7000 Citizens Violently Threatened By The State Of Indiana

reply to post by truthquest

There is nothing voluntary on anyone's part when wage garnishments happen so far as US federal law is concerned.

Income tax withholding is not a wage garnishment though. It is a 'pay as you go' scheme, with benefits and drawbacks for both taxpayer and government.

If your only claim is that a wage garnishment is an extreme measure that is enforceable by law, then you don't really have an argument, because everyone agrees.

And by the way, in what way does my 'option 1' where John pays Jane the full amount and Jane settles in her own way at the end of the tax year, differ from your 'option 3' where John pays Jane the full amount and Jane settles in her own way at the end of the tax year?

I can scarcely believe my eyes. Some of you going out of your way to defend theft as a moral act - as long as it is government and for the public good.

Fine. Let us suppose that taxation is not theft.
Is it moral to spend my tax dollars to murder, rape, imprison and torture other human beings?
Should I give my tacit support, by funding with my taxes, criminals that
perpetrate such atrocities?
Should I mail in my 1040 nod of approval to invade a sovereign nation and murder it's population under false pretense?
Is that moral?
Well??

reply to post by Smack

I can scarcely believe my eyes. Some of you going out of your way to defend theft as a moral act - as long as it is government and for the public good.

I can scarcely believe my eyes. You actually equate taxation with theft. That is an extremely naive view. The only alternative is no-state and anarchy and while that may sound attractive to someone naive enough to consider taxation as theft, it will result in actual theft and extortion by petty local warlords. Grow up for heavens sake.

Taxation, in a democratic society is consensual. We as a society have consented that necessary Government functions should be funded via taxation. I can't believe you really believe otherwise.

And no, the way the tax dollars are spent are not necessarily moral. That is why we have elections every two years. Did you vote against all immoral war-mongering, torture approving, concentration camp building, 'special rendition' approving, hypocritical politians in 2002, 2004, 2006? You know, the ones that poured money into two wars and spent you into the greatest financial disaster in a hundred years while cutting taxes to buy YOUR vote?

No, I thought not.

reply to post by rnaa

Sure. In exactly the same way that the US Constitution begins with the words "We the People of the United States" thus making crystal clear that the National Government is also "We the People. The authors of the U.S. Constitution didn't lose their democratic ideals when they were nominated to represent their states interests at the Constitutional Convention. They brought them with them.

Do you have a license to backpedal? Because you're not very good at it. Further, your insistence in attributing "democratic ideals" to the authors of the Constitution is just more disingenuous. Instead of taking your dubious words on the matter of the Founders "democratic ideals", let us take their words for it.

Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.

~John Adams, Letter to John Taylor, April 15, 1814~

A Republic if you can keep it.

~Quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin in response to the question; "well Dr. Franklin what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" as told by Dr. James McHenry, a Maryland delegate to the Convention; McHenry’s notes were first published in The American Historical Review, vol. 11, 1906, and the anecdote on p. 618~

Can a democratic Assembly, who annually revolve in the mass of the people, be supposed steadily to pursue the public good? Nothing but a permanent body can check the imprudence of democracy. Their turbulent and uncontrolling dispositions requires checks.

~Quote attributed to Alexander Hamilton from the Constitutional Convention by Judge Robert Yates of New York~

Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

~James Madison; Federalist Papers Number 10~

Pure democracy, like pure rum, easily produces intoxication and with it a thousand pranks and fooleries.

~John Jay; Letter to Richard Peters, July 24, 1809~

The aspect of our politics has wonderfully changed since you left us. In place of that noble love of liberty, and republican government which carried us triumphantly through the war, an Anglican monarchical, and aristocratical party has sprung up, whose avowed object is to draw over us the substance, as they have already done the forms, of the British government. The main body of our citizens, however, remain true to their republican principles; the whole landed interest is republican, and so is a great mass of talents.

~Thomas Jefferson, letter to Phillip Mazzei of Italy, (April 24,1796)~

And while were quoting Thomas Jefferson, and since this topic is in regards to taxation, it is worth quoting this:

To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, ‘the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, & the fruits acquired by it.

~Thomas Jefferson; comment in a prospectus for his translation of Destutt de Tracy's Treatise on Political Economy~

The general object was to was to provide a cure for the evils under which the United States labored; that in tracing these evils to their origin, every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.

~Edmond Randolph; describing the purpose of the Constitutional Convention, 1787~

The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and the ignorant believe to be liberty

~Fisher Ames; The Dangers of American Liberty, 1805~

A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way.”

~Fisher Ames; Speech on biennial elections, delivered on January, 1788~

In speculation he was a real republican, devoted to the Constitution and his country, and to that system of equal political rights on which it is founded. But between a balanced republic and a democracy, the real difference is like that between order and chaos.

~John Marshall; from his book The Life of Washington, first published in 1824~

There are countless quotes attributed to the Founders that I am not quoting due to the lack of any verifiable sources, but it is worth quoting a historian, not of the age of the Founders, but it is worth quoting the renowned historians Charles Austin and Mary Ritter Beard, from their book American in Midpassage, (1939), regarding these so called "democratic ideals":

At no time, at no place in solemn convention assembled, through no chosen agents, had the American people officially declared the United States to be a democracy. The Constitution did not contain the word or any word lending countenance to it...

So, while you backpedal it is through the use of fallacious argument that you attribute "democratic ideals" to the authors of The Constitution for the United States of America.

Absolutely not. Both levels of Government are "the People".

And yet it is you who chose to make the distinctions that it is was the states not the people who paid taxes to the federal government, and emphatically so by capitalizing the words STATES not the PEOPLE.

On the contrary, Wikipedia is agreeing with me completely. Under the Articles of Confederation, the State Governments 'donated' to the National Government, sometimes.

I think not. After all, this is what you actually said:

You are deluded to think that voluntary fund raising had any important part to play in the funding of Government initiatives once the initial establishment of the settlements were assured.

Whether you like it or not, and Wikipedia, among other sources, certainly supports this, that the federal government was completely reliant on voluntary fund raising, and regardless of how successful or unsuccessful that was it most assuredly has an important part to play in the funding of government initiatives once the initial establishment of the settlements were assured.

This is the part that you are failing to understand: when the State Governments did 'donate' funds to the National Government, the State Governments levied taxes to raise those funds, in exactly the same way as Governments have levied taxes for ever.

This is the part you are failing to understand: Regardless of who levied the taxes, those taxes were always paid by the people.

All three of those citations enforce EXACTLY the point I made in my post and describe the major failing of the AofC, and the major reason for the Constitutional Convention.

They also enforce the voluntary nature of federal taxes, a point you proclaimed the O.P. to be delusional on.

Why is this hard for you to understand? The fact that, under the AofC, State Governments donations to the National Government were voluntary, doesn't make the taxes imposed by the State Governments magically become 'non-taxes' or voluntary donations by 'the people' as if they held a bake sale or something.

Why is this so hard for you to understand? The fact that, under the Articles of Confederation, State governments donations to the federal government were indeed voluntary, thus when any state did impose a tax to fund the federal government it was doing so by the consent of those who held the inherent political power, they being the people. Further, the so called "weakness" of the Articles of Confederation were that the federal government was unable to repay its debts, a contention so steeped in acrimonious irony the stench can be smelled all the way from the Land Down Under to here in The United States. Are you not aware of the insurmountable debt the federal government faces today, with Congress having the complete and plenary power of taxation?

In an open democratic society, 'the people' understand that they need to contribute funds to the welfare of the whole society, for roads, for defense, for administration, for education, for charity, for whatever. I am sure you understand that. Taxes are voluntary NOT because you have the option of refusing to pay, but because that is the implicit agreement in a democratic society.

First of all, it is not the province of any government to function as a charity. Secondly, indirect taxes are most certainly voluntary in that any person not wanting to pay the tax can avoid doing so by not engaging in the specific activity that is being taxed. This means people do have an option on whether they will pay the tax or not, and that is one of the Constitutional principles of taxation under the republic of which we stand, not the so called "democratic society" you hopelessly try to make it into.

Any penalties applied to you for failure to pay your taxes are not violations of your 'right' to refuse to contribute, but are penalties for your violation of everyone else's 'right' to an equitable sharing of the burden of society.

Wrong again! Any penalties applied to a person for failure to pay their taxes are based upon liability, and not based upon any violation of everyone's "right" to an equitable sharing of the burden of society. If a person is liable for a tax, this means they are subject to any applicable revenue laws, and any penalties accrued come from failure to comply with those applicable revenue laws, and have nothing at all to do with the implied but non existent contract you are yammering on about.

Continued...

reply to post by rnaa

Your argument is 100% diversionary. In a democratic society, 'the people' institute governments to administer the needs of the society as a whole, and those governments can raise taxes because 'the people' give consent for those taxes.

There is nothing at all diversionary about my arguments, which would make them 0% diversionary, as opposed to your diversionary tactics. The principles of Constitutional taxation do not mean that the people, you have so disrespectfully place in quotation marks, give consent for what is implied any old tax Congress deems necessary. There are two classifications of taxes, direct, and indirect taxes, and one is subject to the rule of apportionment, and the other subject to the rule of uniformity. Direct taxes involve taxes directly levied upon people or property, and indirect taxes are levied on taxed events.

And by the way your assertion that the Constitution mentions two classifications of taxation has been incorrect since 1913. The 16th amendment essentially makes income tax a third classification. See below.

