7000 Citizens Violently Threatened By The State Of Indiana

page: 23
38
<< 20  21  22    24 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 





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.


Prove it.




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?


Congress all ready had the power to do such a thing in the guise of excises, and my problem is with your misrepresentation of the purpose of the 16th Amendment. Get it?




The terms direct and indirect no longer have relevant meaning with regard to income from any source.


That is not the way the Supreme Court saw it in 1937 with the Steward Case. I have all ready cited that Case, and clearly they disagree with your assertion.




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.


That is a load of crap and is not at all what the Brushaber and Stanton Cases held when upholding the Constitutionality of the 16th Amendment. I have demonstrated, and taken great pains to do so, to show you how your assertions are not supportable by any credible evidence. You can keep lying as long and as loud as you want, they are still lies.




Period. End of story. Pay your taxes, OK?


Exclamation mark! This story is far from over. Mind your own business, OK?




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.


Show us where a tax has been imposed upon that activity of earning income, hot shot. Show us the proof, and stop pretending that all you have to do is declare it so and everyone will just take your word for it without one shred of evidence to support your assertions.




Is that even an argument?


No, it wasn't an argument, but I am coming to appreciate your sense of humor, even if you are wrong about your interpretations of the 16th Amendment and its relation to the so called "Personal Income Tax".




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.


Again, I have shown you with a holding from the Pollack ruling that you are just full of hot air. A tax where the burden can be shifted, or avoided, which is an indirect tax, is indeed a voluntary tax.




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.


Except that, again, the Pollack ruling say's differently. In fact, much of the taxes on spirits and tobacco are not consumption taxes, but taxes on the activity of manufacturing, or distilling and/or importation, but with those taxes, the burden gets shifted to the buyer of the product.




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.


A distiller can, and does, shift the burden of the tax to the buyers, who accept that tax as a part of buying the whiskey, making it wholly voluntary. The buyer is not compelled by law to the pay the tax, the distiller is, but the distiller has shifted that burden and the buyer has voluntarily accepted that burden as part and parcel of the cost of having whiskey.

On a side note, and only just teasing you, it is interesting some of the words you choose to capitalize, such as Government, and other words relating to government, but your choice of capitalizing the word Whiskey brings a smile to my face, and I can't help but think you hold great respect for this renowned spirit.




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.


We? What do you mean by we? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? I have not made any arguments against income tax, and that is your twist on the arguments I am making. You are also twisting ad infinitum with your assertion that the 16th Amendment made income a separate class of taxation. It did not, and this is why you can only twist ad infinitum on the matter instead of offering up one shred of credible evidence to support your contention. You are in error.

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




posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I love your posts and couldn't agree with you more. WHAT makes me a federal employee so that I must pay "federal income tax"?

Those people here will never understand that.

I wish rnaa would define income per the IRS code, Title 26. Obviously he/she has never read it or even seen a copy. I have read it, all 3000 pages. It is all double talk and nonsense and DOES NOT apply to flesh and blood living souls but to corporate fiction "persons".

That is it in a nutshell. The Zip Code and the employment application are IRS documents and identification numbers. These are used to dupe the public into submission. Deceit is a wonderful thing isn't it?




