[Skylar]

And for a quick summary, John...here's what you said:

If a tax on incomes takes the form of a direct tax, it is forbidden unless apportioned!

Johnwk

Here is what your own source says:

"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)

Remember, John.....and this is fundamental: you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.