This is yet another lie. The 16th Amendment did not give Congress any new power of taxation, nor did it place any new burden upon the people, and instead works in harmony with the Constitution and the principles of apportionment and uniformity. See both Brushaber v Union Pacific R.R. Co., and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.

Chief Justice White rendered the rulings in both of those Cases, but where his verbosity in Brushaber is often times misquoted, he had the opportunity to find a more concise verbiage in Stanton that states:

by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged

Neither the Brushaber ruling, nor the Stanton ruling have been overturned by The Supreme Court. It is settled that the 16th Amendment forces everyone to view any non-apportioned tax as an indirect tax, where all income taxes inherently belong.

The distinction odd because Income is odd. A tax applied to income from rents, dividends, interest, and the like is a direct tax. See Pollack v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co (1895) , but a tax applied to normal 'wage' income is indirect.

The Pollack ruling is precisely why the 16th Amendment was passed, and it wasn't to create a "third" category of taxation, it was to force future courts to view a non-apportioned tax as an indirect tax. At least you tell the truth regarding "normal" income taxes on wages, which are most assuredly an indirect tax, and an indirect tax that must describe some specific activity. There are no subjectless taxes, and all taxes have a subject. There is no statue of the Code that indiscriminately makes all "wages' the subject of any tax. This is the voluntary nature of the "income tax", and what is being taxed is not income directly, but indirectly where income is used to measure how much tax is owed.

When the Constitution was written it was not understood or considered much of a problem that someone could derive all their personal income from rents, dividends, and interest.

This is yet another lie. It was fully understood when the Constitution was written that someone could derive personal income from rents, dividends, and interest. In fact, in regards to rent, in The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith had divided income into three types: profits, wages, and rents. Of those three categories, rents are the easiest way in which to earn income, as there is never any guarantee of a profit, and while wages are a little more secure they are still reliant on the company or business a person has contracted with to not go bankrupt. It is only natural for people to want to earn income from rent because it is the easiest and most secure way to earn an income. This is as true today as it was in 1787. In fact, the Colony of Georgia, being the only colony of the thirteen that has received financial aid from Parliament, was also different from the other thirteen in that settlers were allowed to have their land free of rent for ten years.

As to dividends, Alexander Hamilton in his Report Relative to a Provision for the Support of Public Credit, (Submitted to Congress on January 9, 1790), spoke directly to dividends as a justification for his proposal, arguing that investors needed faith in the strength of the system and the prospect of dividends if they were to be expected to risk capital on an enterprise.

In regards to interest as income, it is widely reported that in 1763 when Benjamin Franklin visited Britain, The Bank of England had posed several questions to Franklin wanting to know how he might account for the colonies apparent prosperity. Franklin answered as such:

That is simple. In the Colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Scrip. We issue it in proper proportion to the demands of trade and industry to make the products pass easily from the producers to the consumers. In this manner, creating for ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay no one.

It is clear they had an understanding of rents, dividends and interest as income, and it is indicative of your arrogance that you assert they did not.

Further, the understanding of direct and indirect taxes was discussed by The Supreme Court as early as 1796 in Hylton v United States

In this ruling, regarding a tax levied on the use of carriages, the Court delivered their opinions seriatim in the following terms:

By the case stated, only one question is submitted to the opinion of this court; whether the law of Congress, of the 5th of June, 1794, entitled, 'An act to lay duties upon carriages, for the conveyance of persons,' is unconstitutional and void?

Justice Chase later, very clearly explains the rules regarding taxation by Congress:

The great object of the Constitution was, to give Congress a power to lay taxes, adequate to the exigencies of government; but they were to observe two rules in imposing them, namely, the rule of uniformity, when they laid duties, imposts, or excises; and the rule of apportionment, according to the census, when they laid any direct tax.

...

I consider the Constitution to stand in this manner. A general power is given to Congress, to lay and collect taxes, of every kind or nature, without any restraint, except only on exports; but two rules are prescribed for their government, namely, uniformity and apportionment: Three kinds of taxes, to wit, duties, imposts, and excises by the first rule, and capitation, or other direct taxes, by the second rule.

I believe some taxes may be both direct and indirect at the same time. If so, would Congress be prohibited from laying such a tax, because it is partly a direct tax?

The Constitution evidently contemplated no taxes as direct taxes, but only such as Congress could lay in proportion to the census. The rule of apportionment is only to be adopted in such cases where it can reasonably apply; and the subject taxed, must ever determine the application of the rule.

If it is proposed to tax any specific article by the rule of apportionment, and it would evidently create great inequality and injustice, it is unreasonable to say, that the Constitution intended such tax should be laid by that rule.

It appears to me, that a tax on carriages cannot be laid by the rule of apportionment, without very great inequality and injustice. For example: Suppose two States, equal in census, to pay 80,000 dollars each, by a tax on carriages, of 8 dollars on every carriage; and in one State there are 100 carriages, and in the other 1000. The owners of carriages in one State, would pay ten times the tax of owners in the other. A. in one State, would pay for his carriage 8 dollars, but B. in the other state, would pay for his carriage, 80 dollars.

In describing the reason there would be a very great inequality in regards to apportionment on a carriage tax, Justice Chase also gets to the heart of why it is so difficult for Congress to pass a direct tax upon income, as incomes vary greatly from state to state, and apportionment could very well lead to very great inequalities.

I am inclined to think, but of this I do not give a judicial opinion, that the direct taxes contemplated by the Constitution, are only two, to wit, a capitation, or poll tax, simply, without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance; and a tax on LAND. I doubt whether a tax, by a general assessment of personal property, within the United States, is included within the term direct tax.

While not holding, it is dicta that shows Justice Chase's understanding of the distinction between the two classes, and while he, much like you asserts that Congress could levy a tax that be both direct and indirect, he has not agreed with you that such a tax could be done so on income, this is your opinion. Justice Peterson follows with this:

I never entertained a doubt, that the principal, I will not say, the only, objects, that the framers of the Constitution contemplated as falling within the rule of apportionment, were a capitation tax and a tax on land.

Continued...

reply to post by rnaa


Continuing with Justice Peterson's opinion:

All taxes on expenses or consupmption are indirect taxes. A tax on carriages is of this kind, and of course is not a direct tax.

Justice Iredell followed with this:

As all direct taxes must be apportioned, it is evident that the Constitution contemplated none as direct bus such as could be apportioned. If this cannot be apportioned, it is, therefore, not a direct tax in the sense of the Constitution.

And also stated:

Perhaps a direct tax in the sense of the Constitution, can mean nothing but a tax on something inseparably annexed to the soil: Something capable of apportionment under all circumstances.

As the Pollack Case took the time to decide whether a tax on income derived from property was a direct tax, or indirect tax, they reviewed historical records from before the ratification of the Constitution up to and including the Revenue Act of 1894. Regarding the debates prior to the ratification of the Constitution, the Pollack Court found that:

Luther Martin, in his well-known communication to the legislature of Maryland in January, 1788, expressed his views thus: "By the power to lay and collect taxes, they (Congress), may proceed to direct taxation on every individual, either by a capitation tax on their heads, or an assessment on their property."

~Pollack, supra, 157 U.S. at 565~

In the New York convention, Chancellor Livingston pointed out that when the imposts diminished and the expenses of government increased, "they (Congress) have recourse to direct taxes; that is, taxes on land, and specific duties."

~Pollack, supra, 157 U.S. at 566-567~

In Virginia, Mr. John Marshall said: "The objects of direct taxes are well understood; they are but few; what are they? Land, slaves, stock of all kinds, and a few other article of domestic property."

~Pollack, supra, 157 U.S. at 567~

While the Pollack Court then continues with a review of records from the debates which occurred in the House of Representatives in 1794, it should be noted that any disagreement regarding what fell under direct taxes, and indirect taxes is why it was called debate. Just because there was debate does not in any way indicate that they at that time could not know, and certainly does not mean that they could not understand that all of their personal income from rent, dividends, and interests. Further, the issue of taxation on personal income was largely moot, as such taxation did not exist at that time. So, when you claim:

100 years later and major portions of the economy were invisible to the tax base due to the rise of the industrial revolution and the robber barons.

You are being more than disingenuous by implying that personal income taxation was a standard tax base for the federal government. In fact, with the exception of Revenue Act of 1861, which imposed an income tax upon personal income, which was repealed and replaced with the Revenue Act of 1862, which was an excise tax, and eventually repealed, which was why the Gorman Tariff Act of 1894, (the tax in question under the Pollack ruling), was passed, it being the first peacetime income tax ever passed. Of course, since the Pollack Court struck down as unconstitutional the entire income portion of the Revenue Act of 1894, another attempt at levying an "income tax" was not done until 1913 after the passage of the 16th Amendment which was only passed to avoid the problems brought on by the Pollack Court.

It is not as if personal income tax was a normal tax base for the federal government, this is just not true.

When the Pollock case pointed out this anomaly, 'the People' gave consent to the government to tax any genuine income, however it was generated and without regard to census or enumeration.

This is a gross misrepresentation of both the Pollack ruling, and the 16th Amendment. The Pollack Court struck down the Revenue Act of 1894 precisely because they viewed that tax as a direct tax on property but one that was not apportioned. Congress passed the 16th Amendment to force all future courts to view any non apportioned income tax as an indirect tax, and not as a direct tax. You are attempting to imply that the 16th Amendment relieved Congress from the rule of apportionment regarding income, and this is false.