No Zip Codes
(Use invokes Federal Jurisdiction)
(Author unknown)
Use of the Zip is voluntary. See Domestic Regulations. Section 122.32 as amended. You should
also know that the Postal service cannot discriminate against the non-use of the Zip Code. See
"Postal Reorganization Act ", Section 403, (Public Law, 91-375). The federal government
utilizes the ZIP code to prove that you reside in a “federal district of the District of Columbia”.
This is why the IRS and other government agencies (state and federal) require a Zip code when
they assert jurisdiction by sending you a letter. They claim that this speeds the mail, but this is a
sly and subtle TRICK. It is also prima facie evidence that you are a subject of Congress and a
"citizen of the District of Columbia " who is "resident " in one of the several states.
The receipt of mail with a ZIP code is one of the requirements for the IRS to have jurisdiction to
send you notices. The government cannot bill a Citizen of Texas, because he is not within the
purview of the MUNICIPAL LAWS of the District of Columbia. In fact, the Internal Revenue
Service has adopted the ZIP code areas as Internal Revenue Districts. See the Federal Register,
Volume 51, Number 53, Wednesday March 19, 1986.
You must remember that the Postal Service is a private corporation, a quasi-government agency.
It is no longer a full government agency. It is like the Federal Reserve System, the Internal
Revenue Service, and the United States and the United States Marshall Service. They are all
outside the restrictions of the Federal Constitution, as private corporations. They are all powerful
in their respective areas of responsibility, to enforce collection for the federal debt. So, if you are
using a ZIP code, you are in effect saying openly and notoriously that you do not live in the State
of Texas, etc, but instead are a resident in the Texas area of the District of Columbia (a federal
district). There are some so-called Patriot groups that I consider Patriots for money. They
advocate the use of Title 42 suits (which are for federal citizens only), send mail to you with a
ZIP code, and ask you to do things that place you within the municipal jurisdiction of the District
of Columbia.
Remember these individuals may be agents of the government or, even worse, are advocating a
one world government by the use of the Social Security number and the ZIP code.
So you must be aware of the movement towards a one world government through annihilation or
elimination of State Citizens by use of the so-called 14th Amendment and its related laws.
It is this writer's opinion, both as a result of study, e.g. of page 11 of the National Area ZIP code
Directory, of 26 U.S.C. 7621, of Section 4 of the Federal Register, Volume 51, Number 53, of
(TDO) 150-01; of the opinion in United States v LaSalle National Bank, 437 U.S. 298, 308, 98, 5
Ct 2d 2357, 571. Ed. 2d 221 (1978); of 12 U.S.C. 222; of 31 U.S.C. 103, and as a result of My
actual experience, that a ZIP code address is presumed to create a "Federal jurisdiction " or
“market venue” or “revenue districts” that override State boundaries, taking one who uses such
modes of address outside of a State venue and its constitutional protections and into an
international, commercial venue involving admiralty concerns of the "United States ", which is a
commercial corporation domiciled in Washington, D. C.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 04:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 




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!


The 16th did, in effect, create a third classification, in my opinion. This third class has a different set of rule for application than the other two classes that were mentioned before. However, if you wish to argue Brushaber, then yes, Brushaber disagrees with me, sort of. The Brushaber decision was that the 16th amendment places all income, from any source, into the reach of indirect taxes. The effect is exactly the same, it is just another way of looking at the same fact.



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.



Yes, and in the very next sentence he continued:


Nothing could serve to make this clearer than to recall that in the Pollock Case, in so far as the law taxed incomes from other classes of property than real estate and invested personal property, that is, income from 'professions, trades, employments, or vocations' ( 158 U.S. 637 ), its validity was recognized; indeed, it was expressly declared that no dispute was made upon that subject, and attention was called to the fact that taxes on such income had been sustained as excise taxes in the past. Id. p. 635. The whole law was, however, declared unconstitutional on the ground that to permit it to thus operate would relieve real estate and invested personal property from taxation and 'would leave the burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vocations; and in that way what was intended as a tax on capital would remain, in substance, a tax on occupations and labor' ( id. p. 637),-a result which, it was held, could not have been contemplated by Congress.


In other words, income tax on 'professions, trades, employments, or vocations' treated as an indirect excise tax have never been in question. It was the treatment of income from other classes of property that was the issue at stake in Pollack. Since these could not, under the law be apportioned and enumerated, the law was struck down.



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.


Yes, of course, Congress has always had the authority to tax income from any source, indirect or direct. It has not had the authority to treat income from any source in the same way. Tax on income from 'professions, trades, employments, or vocations' has always been treated, correctly, as an indirect tax. After Pollack, it was found that tax on income from 'real estate and invested personal property' had to be treated as a direct tax. This is the anomaly that the 16th fixed - it allowed Congress to treat all income, from whatever source, in exactly the same way when it imposed an income tax.
You are correct that no new authority to tax was granted by the 16th. Congress already had the authority to tax. What new authority was granted was the power to treat all types of Income in the same way, no matter what the source was.



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


I'm not exactly arguing that, I'm arguing that that is the effect. The result is the same, direct tax and indirect tax have no meaning in a discussion of income tax after the 16th amendment.