So, income tax is BOTH an indirect tax and a direct tax, at the same time. I would say that in effect the 16th amendment makes it a third class mentioned in the constitution.

Either you are willfully lying or you have misinterpreted points of law and certain facts. Income tax is not BOTH an indirect tax and a direct tax, at the same time, and the 16th Amendment, as explained by both Brushaber and Stanton, was written to act harmoniously with the rule of apportionment, not to do away the rule.

The Classifications Direct and Indirect (and Income) don't have anything to do with voluntary or not voluntary. They have to do with how 'the People' have limited the governments ability to apply taxes.

Again this is false. Any indirect tax can be defeated by simply avoiding the event that is taxed. This makes that taxed event a voluntary tax.

They are voluntary because as a democratic society we have given consent to the government to raise funds through taxation via the Constitution.

A capitation or poll tax is not a voluntary tax, but we the people have given Congress consent to levy these kind of taxes. You are willfully lying is my guess.

That is also true. But it has nothing to do with 'the people' having voluntarily given consent to the government to impose taxes in the first place, only with respect to WHICH indirect taxes an individual wishes to pay.

Just before this remark, you made this remark:

That much is at least true. They are voluntary because as a democratic society we have given consent to the government to raise funds through taxation via the Constitution.

WHICH is true in your twisted world?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Do you have a license to backpedal? Because you're not very good at it. Further, your insistence in attributing "democratic ideals" to the authors of the Constitution is just more disingenuous. Instead of taking your dubious words on the matter of the Founders "democratic ideals", let us take their words for it.

There is no backpedaling involved. You are just having a hard time with your reading comprehension.

I'm not going to debate democracy with you because you have a warped idea of what the words mean. Suffice it to say that America is not a "pure" democracy and no one, least of all the founding fathers ever thought so. Jefferson in particular knew that 'pure' democracy was useless beyond the scope of a small community. The U.S. Constitution defines a "Representative" democracy. Until you can understand the difference between the two, and that we operate under the latter, there is really no point in discussing it.

By the way, have you checked to see how many of the quotes you display are from people arguing for an American monarchy to replace the British Monarchy? They lost the argument.

And yet it is you who chose to make the distinctions that it is was the states not the people who paid taxes to the federal government, and emphatically so by capitalizing the words STATES not the PEOPLE.

True enough. I was drawing a distinction between the State Government and the People who instantiate that Government, meaning that when the State Government chose to fund the Confederation Congress, it did so by taxing the people of that state. The refusal by some of the State Governments to pay their fair share is one of the main reasons for the Constitutional Convention.

Whether you like it or not, and Wikipedia, among other sources, certainly supports this, that the federal government was completely reliant on voluntary fund raising, and regardless of how successful or unsuccessful that was it most assuredly has an important part to play in the funding of government initiatives once the initial establishment of the settlements were assured.

So you are saying that the Feds raised money by bake sales and car washes?

I have said, over and over again and your Wikipedia quote supports this: the Confederation Congress was reliant on State Governments provided funds. The Articles of Confederation provided no means to require the States to fund agreed expenditure like paying off Revolutionary War debt. It is in this sense and this sense only that the National Government relied on "voluntary fund raising": it relied on the good will of the State Governments to "voluntarily" deliver on their commitments to fund the national government.

This is the part you are failing to understand: Regardless of who levied the taxes, those taxes were always paid by the people.

I understand that perfectly. Who else would pay it? I am pointing out that it was taxes that raised the funds. Taxes are not Bake Sales or raffle tickets. You can't decide not to pay your tax like you can decide not to buy a raffle ticket. Congress couldn't impose a tax, only the State Government could impose taxes. When they did was nothing voluntary about it, except in the sense that 'the people' had granted consent for the State Government to do so.

They also enforce the voluntary nature of federal taxes, a point you proclaimed the O.P. to be delusional on.

I explained what 'voluntary' meant in relationship to the Confederation Congress fund raising under the Articles of Confederation above, so I'll skip that part.

Which part of 'no Federal power to tax' under the Articles did you misunderstand? Under the Articles there were no Federal taxes - voluntary or otherwise. Never-the-less the Articles of Confederation ceased to have effect at midnight 3 March 1789 and any sense of 'voluntary nature of federal taxes' along with it, except the implied voluntary nature of consent of the people.

Under the Constitution that applies today, the National Government most certainly has the authority to impose taxes , consented to by 'We the People'. The granting of this consent is the only way that Federal Taxes or State Taxes can possibly be considered 'voluntary'. 'We the People' have given our consent for the National and States Governments to impose a taxes on us to fund the tasks we ask them to perform on our behalf.

Why is this so hard for you to understand? The fact that, under the Articles of Confederation, State governments donations to the federal government were indeed voluntary, thus when any state did impose a tax to fund the federal government it was doing so by the consent of those who held the inherent political power, they being the people.

You got it! Congratulations! Gold Star! I am really happy that you understand at last.

Further, the so called "weakness" of the Articles of Confederation were that the federal government was unable to repay its debts, a contention so steeped in acrimonious irony the stench can be smelled all the way from the Land Down Under to here in The United States. Are you not aware of the insurmountable debt the federal government faces today, with Congress having the complete and plenary power of taxation?

OK. Don't get carried away, you are going off the deep end again. The Confederation Congress' debts were basically war loans for the War of Independence, back pay to soldiers, widows compensation, and the like. You are seriously saying that the Congress had no business incurring those debts, and the States should have rightly told them to go jump? Really? Is that what you think America is about? A giant bottom of the harbor scheme?

First of all, it is not the province of any government to function as a charity.

It is if 'the people' wish it too.

Secondly, indirect taxes are most certainly voluntary in that any person not wanting to pay the tax can avoid doing so by not engaging in the specific activity that is being taxed. This means people do have an option on whether they will pay the tax or not, and that is one of the Constitutional principles of taxation under the republic of which we stand, not the so called "democratic society" you hopelessly try to make it into.

It is unlikely that you can avoid all specific activities though. For instance it is unlikely that you can avoid the activity of earning an income. You do not have the personal voluntary choice to pay or not pay income tax, 'the People' have already given consent to the National Government to impose income tax and it is not voluntary.

Wrong again! Any penalties applied to a person for failure to pay their taxes are based upon liability, and not based upon any violation of everyone's "right" to an equitable sharing of the burden of society. If a person is liable for a tax, this means they are subject to any applicable revenue laws, and any penalties accrued come from failure to comply with those applicable revenue laws, and have nothing at all to do with the implied but non existent contract you are yammering on about.

Sigh. You don't have a right to renege on your taxes, your fellow citizens have a right to expect you to pay your fair share the same way that they do. It is indeed an implied social contract, established when 'We the People' gave consent to the Government to impose taxation.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by earthdude
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

You have to use things the government provides. Think about it. How are you going to survive not using roads. Who is going to protect you against stronger enemies? No way can you live apart from it, there will always be something the government is giving you.

Think about your claims yourself. How did people survive before the roads were built? In all honesty, roads tend to be made by private persons, and it is highways, freeways, and streets that are made by government. If government weren't making these highways, freeways, and streets, somebody would be, as this is the nature of humanity.

Did the government protect all the people who have been murdered from their stronger enemies? Did they protect all those who have been raped from their stronger enemies? Did they protect all those who have been beaten from their stronger enemies?

In order for government to "give" anything, it must first take from someone else in order to do so.

So, you would pay a group of people to make the highways you use. Me, I'll pay the government as they do a better cheaper job. You can use your own crappy highways. You are banned from mine for not pitching in. You use all kinds of government things you are not aware of. You can't escape the system so you just have to join us and pay taxes. Yes, they are out of control but still cheaper than your 10,000 private road crews.

reply to post by rnaa

There is no backpedaling involved. You are just having a hard time with your reading comprehension.

Yeah! Hard time with reading comprehension. That's the ticket.

I'm not going to debate democracy with you because you have a warped idea of what the words mean. Suffice it to say that America is not a "pure" democracy and no one, least of all the founding fathers ever thought so. Jefferson in particular knew that 'pure' democracy was useless beyond the scope of a small community. The U.S. Constitution defines a "Representative" democracy. Until you can understand the difference between the two, and that we operate under the latter, there is really no point in discussing it.

The Constitution for the United States of America, in fact, guarantees each state a republican form of government:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Yet you are loathe to admit this, and when confronted on your use of "democratic ideals" you back pedal and claim that the Constitution defines a "Representative democracy", in spite of the fact that it was just pointed out to you that the word democracy is never once mentioned in that Constitution...but you claim I have a problem with reading comprehension. Yeah! That's the ticket.

By the way, have you checked to see how many of the quotes you display are from people arguing for an American monarchy to replace the British Monarchy? They lost the argument.

Is that so? Who besides Hamilton openly argued for a monarchy? Why, methinks if you knew, you would have listed them instead of making such a vague and general remark. Was it John Adams who argued for an American monarchy? Certainly it has been suggested that William Duane, by way of Richard N. Rosenfeld, in his book American Aurora: A Democratic-Republican Returns. The Suppressed History of Our Nation's Beginnings and the Heroic Newspaper that Tried to Report It., that Adams and even John Jay were advocates of a monarchy, with such accounts as:

John Adams "puffed at 'seegars' and believed in monarchy,"

As told by Duane/Rosenfeld, but is this true? Did Adams believe in monarchy? Did he really smoke cigars? We have an account by an author quoting a newspaper man of that times it is so, so it must be so!

And what of John Jay? Rosenfeld tells us that John Jay had "monarchical leanings", but is this true? To substantiate his claims, Rosenfeld offers this letter by Jay to George Washington:

Shall we have a king? Not in my opinion while other experiments remain untried. Might we not have a governor-general limited in his prerogatives and duration? Might not Congress be divided into an upper and lower house--the former appointed for life, the latter annually--and let the governor-general ... have a negative on their acts?

Talk about problems with reading comprehension...

Perhaps you think Adams believed in monarchy, although we can't know this is what you believe since you fastidiously avoided naming names, because Wikipedia tells you what to think on the matter:

Adams's Defence can be read as an articulation of the classical republican theory of mixed government. Adams contended that social classes exist in every political society, and that a good government must accept that reality. For centuries, dating back to Aristotle, a mixed regime balancing monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy—that is, the king, the nobles, and the people—was required to preserve order and liberty.

If this be true, how does that article account for these words by Adams?

All good government is and must be republican. But at the same time, you can or will agree with me, that there is not in lexicography a more fraudulent word... Are we not, my friend, in danger of rendering the word republican unpopular in this country by an indiscreet, indeterminate, and equivocal use of it? [...] Whenever I use the word republic with approbation, I mean a government in which the people have collectively, or by representation, an essential share in the sovereignty... the republican forms in Poland and Venice are much worse, and those of Holland and Bern very little better, than the monarchical form in France before the late revolution.

~John Adams; in a letter written to Samuel Adams, October 18, 1790~

Or these words by John Adams:

If a majority are capable of preferring their own private interests, or that of their families, counties, and party, to that of the nation collectively, some provision must be made in the constitution in favour of justice, to compel all to respect the common right, the public good, the universal law in preference to all private and partial considerations." Again: "Of all possible forms of government, a sovereignty in one assembly, successively chosen by the people, is, perhaps, the best calculated to facilitate the gratification of self-love, and the pursuit of the private interests of a few individuals.

Maybe you meant it was Benjamin Franklin who argued for monarchy, but wasn't Franklin one of England's Monarchy fiercest opponents, and wasn't he a rather pesky burr in the side of the French Monarchy as well?

Perhaps you mean James Madison...but wait, didn't Madison say:

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking.

~James Madison, letter to William Hunter, March 11, 1790~

And didn't he also say:

A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.

~James Madison, letter to W.T. Barry, August 4, 1822~

An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.

~James Madison, Federalist No. 58, 1788~

Of course, Madison, Adams, Franklin, Jay, and Hamilton were all Federalists, but contrary to what you claim, it was the Anti-Federalist who were suspicious of the Federalists and had passionately argued against the twin evils of monarchy and aristocracy, that lost the argument, the Federalists won that argument. Hmmmm.....

True enough. I was drawing a distinction between the State Government and the People who instantiate that Government, meaning that when the State Government chose to fund the Confederation Congress, it did so by taxing the people of that state. The refusal by some of the State Governments to pay their fair share is one of the main reasons for the Constitutional Convention.

As ardent as you may be in your belief that "fair shares" of taxes should be collected and paid, the Articles of Confederation were not abandoned in favor of the Constitution because of some notion of paying "fair share" of taxes, but instead it was argued that the debt the fledgling nation had accrued because of the Revolution for Independence needed to be paid. This reasoning seems to pale when compared to the national debt this nation faces today with a federal Constitution in place and Congress have all the taxing authority they need to pay off debts.

So you are saying that the Feds raised money by bake sales and car washes?

Yeah! Bake sales and car washes, that's the ticket! Pancake breakfast's too! Get a grip!!

I have said, over and over again and your Wikipedia quote supports this:

In reality, prior to saying it this time, you had said it once, which make this twice. Over and over again implies at least three times, but that is in reality, something you are not all that big on.

I understand that perfectly. Who else would pay it? I am pointing out that it was taxes that raised the funds. Taxes are not Bake Sales or raffle tickets. You can't decide not to pay your tax like you can decide not to buy a raffle ticket.

Yes, I can. In fact, due to the outrageous amount of taxation on cigarettes, I have largely stopped smoking, and in doing so declined to voluntarily pay the taxes on those cigarettes. I say largely because about once or twice a week I break down and bum a cigarette from a friend, but I didn't pay any taxes on those cigarettes, so I have not paid taxes on cigarettes in quite a while now. I can, if I choose, pay the taxes on alcohol, but I rarely drink so the voluntary taxes I pay on alcohol are intermittent, at best...bake sales and raffle tickets. Quit clowning around.

I explained what 'voluntary' meant in relationship to the Confederation Congress fund raising under the Articles of Confederation above, so I'll skip that part.

And I just explained what voluntary means in relation to taxes now. Care to skip that part as well? And, let us not forget that after the Federalists got their way, and established The Constitution for the United States, shortly afterward there was the Whiskey Rebellion, which even though an excise tax, and thus voluntary, apparently back in those days even voluntary taxes were not so popular.

Which part of 'no Federal power to tax' under the Articles did you misunderstand?

Are you serious? You know full well I understand that.

reply to post by rnaa

Under the Articles there were no Federal taxes - voluntary or otherwise.

Oh there you go again, Mr. rnaa. First of all, try to stop being so disingenuous. Under the Articles of Confederation there was no federal government, there was a national government, and any taxes collected on behalf of that national government were largely voluntary in the form of indirect taxes.

Never-the-less the Articles of Confederation ceased to have effect at midnight 3 March 1789 and any sense of 'voluntary nature of federal taxes' along with it, except the implied voluntary nature of consent of the people.

Liar, liar, pants on fire! While there was some direct taxes levied by the federal government, there were mostly indirect taxes levied by Congress, and it has been well established that an indirect tax is voluntary, not by the nature of voluntary electing members to Congress, but by the ability to opt out of the tax by avoiding the activity that constitutes the taxed event.

Under the Constitution that applies today, the National Government most certainly has the authority to impose taxes , consented to by 'We the People'.

My, my, my, you must be flustered, but you are surely confused. First you speak of federal taxes under the Articles of Confederation, and now you refer to the federal government as established by The Constitution as a national government. It is, technically speaking, a federal government adhering to the principles of federalism.

The granting of this consent is the only way that Federal Taxes or State Taxes can possibly be considered 'voluntary'.

Do you think all you have to do is tell the lie loud enough and long enough and people reading this will believe it? There are more possibilities on heaven and earth, rnaa, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Say, for example, indirect taxation as another possible way to voluntarily pay a tax. If I want to pay the tax on cigarettes, I can just simply stop fighting this addiction of mine and start buying packs again. I choose not to, and have largely made this choice because the taxes are way too high. As Chief Justice Marshall once said:

The power to tax is the power to destroy

And through ridiculously high taxation the State and federal governments both have destroyed my desire to keep smoking...mostly. Would you call me a "tax evader" because I now occasionally bum cigarettes and pay no taxes on them?

You got it! Congratulations! Gold Star! I am really happy that you understand at last.

What is this? Do you get so excitable when reading my posts that you can hardly control yourself and allow yourself the time to read the entirety of my posts before responding? Do you just jump in and begin responding without reading all I have stated first?

OK. Don't get carried away, you are going off the deep end again. The Confederation Congress' debts were basically war loans for the War of Independence, back pay to soldiers, widows compensation, and the like. You are seriously saying that the Congress had no business incurring those debts, and the States should have rightly told them to go jump?

No that is not what I said, and in fact what I said, and what you quoted was this:

Further, the so called "weakness" of the Articles of Confederation were that the federal government was unable to repay its debts, a contention so steeped in acrimonious irony the stench can be smelled all the way from the Land Down Under to here in The United States. Are you not aware of the insurmountable debt the federal government faces today, with Congress having the complete and plenary power of taxation?

I bolded the part you seemed to miss because...well, talk about a problem with reading comprehension. Allow me to rephrase that remark. If paying off the debt incurred by the Revolution was the reason the Articles of Confederation, among others, was scrapped in favor of The Constitution that now grants Congress the complete and plenary power of taxation, then why is this nation under so much debt today?

In 1790, the gross public debt was approximately 75 million dollars, and according to the census that year the population was; 3,929,214. Today, the gross public debt is $ 13,456,832,987,247.20, and the population is 309,039,880. The debt per capita in 1790 was roughly $18.75, and today is $43,544. Get it? If the strongest reason to grant Congress the power of taxation was to pay off the debt, then why has it climbed the way it has instead of being paid off long ago?

It is if 'the people' wish it too

So, on the one hand, you are arguing that "the only possible way" a tax can be construed as voluntary is by viewing it in terms of democratic elections, which means outside of that voluntary granting of the authority for Congress to lay and collect taxes, taxes are not voluntary, but as you claim, "if the people wish" the government to act as a charity, they can simply will it as such and demand that Congress forcibly take from one person and give it to another. Why, this seems to be the premise of the O.P. and his fundamental complaint with taxes.

It is unlikely that you can avoid all specific activities though. For instance it is unlikely that you can avoid the activity of earning an income.

Show me in the Code where a tax has been imposed upon the act of earning income, I dare you.

You do not have the personal voluntary choice to pay or not pay income tax, 'the People' have already given consent to the National Government to impose income tax and it is not voluntary.