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



You take that phrase out of context. The full sentence is:


We say this because it is to be observed that although from the date of the Hylton Case, because of statements made in the opinions in that case, it had come to be accepted that direct taxes in the constitutional sense were confined to taxes levied directly on real estate because of its ownership, the Amendment contains nothing repudiation or challenging the ruling in the Pollock Case that the word 'direct' had a broader significance, since it embraced also taxes levied directly on personal property because of its ownership, and therefore the Amendment at least impliedly makes such wider significance a part of the Constitution,-a condition which clearly demonstrates that the purpose was not to change the existing interpretation except to the extent necessary to accomplish the result intended; that is, the prevention of the resort to the sources from which a taxed income was derived in order to cause a direct tax on the income to be a direct tax on the source itself, and thereby to take an income tax out of the class of excises, duties, and imposts, and place it in the class of direct taxes. [240 U.S. 1, 20]


What Justice White is saying here is that, Pollack widened the application of the direct tax concept, as previously held in Hylton, to include income derived from personal property. The 16th amendment removed the loophole found in Pollack. It didn't destroy the classification system, it changed it only as much as was needed to fixe the problem discovered by Pollack. Pollack stands, but a tax on income from any source is no longer subject to being apportioned or enumerated. Justice White is agreeing with me, after the 16th amendment, indirect and direct has no meaning in a discussion of income. This is, in effect a third classification.



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:


I am also hyperbolic at times. Never-the-less, I continue to assert that the 16th establishes, in effect a third class of taxation. That is, however, an opinion, and just a 'way of looking' at the subject, not a legal view, especially since IANAL, Constitutional or otherwise.



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,...



I have never claimed any new power of taxation. Congress has always had the power to tax income from whatever source. It has, since Pollack had to take into account what the source was when applying the tax, that is all your quote from Stanley says too. The 16th amendment relieved Congress from that restriction, and that was all it did.

My assertion is that the 16th reorganized the Constitutional classification system that describes how things can be taxed. Since the 16th amendment the classification system has three classes:

  • indirect, not related to income
  • direct, not related to income
  • income, from whatever source it is derived


That is all I am saying. I have repeatedly said that Congress always had the power to tax income, the only thing that 16 changed was how some types of income could be treated. Reclassification doesn't confer any new power to tax.



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.


It is beyond you is it? I thought you just argued that Pollack has not been overturned? OK...

Pollack held that the Income Tax Act of 1894 was constitutional to the extent that it levied an indirect tax on income from 'professions, trades, employments, or vocations' and unconstitutional to the extent that it levied a direct tax on income from personal property, widening the previously held understanding of the meaning of personal property. Thus if an income tax was to 'capture' all income, it inherently must contain both indirect and direct portions. If a wage earner rents out a room in his house, he has a total income that would be taxed partly indirectly (the wage) and directly (the rent), which must be treated differently.

The 16th did not make tax on income from wages no longer indirect, nor did it make tax on income from 'personal property' no longer direct. Pollack still stands; those classifications still exist.

The 16th made those classifications irrelevant in a discussion (and law) about income tax.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 




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.

Income is not property. Income is increase in property.





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.


No, I wouldn't: Pollack v. Farmers' Loan & Trust

It is true that the definition of a direct tax was narrower and that earlier income tax act were written with that narrow definition as understood.

However, your rehearsal of Springer serves only one real purpose, and that is to point out that there was debate about what constituted a direct tax even then. But Springer serves no other real purpose in this argument because Pollack in essence reversed Springer's finding that a tax on interest income is an excise tax by widening the definition of what constituted a direct tax. It is that widened definition from Pollack that the 16th addressed in order to make the application of a income tax apply uniformly to all income no matter how derived.

You have read and quoted Pollack, so I know that you know that Springer is just a distraction here.

Before the 16th, Pollack was the law of the land. Before Pollack, Springer was (at least part of) the law, that doesn't kill my argument.



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.


The 16th Amendment doesn't force any court to do anything.
It allows Congress to impose an Income Tax that treats all income the same way no matter what its source is.



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.


My reading is fine.
The 16th Amendment also does not read: all courts will view any non apportioned tax on income as an indirect tax and not a direct tax.
It gives permission to Congress to handle income from any source in exactly the same manner when it imposes an tax on that income. Nothing more. Nothing less.





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.

Prove it.


Yawn. Pollack.



Congress all ready had the power to do such a thing in the guise of excises, and my problem is with your misrepresentation of the purpose of the 16th Amendment. Get it?


Your problem is that you don't understand that Pollack said that they had to treat income from some sources differently than income from other sources and that the 16th fixed that problem, and nothing else. Get it?