Is that so? Well then, I guess The SCOTUS got it wrong in Flora v United States, when they held:

Our system of income taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon destraint.

Sigh. You don't have a right to renege on your taxes, your fellow citizens have a right to expect you to pay your fair share the same way that they do.

Sigh. Nobody has the right to renege on their taxes. Their taxes is language that necessarily implies a tax is owed. It is important to understand, of course, that YOU do not have any legal authority to assess my tax liability. So, when you assert that "you" don't have a right to renege on "your" taxes, this is only true on any taxes I owe, but you, nor any other person outside of the Secretary of Treasury, (in regards to federal taxes), has the right to assess my tax liability. It matters not what you or others are liable for, your liability does not have anything to do with my liability, and quite frankly, my liability is none of your business, so why don't you mind your own business?

It is indeed an implied social contract, established when 'We the People' gave consent to the Government to impose taxation.

Your "implied social contract" has no validity under the law of contracts, and is not at all enforceable as an actual contract. Actual contracts are enforceable, not "implied social contracts". This is why when a person files a valid tax return they are required to sign under penalty of perjury that all the above is true and correct, because they are signing an actual contract, and not some imaginary social contract.

[edit on 2-9-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

Originally posted by daddio
reply to post by daddio

 

NOTICE
PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION ___ day of August, 2010

James Atchison, County Assessor
Minneapolis
A-2103 Government Center
300 South 6th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55487

Dear Mr. Atchison:

I am requesting to have my property removed from the property tax rolls for the following reasons:

1. 42 USC 1982 Property rights of citizens
2. 42 USC 1441 Congressional Declaration of National Housing Policy
3. 18 USC 241 Conspiracy Against Rights
4. 18 USC 242 Deprivation of rights Under Color of Law
5. Article 1 Section 1, Bill of Rights, Minnesota State Constitution
6. UCC-1 filing number 0987654321
7. UCC-3 filing number 1234567890

With explicit reservation of all my rights and without prejudice, per U.C.C. 1-207, 1-308


Sincerely,

John-Henry: Doe, Agent
c/o non-Domestic, Foreign mail near;
1234 47th Avenue N.
Anywhere, Minnesota republic
Zip code exempt (DMM 122.32), As Amended
Without the U.S.


Included; Power of Attorney in Fact
Zip Code Exemption

Sent that in over a month ago and haven't heard anything since. Haven't paid property taxes or a mortgage for almost a year now.

Know the truth.

Prove up your claim or cease and desist under the color of law against the Sovereign in the party.....ME!!!!!

It is not nice to use things that other people paid for, you need to pitch in or stop breathing the air we keep clean with our hard earned tax money.

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by truthquest

 

There is nothing voluntary on anyone's part when wage garnishments happen so far as US federal law is concerned.

Income tax withholding is not a wage garnishment though. It is a 'pay as you go' scheme, with benefits and drawbacks for both taxpayer and government.

If your only claim is that a wage garnishment is an extreme measure that is enforceable by law, then you don't really have an argument, because everyone agrees.

And by the way, in what way does my 'option 1' where John pays Jane the full amount and Jane settles in her own way at the end of the tax year, differ from your 'option 3' where John pays Jane the full amount and Jane settles in her own way at the end of the tax year?

US Federal income withholding is a 0% interest loan to the government. Therefore, the benefits are incredibly lopsided towards the government, as is the case with so many government programs. My argument is not that wage garnishment is extreme or enforceable by law. People can do extreme things and that is just fine. People can enforce a law against someone who is harming another person and that is just fine with me. What isn't fine, and what my argument is, is that wage garnishment is simply a less nasty sounding name for petty theft. By exploiting an uninvolved party the government invokes two thefts rather than one theft.

The option 1 you listed on the previous page of this thread included various suggestions for Jane to spend the money in a specific way such as a savings account. Under option 3, John simply does not provide any input at all into what Jane will do with the $20 and simply hands it over to her. And of course that should be the norm for any employer as it is not the employers business what their employees are doing with their money and considered.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


(I probably missed one or two of your rejoinders, cause I had to go to bed eventually - I'll get back to it, promise)

The Constitution for the United States of America, in fact, guarantees each state a republican form of government:

Yep. And every State has a republican form of government. And the Federal government is republican too. Not a monarchy or a theocracy in sight.

Furthermore, every one of those governments are representative democratic republics.

Lots of governments are republican, but not representative, and not democratic. Ours are.

Dictionaries can be your friend in a discussion of this type.

As ardent as you may be in your belief that "fair shares" of taxes should be collected and paid, the Articles of Confederation were not abandoned in favor of the Constitution because of some notion of paying "fair share" of taxes, but instead it was argued that the debt the fledgling nation had accrued because of the Revolution for Independence needed to be paid. This reasoning seems to pale when compared to the national debt this nation faces today with a federal Constitution in place and Congress have all the taxing authority they need to pay off debts.

What is your point here? That some administrations think that it makes economic sense to 'pay' for immoral wars by keeping them off the balance sheet (thereby hiding the cost from the public ) and then lowering taxes (thereby forcing more borrowing and inflation from printing money) and therefore nobody should pay taxes? Are you just throwing ideological hand grenades or what?

Where did I say anything about 'fair share of taxes' being a driving force behind the Constitutional Convention. You are putting words into my posts that aren't there. Stop it.

Yes, I can. In fact, due to the outrageous amount of taxation on cigarettes, I have largely stopped smoking, and in doing so declined to voluntarily pay the taxes on those cigarettes.

Well stop it you bludger. My taxes are going to pay for the research that is going to save your cancerous little life. Please, return to smoking like a chimney will you and pay for your own darn research, OK? (Just kidding. Congratulations.)

In reality, prior to saying it this time, you had said it once, which make this twice. Over and over again implies at least three times, but that is in reality, something you are not all that big on.

Here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

At least three times in this one post alone: www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 3/9/2010 by rnaa]

[edit on 3/9/2010 by rnaa]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Oh there you go again, Mr. rnaa. First of all, try to stop being so disingenuous. Under the Articles of Confederation there was no federal government, there was a national government,

True, but people in Glass Houses and all. I was responding to your words:

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by rnaa

 

...
Why is this so hard for you to understand? The fact that, under the Articles of Confederation, State governments donations to the federal government were indeed voluntary...

So they are your words, not mine, I just followed your lead on that one.

and any taxes collected on behalf of that national government were largely voluntary in the form of indirect taxes.

No. The national government had no authority to impose taxes of any kind. They were 100% reliant on the good will of the State Governments to make good on their commitments. That didn't work.

I thought you had already acknowledged all this.

Liar, liar, pants on fire! While there was some direct taxes levied by the federal government, there were mostly indirect taxes levied by Congress, and it has been well established that an indirect tax is voluntary, not by the nature of voluntary electing members to Congress, but by the ability to opt out of the tax by avoiding the activity that constitutes the taxed event.

Again, people who live in glass houses should keep the blinds down when they take off their clothes, please. What federal government before 4 March 1789 was that? Didn't you just call me out on that 'mistake'? The Confederation Congress had no power to levy taxes of any kind for any purpose.

My, my, my, you must be flustered, but you are surely confused. First you speak of federal taxes under the Articles of Confederation, and now you refer to the federal government as established by The Constitution as a national government. It is, technically speaking, a federal government adhering to the principles of federalism.

Oh for f's sake. Who is flustered now? Isn't the U.S.A a nation or not? Is the Federal Government our National Government or not? Do the two terms refer to the same thing or not? Are you really in so much trouble that you have to resort to such childish nitpicking to distract from your infirmities?

Say, for example, indirect taxation as another possible way to voluntarily pay a tax.

OK, that statement was too broad or badly worded, the nuances are getting pretty fine pointed here. I have acknowledged in the past that indirect taxes are voluntary in the sense that you aren't forced to engage in the taxed activity. If, however, you chose to engage in the activity that is indirectly taxed, paying that tax is not voluntary (but maybe: can you legally grow your own tobacco for personal use in the USA?).

shortly afterward there was the Whiskey Rebellion, which even though an excise tax, and thus voluntary,

Only voluntary in the sense that you can choose not to engage in the taxed activity. If the distillation of whiskey is taxed, and you distill whiskey, how is that choosing to not engage in the taxed activity? Do you not understand your own argument?

reply to post by rnaa



ETA: Oops! I posted too soon. My computer was running so slow while working on that post, and I being tired myself, meant to copy and save the material and post it later, but somehow instead must have clicked post. Sorry, buddy.

I will post my reply later, but before I do, I feel compelled to add that you were right to call me on the glass house thing, and even when I was quibbling with you on that, I was aware of my own intellectual dishonesty in doing so, and I should have been more forth right and acknowledged I was doing it too. I did feel it was necessary to distinguish the difference, but in all honesty, the way I chose to do it was intellectually dishonest and not something I wish to do, so I apologize for that.

So, later I will reply to your posts.

[edit on 3-9-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


(catching up with previous posts)

The principles of Constitutional taxation do not mean that the people, you have so disrespectfully place in quotation marks, give consent for what is implied any old tax Congress deems necessary. There are two classifications of taxes, direct, and indirect taxes, and one is subject to the rule of apportionment, and the other subject to the rule of uniformity.

First, putting 'the People' or 'We the People' is quotes is NOT disrespectful. It is shorthand for putting the terms in italics, because typing a quote mark is quicker that typing left-bracket i right-bracket the People left-bracket /i right-bracket. This ATS editor does not make markup easy to do in any but a rudimentary way.

I set off the terms because they are technical terms, words of art, to indicate a meaning deeper than the ordinary meaning of the word. In short, it is meant to imbue them with more respect that just leaving them bare in the text.

Second, there are three classifications of taxes: direct, indirect, and income. Dissemble all you want, income tax has both direct and indirect components and the effect of the 16th Amendment marks it as a class of its own.

This is yet another lie. The 16th Amendment did not give Congress any new power of taxation, nor did it place any new burden upon the people, and instead works in harmony with the Constitution and the principles of apportionment and uniformity.

Why do you have to be so hyperbolic and call every difference of opinion a lie. I did not lie, nor did I even give an opinion. I related a fact and what I said and what you said are not incompatible in any way.

The Pollack ruling is precisely why the 16th Amendment was passed, and it wasn't to create a "third" category of taxation, it was to force future courts to view a non-apportioned tax as an indirect tax.

In effect, the 16th amendment did exactly that, create a third category of taxation in the Constitution. It doesn't reference the courts in any way, it grants Congress the power to impose a tax on income derived from any source whatever, and removes any confusion about apportionment or enumeration. Period.

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.

At least you tell the truth regarding "normal" income taxes on wages, which are most assuredly an indirect tax, and an indirect tax that must describe some specific activity. There are no subjectless taxes, and all taxes have a subject.

So 'exchanging labor for a wage' is not a specific enough activity? Says who? A wage is a "compensation for labor" and any compensation received for that provided labor is earned income. This argument is particularly specious. Wages is income. Period.

I know you have a whole armory of argument based on this particular point, but since this point is a false, your entire argument falls apart.

There is no statue of the Code that indiscriminately makes all "wages' the subject of any tax.

You are, perhaps right on that specific point, but because wages is income and the 16th amendment gives Congress the power to tax income doesn't make any difference.

Income tax is legal, and not voluntary, except in my sense of 'consent' and to the extent you can exist without earning any income (and even then you are paying tax, but the amount paid is zero).

Just pay your taxes, OK.

100 years later and major portions of the economy were invisible to the tax base due to the rise of the industrial revolution and the robber barons.

You are being more than disingenuous by implying that personal income taxation was a standard tax base for the federal government.

Oh gosh, you are right, I am disingenuous because I said 100 years instead of 107? I'll have to turn in my typing license. What are you talking about?

Actually this is what I was referring to: (Pollack v Farmers Loan Trust Co.)

In his dissent to the Pollock decision, Justice Harlan stated:

When, therefore, this court adjudges, as it does now adjudge, that Congress cannot impose a duty or tax upon personal property, or upon income arising either from rents of real estate or from personal property, including invested personal property, bonds, stocks, and investments of all kinds, except by apportioning the sum to be so raised among the States according to population, it practically decides that, without an amendment of the Constitution—two-thirds of both Houses of Congress and three-fourths of the States concurring—such property and incomes can never be made to contribute to the support of the national government.[8]

In a nation where the Federal government was beginning its battle against monopolies and trusts, where the great bulk of wealth was concentrated in the hands of a few, the decision in Pollock was unpopular, much like the decision in United States v. E. C. Knight Co., 156 U.S. 1 (1895) of the same year.

(emphasis mine)

In fact,...since the Pollack Court struck down as unconstitutional the entire income portion of the Revenue Act of 1894

The Pollack Case (not Court) actually only struck down that part the 1894 act that dealt with taxation on income on rents, dividends, interest, etc. That part that dealt with tax on income from wages was not in question. In fact, the law was so worded that it could not be easily divided, and it was determined that the correct way to fix the problem was to through it out, deal with the problems raised by Pollack, and start over. The 1861 and 1862 Acts were never challenged, so we don't know if they were Constitutional or not (though probably not).

How does it feel to be the lick-spittle of Rupert Murdoch, David Koch, and the other Robber Barons of the modern day on this issue by the way? An argument for repeal of the 16th is not an argument for an end of Income Tax on ordinary wages, no matter how you want to spin it, it is a fraud on the average wage earner.

This is a gross misrepresentation of both the Pollack ruling, and the 16th Amendment.

No it isn't. It is a precise and accurate summary.

You are attempting to imply that the 16th Amendment relieved Congress from the rule of apportionment regarding income, and this is false.

No, I'm not "attempting to imply" anything of the sort.

I'm openly asserting it. And it is absolute fact.

Tax on Wages Income has never needed to be apportioned or enumerated before or after the 16th.

Tax on Rent Income, Dividend Income, etc did need to be apportioned and enumerated before the 16th and do not need to be so after the 16th.

That is the exact accomplishment of the 16th amendment.

The 16th 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.

(emphasis mine)

Which part of the amendment are you having trouble reading?

Income tax is not BOTH an indirect tax and a direct tax, at the same time, and the 16th Amendment, as explained by both Brushaber and Stanton, was written to act harmoniously with the rule of apportionment, not to do away the rule.

Before the 16th amendment, Income tax on wages is an indirect tax, income tax on Rent, Dividends, Interest, and other property related income is a Direct Tax. The 16th Amendment empowers Congress to impose income tax on all income no matter what the source without apportionment or regard to enumeration. What is your problem with that? The terms direct and indirect no longer have relevant meaning with regard to income from any source.

Income from what ever source is Income and can be taxed without reference to any other provision in the Constitution other than the 16th Amendment. Period. End of story. Pay your taxes, OK?

Again this is false. Any indirect tax can be defeated by simply avoiding the event that is taxed. This makes that taxed event a voluntary tax.

If you don't engage in an activity an earn an income from it then you don't have any tax to pay on that income you didn't earn.

Is that even an argument?

A capitation or poll tax is not a voluntary tax, but we the people have given Congress consent to levy these kind of taxes. You are willfully lying is my guess.

It is voluntary in the sense that 'We the People' have given consent to our Government to impose that tax. No tax is voluntary once imposed, period.

And before you cite me for overreaching again, even in your sense of voluntary, where you can avoid paying a tax by not engaging in an activity, the tax is not imposed until you actually engage in that activity. Then once imposed, the tax is not voluntary.

In other words, if you don't distill Whiskey, then you are not subject to the distillers tax and no such tax will be imposed. If you do distill Whiskey, you are subject to the distillers tax, such a tax will be imposed, and paying the imposed tax is not voluntary.

Do we really have to keep twisting this ad infinitum? It doesn't affect your argument against income tax because the 16th Amendment made Income a separate class of taxation, with its own rules separate from other tax provisions in the Constitution.


[edit on 3/9/2010 by rnaa]

reply to post by truthquest

US Federal income withholding is a 0% interest loan to the government. Therefore, the benefits are incredibly lopsided towards the government, as is the case with so many government programs.

That is true, for sure. For some people the 'enforced saving' benefit outweighs the problem of not actually saving for the end of year balloon payment. For some people it doesn't.

My argument is not that wage garnishment is extreme or enforceable by law.

My argument is that tax withholding is not wage garnishment, it is a 'pay as you go' voluntary agreement between the Government and Jane. No money is being stolen from either John or Jane except in the sense you wish to consider taxation theft, and then it is only Jane who is affected.

I will agree that John is acting as sort of an unpaid involuntary tax collector, and in this sense his time is being stolen, and time is money after all.

Wage Garnishment is the result of a court order for not paying alimony, for example, or, true enough, in extreme cases a tax debt. But garnishment for taxes is truly a last resort, the IRS would much rather make a deal.

People can do extreme things and that is just fine. People can enforce a law against someone who is harming another person and that is just fine with me. What isn't fine, and what my argument is, is that wage garnishment is simply a less nasty sounding name for petty theft. By exploiting an uninvolved party the government invokes two thefts rather than one theft.

But wage garnishment is always done under court order and only under extreme conditions. If someone is harming another by not paying legitimate alimony, how do you propose that payment be 'enforced', by throwing the deadbeat in jail? How does that pay for the kid's school books?

The option 1 you listed on the previous page of this thread included various suggestions for Jane to spend the money in a specific way such as a savings account. Under option 3, John simply does not provide any input at all into what Jane will do with the $20 and simply hands it over to her. And of course that should be the norm for any employer as it is not the employers business what their employees are doing with their money and considered.

Those were examples I put forth in the scenario as explanation of what Jane may chose to do with the money. It had nothing at all to do with any advice from John or the Feds. My Option 1 is exactly the same as the proposed Option 3.

reply to post by rnaa

Second, there are three classifications of taxes: direct, indirect, and income. Dissemble all you want, income tax has both direct and indirect components and the effect of the 16th Amendment marks it as a class of its own.

I am compelled to reply to this most recent post before addressing your earlier posts because this particular post is far more germane to this thread.

There are NOT three classifications of taxes. Income can be taxed either directly or indirectly and direct and indirect are the only two classifications, Constitutionally speaking. The 16th Amendment did not create a new classification, this is a false argument.

In fact, the two great subdivisions embracing the complete and perfect delegation of the power to tax and the two correlated limitations as to such power were thus aptly stated by Mr. Chief Justice Fuller in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 157 U. S. supra, at page 557: 'In the matter of taxation, the Constitution recognizes the two great classes of direct and indirect taxes, and lays down two rules by which their imposition must be governed, namely: The rule of apportionment as to direct taxes, and the rule of uniformity as to duties, imposts, and excises.'

~Brushaber, supra at 13 (Emphasis added)~

I have used the Brushaber ruling to make clear that the 16th Amendment did not in anyway overturn the Pollack ruling. If it had, Chief Justice White could not have relied upon it in order to justify the ruling rendered in Brushaber. Chief Justice White continues his argument with:

It is to be observed, however, as long ago pointed out in Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533, 541, 19 L. ed. 482, 485, that the requirements of apportionment as to one of the great classes and of uniformity as to the other class were not so much a limitation upon the complete and all-embracing authority to tax, but in their essence were simply regulations concerning the mode in which the plenary power was to be exerted.

And...

In the whole history of the government down to the time of the adoption of the 16th Amendment, leaving aside some conjectures expressed of the possibility of a tax lying intermediate between the two great classes and embraced [240 U.S. 1, 14] by neither, no question has been anywhere made as to the correctness of these propositions.

At best, your assertion that a "third classification" of income is, to borrow a phrase from Chief Justice White, conjecture, and no such holding has ever been made by the Supreme Court regarding the 16th Amendment.

Chief Justice White later states:

Moreover, in addition, the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class [240 U.S. 1, 17] of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone, and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it.

~Brushaber, supra, at 16-17~ (Emphasis added)

Further stating:

'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,-an authority already possessed and never questioned, [240 U.S. 1, 18] -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, supra, at 18~ (Emphasis added)

Continuing with:

...the Amendment was drawn for the purpose of doing away for the future with the principle upon which the Pollock Case was decided; that is, of determining whether a tax on income was direct not by a consideration of the burden placed on the taxed income upon which it directly operated, but by taking into view the burden which resulted on the property from which the income was derived, since in express terms the Amendment provides that income taxes, from whatever source the income may be derived, shall not be subject to the regulation of apportionment.

In light of this statement, what is clear is that under the principle of the Pollack ruling, which was that rents, dividends, and interest derived from property were viewed as property themselves, that such income must be apportioned among the several states. However, as Chief Justice White makes clear, Congress was simply asserting their own right, a right they had even before the passage of the 16th Amendment, to tax all income, from whatever source derived, as an excise tax not subject to the rule of apportionment. Chief Justice White clarifies this by stating:

...the contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation

Brushaber, supra, at 18~ (Emphasis added)

Your argument that the 16th Amendment created a third classification of taxes is wholly without foundation! What the 16th Amendment does:

the command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived [240 U.S. 1, 19] forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock Case

~Brushaber, supra, at 18-19~

To further clarify this:

This must be unless it can be said that although the Constitution, as a result of the Amendment, in express terms excludes the criterion of source of income, that criterion yet remains for the purpose of destroying the classifications of the Constitution by taking an excise out of the class to which it belongs and transferring it to a class in which it cannot be placed consistently with the requirements of the Constitution. Indeed, from another point of view, the Amendment demonstrates that no such purpose was intended, and on the contrary shows that it was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operation.

~Brushaber, supra, at 19~ (Emphasis added)

To support my argument that the 16th Amendment did not in anyway overrule the Pollack Case:

the Amendment contains nothing repudiation or challenging the ruling in the Pollock Case

~Brushaber, supra, at 19~

So, where you accuse me of "disassembling", it is not I who is doing so, and to emphasize the truth of this fact, allow me to re-quote Chief Justice White one more time:

...the contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation ...

Why do you have to be so hyperbolic and call every difference of opinion a lie. I did not lie, nor did I even give an opinion. I related a fact and what I said and what you said are not incompatible in any way.

While I am, and admittedly so, prone to hyperbole, I was not being hyperbolic with this assertion. Here is what you said that I called a lie:

And by the way your assertion that the Constitution mentions two classifications of taxation has been incorrect since 1913. The 16th amendment essentially makes income tax a third classification. See below.

The 16th Amendment does no such thing, and I have just gone to great lengths to establish that. You and I do not seem to be compatible in what we are saying, nor is your contention that the 16th Amendment essentially makes a third classification true. To further support my argument, I will again re-quote The Stanton Ruling:

by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged

~Stanton, supra, at 112~

What is so hard to understand about this? It was settled that no new power of taxation was created by the 16th Amendment and its purpose was to ensure that from now on, all non apportioned taxes, from whatever source derived, must be viewed as indirect taxes, and the 16th Amendment prohibits the courts from taking such income taxes out of the category of indirect taxation.

Further, the income tax as it is written in the United States Code is a uniform tax, so how you have come to the conclusion that it is both direct and indirect is beyond me. I suspect you are lying because I know you to be quite intelligent, and don't think the uniform nature of the "income tax" has escaped your notice.

Continued...



[edit on 3-9-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by rnaa

In effect, the 16th amendment did exactly that, create a third category of taxation in the Constitution. It doesn't reference the courts in any way, it grants Congress the power to impose a tax on income derived from any source whatever, and removes any confusion about apportionment or enumeration. Period.

Congress all ready had the power to impose a tax on income, from whatever source derived, and had this power since the establishment of the federal government. The 16th Amendment, as well established that it has been settled that it did not create a third category of taxation in the Constitution, but what it did was ensure that all non apportioned taxes imposed after The 16th Amendment be viewed as an indirect tax...Exclamation mark!

I have bolded the word on for a reason, and before getting into the definition of the word on, it is worth again re-quoting Brushaber one more time:

but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such

~Brushaber, supra, at 18~ (Emphasis added)

The word phrase on income is also used in the 16th Amendment. It very well may be that this little word on is the source of so much of the confusion surrounding the "income tax" today. How is it that Chief Justice White could correctly say that taxation on income was in its nature an excise? Isn't income really just a persons own personal property in one form or another? Income in-and-of-itself is not in the category of people, (capitation tax), nor is it in the category of activities, (excise), so it must be property. Property taxes are direct taxes, not excise taxes. How does Chief Justice White, then come to the conclusion that taxation on income be in its nature an excise?

Websters offers several different definitions to the word, one of them being:

with respect to

Yourdictionary.com offers 26 different definitions of the word, one being:

with regard to; concerning

These definitions reasonably explain Chief Justice Whites conclusion on the matter. Before the 16th Amendment and after the Pollack ruling there was the ruling of Flint v. Stone Tracy Co.:

Excises are taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale, or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations and upon corporate privileges; the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of the privilege, and if business is not done in the manner described, no tax is payable.

This tells us that indirect taxes are never a tax upon any kind of property, (including money), but are instead taxes on some sort of revenue that translate into taxed activities, i.e., doing business in a corporate capacity.

The Brushaber Case reaffirms the fact that taxation on income is by its nature an excise, and that excises are in the classification of indirect taxes. The Stanton Case ruled that the 16th Amendment did not confer any new power of taxation, and its purpose was to keep income taxation in the category of indirect taxation.

Then there is the matter of Peck & Co. v Lowe

The Sixteenth Amendment does not extend the power of taxation to new or excepted subjects, but merely removes occasion for apportioning taxes on income among the states.

Which tells us that the 16th Amendment does not extend the power of taxation to new or excepted subjects.

There is also the matter of Tyler v United States

A tax laid upon the happening of an event, as distinguished from its tangible fruits, is an indirect tax which Congress, in respect of some events not necessary now to be described more definitely, undoubtedly may impose.

From this we can discern that indirect taxes are not on the tangible fruits, (which is property), but on the happening of an event.

The right to labor and to its protection from unlawful interference is a Constitutional, as well as common law right. Every man has a natural right to the fruits of his industry.

~48 Am Jur 2d. Section 2, page 80~

Well after the 16th Amendment was passed, there was another Supreme Court ruling relevant to this discussion. It was Steward Machine Co. v Davis, of which I cannot find any appropriate link to place here:

The subject matter of taxation open to the power of the Congress is as comprehensive as that open to the power of the states, though the method of apportionment may at times be different. "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises." Art. I, Section 8. If the tax is a direct one, it shall be apportioned according to the census or enumeration. If it is a duty, impost, or excise, it shall be uniform throughout the United Sates.

Continuing with:

Together, these classes include every form of tax appropriate to sovereignty. [Citations ommitted] Whether the tax is to be classified as an "excise" is in truth not of critical importance. If not that, it is an "impost" [Citations omitted], or a "duty" [Citations omitted]. A capitation or other "direct" tax it certainly is not.

~Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, at 581-582 (1937)~

So, again we have The Supreme Court telling us, in this Case in regard to Social Security taxes, that it is not a direct taxes upon property, which must be apportioned.

In the light of all of this, the word on, as it is used in the 16th Amendment, could not possibly mean a tax on property, and of course it is quite evident it is not a capitation tax, and it could only be an indirect tax with respect to, or with regard to, Text or in the consideration of income. Which is to say, income is not the subject of the tax, but rather, income is what is used to measure how much tax is owed based upon the taxed event one is engaged in.

There are other sources to show that income is not at all the subject of the tax, including the 1943 House Congressional Record:

The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of the tax.

~House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, page 2580~

So 'exchanging labor for a wage' is not a specific enough activity? Says who? A wage is a "compensation for labor" and any compensation received for that provided labor is earned income. This argument is particularly specious. Wages is income. Period.

"exchanging labor for a wage" is not any specific activity that has been named the subject of any tax imposed by Congress. Say's who? The United States Code, Title 26 say's so. You will not be able to provide a single section of Title 26 where a tax has been imposed upon the activity of earning wages, and this makes your argument specious, and particularly so. Wages are indeed income, but not the subject of any tax...Exclamation mark!

I know you have a whole armory of argument based on this particular point, but since this point is a false, your entire argument falls apart.

You have not provided any evidence what-so-ever to show that "earning wages" is a subject of any tax, and have only declared my argument specious without support of this contention. Conversely, I have used a "whole armory" of authority to show you that income is not the subject of any tax, and you claiming my argument falls apart flies in the face of reason. Indeed, when I asserted that there was no statute of the Code that indiscriminately makes all "wages" the subject of any tax, you respond with:

You are, perhaps right on that specific point, but because wages is income and the 16th amendment gives Congress the power to tax income doesn't make any difference.

How many times do I have to remind you that Congress all ready had the power to tax on income, and that the 16th Amendment did not give them any new power of taxation? Talk about specious.

Income tax is legal, and not voluntary, except in my sense of 'consent' and to the extent you can exist without earning any income (and even then you are paying tax, but the amount paid is zero).

First of all, I have never, not once, claimed that the "income tax" was not legal, it is however, voluntary as all excise taxes are. Your fallacious argument of existing without earning income, again, presumes that earning income has been named as the subject of, but I know of no such tax, and it appears you don't either, and this nonsense that even when you are not earning income you are paying a tax, but the amount paid is zero is just insane.

Just pay your taxes, OK.

I do pay my taxes, so why don't you mind your own business, OK?

How does it feel to be the lick-spittle of Rupert Murdoch, David Koch, and the other Robber Barons of the modern day on this issue by the way?

Lick-spittle? Are you for real? Are you suggesting that only people such as Murdoch and Koch are the ones being taxed by this obviously confusing matter of "income tax"? Do you have any idea how much taxes are taken out of hard working middle class peoples wages? If you want to play the "Robber Baron" game that is your business, I am not a communist so I do not fall prey to such propaganda.

Cont...

reply to post by rnaa

An argument for repeal of the 16th is not an argument for an end of Income Tax on ordinary wages, no matter how you want to spin it, it is a fraud on the average wage earner.

You are confusing me with someone else. I have never argued for the repeal of the 16th Amendment, so what in God's name are you talking about? Further, you are the one who just got done calling me a "lick-spittle" to "Robber Barons" as if only they wind up paying this so called "income tax", and that my friend, is the fraud perpetuated upon the average wage earner, who for whatever reason, have come to believe they have been made liable for and therefore subject to this so called "Personal Income Tax". That is the fraud...Exclamation mark!

No it isn't. It is a precise and accurate summary.

You are responding to my assertion that something you said was a gross misinterpretation of both the Pollack ruling and the 16th Amendment. What you said exactly was this:

When the Pollock case pointed out this anomaly, 'the People' gave consent to the government to tax any genuine income, however it was generated and without regard to census or enumeration.

It is not precise, nor is it accurate. You gave a much more precise and accurate interpretation of the Pollack ruling in the post I am now responding to, but this remark up above is not accurate, nor representative of the Pollack ruling, and certainly not the 16th Amendment. In fact, your exact wording above does not include the word on, but is stated in such a way to be read as if income was made the subject of a tax by way of the 16th Amendment, and this is just not true.

No, I'm not "attempting to imply" anything of the sort. I'm openly asserting it. And it is absolute fact.

It is not absolute fact, and thus, you are openly lying.

Tax on Wages Income has never needed to be apportioned or enumerated before or after the 16th.

If you mean on, as in regard to, or as a measurement of, then this is true, if you mean on as income as property then this is false.

Tax on Rent Income, Dividend Income, etc did need to be apportioned and enumerated before the 16th and do not need to be so after the 16th.

You would be hard pressed to prove that point. While you were correct when you earlier stated that the Revenue Acts of 1861, and 1862 had never been challenged, the Revenue Act of 1864, (another income tax) had been challenged in Springer v United States:

It will thus be seen that whenever the government has imposed a tax which it recognized as a direct tax, it has never been applied to any objects but real estate and slaves.

The Court in the Springer Case then go on to cite the Tyler ruling and quoting many of the citations I quoted in an earlier post before moving on to:

In Veazie Bank v. Fenno (supra), the tax which came under consideration was one of ten per cent upon the notes of State banks paid out by other banks, State or National. The same conclusions were reached by the court as in the preceding case. Mr. Chief Justice Chase delivered the opinion of the court. In the course of his elaborate examination of the subject he said, 'It may be rightly affirmed that, in the practical construction of the Constitution by Congress, direct taxes have been limited to taxes on land and appurtenances and taxes on polls, or capitation taxes.'

Of course, here it is again reaffirmed that direct taxes are essentially taxes on LAND, and appurtenances and taxes on polls, or capitation taxes, but more importantly the Veasie Bank Case is in regards to bank notes, and what are bank notes if not some sort of dividend, as in:

a. A share of a surplus; a bonus.

Particularly in light of the Case of Veasie Bank where the tax in question was imposed for the specific purpose of driving the bank notes out of circulation, which indicates the problem was there was a surplus of bank notes being circulated benefiting the banks but wreaking havoc with the currency.

The Court in the Springer ruling then cites:

In Scholey v. Rew (23 Wall. 331), the tax involved was a succession tax, imposed by the acts of Congress of June 30, 1864, and July 13, 1866. It was held that the tax was not a direct tax, and that it was constitutional and valid. In delivering the opinion of the court, Mr. Justice Clifford, after remarking that the tax there in question was not a direct tax, said: 'Instead of that, it is plainly an excise tax or duty, authorized by sect. 1, art. 8, of the Constitution, which vests the power in [102 U.S. 586, 602] Congress to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and public welfare.'

Distinguishing a tax on property from the inheritance of property declaring the devolution of property to be an excise tax. Continuing the reasoning with:

He said further: 'Taxes on houses, lands, and other permanent real estate have always been deemed to be direct taxes, and capitation taxes, by the express words of the Constitution, are within the same category; but it has never been decided that any other legal exactions for the support of the Federal government fall within the condition that unless laid in proportion to numbers the assessment is invalid.'

Ironically, and digressing for a moment, the Scholey Case was argued to be overruled by the Pollack Case, but this was not at all true, and also speaks to your gross misrepresentation of the Pollack ruling, and while I said you came closer to giving a more accurate description of that ruling later, there are misinterpretations of the Pollack ruling you have made. Indeed, all you have done is offer up "summaries" of the Pollack Case, and in fairness, I suppose that is all I have done as well, so while digressing, allow me to quote a holding from the Pollack Case:

The first question to be considered is whether a tax on the rents or income of real estate is a direct tax within the meaning of the constitution. Ordinarily, all taxes paid primarily by persons who can shift the burden upon some one else, or who are under no legal compulsion to pay them, are considered indirect taxes; but a tax upon property holders in respect of their estates, whether real or personal, or of the income yielded by such estates, and the payment of which cannot be avoided, are direct taxes.

~Pollack v Farmers Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S 429 (1895)~ (Emphasis added)

The emphasis was, of course, to further support the voluntary nature of an indirect tax, as the burden of such a tax can either be shifted, or a person is under no legal compulsion to pay them. It should also be noted that while you say that the part of the income portion of the tax that included wages as income was not in question is correct, it is correct because no person earning wages under the Revenue Act of 1894 had challenged that Act as unconstitutional. Wages are, quite simply, never discussed in the Pollack ruling. However, based upon what was held regarding the nature of excise taxes, it is indeed arguable that wages are incomes where the burden cannot be shifted, and if imposed upon wages in general, then all who are earn wages are legally compelled to pay them, which would hardly be an excise tax, and since the payment cannot be avoided it would be more correctly construed as a direct tax, at least in the light of what was held and just quoted.

Continuing with the Springer ruling, we reach their conclusion:

Our conclusions are, that direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the tax of which the plaintiff in error complains is within the category of an excise or duty. Pomeroy, Const. Law, 177; Pacific Insurance Co. v. Soule, and Scholey v. Rew, supra.

The whole point of this was to demonstrate that it had been well established that it was fully understood what direct taxes were prior to the Pollack ruling, and that taxes on income did indeed exist prior to the Pollack ruling, and that those taxes on income, at least in the matter of Springer were viewed as an excise tax. If you think you can provide any credible evidence that before the Pollack ruling taxes on rent, dividends, and interest were subject to the rule of apportionment, then by all means supply that evidence, but simply declaring it was so, doesn't make it so.

That is the exact accomplishment of the 16th amendment.

The exact accomplishment of the 16th Amendment was that it forced all courts to view any non apportioned tax on income as an indirect tax and not a direct tax. This has been well established by Brushaber, Stanton and several other rulings.

Which part of the amendment are you having trouble reading?

Which part of the 16th Amendment are you having trouble reading? It does not read; The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes without apportionment among the several states according to population. Which, by the way, was an earlier version of the 16th Amendment written by Senator Norris Brown of Nebraska, who on June 17th of 1909, introduced in Senate Joint Resolution 39 that exact phrasing as a proposed Amendment. It was Senator Nelson Aldrich, also the mastermind of the Federal Reserve, who re-wrote the Amendment to read as it does today, understanding the problems inherent in Sen. Browns use of the word direct, and the new one was introduced as S.J. Res 40.

Continuing...