Except that, again, the Pollack ruling say's differently. In fact, much of the taxes on spirits and tobacco are not consumption taxes, but taxes on the activity of manufacturing, or distilling and/or importation, but with those taxes, the burden gets shifted to the buyer of the product.


No. Pollack doesn't say anything of the sort. A tax on the distillation of spirits is most definitely on the manufacture of the spirit. That that tax is a 'cost of doing business' and is passed on to the buyer doesn't make it any less a tax on the manufacture of the item.



On a side note, and only just teasing you, it is interesting some of the words you choose to capitalize, such as Government, and other words relating to government, but your choice of capitalizing the word Whiskey brings a smile to my face, and I can't help but think you hold great respect for this renowned spirit.


I do like Scotch and Bourbon, true, and am less fond of Whiskey.

But much of my eclectic capitalization is simple fumble fingers.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I am not sure why you are expending so much time and energy trying to convince someone who does not understand that the 16th Amend ment was NEVER properly ratified. It matters not what ANY arguement is regarding it, it is null and void. Do a search on it and you will find all kinds of documentation supporting that fact.

Again, governments are created BY the people, they may legislate FOR the people and RESTRICT and regulate commerce, but they can NEVER legislate TO the people and restrict their rights or divinity. People are not commerce unless you take into account that we were fraudulently put up as collateral for the national debt. Which is BS anyway you look at it.



The Promissory Note To Pay Our Debts
HJR-192 of June 5, 1933 is the promissory note (the promise of Abraham) the government issued to balance the exchange to credit the people. The Promissory note is on the debit side of the United States Governments ledger, which was a debited from their credit, created by the Executive Order of April 5, 1933 when they took the gold out of circulation. Public Policy is rooted in HJR-192 and is Grace that creates our exemption. This is your temporal saving grace. Under grace, the law falls away to create a more perfect contract. Public Policy removed the people's liability to make all payments by making a contract null if it required the payment to be in substance, because the people didn't have any money to pay with. All that must be done now is to discharge the liability. Pay and discharge are similar words but the principles are as different as Old and New Testaments. The word "pay" is equated with gold and silver, or something of substance like a first-born lamb, which requires tangible work to be invested in it to remove the liability because an execution must occur. The word "Discharge" is equated with paper, or even more basic, simple credits and debits, that exist on paper only, like the slate held by the agents/angels of heaven that get swiped clean. You cannot pay a bill with a bill and you cannot pay a debt with a debt. What HJR-192 did was, remove the liability of an obligor (someone obligated to pay a debt) by making it against Public Policy to pay debts. All that needs to be done now is discharge the debit with an appropriate credit "dollar for dollar." Debt must be discharged dollar for dollar in the same sense, as sin was discharged on the Cross. The moment a debt exists, it must be written off. The catch is, we can't write off the debt because we are not in possession of the account in deficit; our fiduciary agent is in possession of the account so we must provide him with the tax return (by the return of the original offer) so the fiduciary can discharge the liability through their internal revenue service (the bookkeeper). Most feel that when the money was taken out of society, the people became the slaves, this is not true, the people were freed from every obligation that society could create thus freeing the people from any obligation which they may incur simply because we cannot pay a debt. Ask yourself the question, What are you charging me with? And how do you expect Me to pay?

Simply said, there is no money, plain and simple for me to make the payment with and on top of that, if I were to pay, who is paying Me to pay that guy and who's paying that guy and so on... Public Policy is the supercedious bond because it limits our liability to pay. It is the more perfect contract because it operates on grace to pay our debts after we have done all that we can. We go as far as we can to fulfill the obligation (acceptance and tax return) and after we have done all we can, mercy and grace kick in being our exemption to make the payment. Grace creates our exemption in the industrial society so long as we accept the charge.


The people are the creditors, the government is the debtor and the corporations are the obliger. If the corporation does not want to pay taxes, they need not use our resources and they need not exist, simple really.
That is it in a nutshell.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by daddio
 





I am not sure why you are expending so much time and energy trying to convince someone who does not understand that the 16th Amend ment was NEVER properly ratified.


The never properly ratified argument is a losing argument when it comes to tax liability. The primary problem with the never properly ratified argument is it plays into rnaa's argument that the 16th Amendment made people liable for an income tax. Of course, this is not precisely what rnaa is arguing, however, he is arguing that the 16th Amendment created a new classification of taxation not subject to the rule of apportionment, nor the rule of uniformity.

This assertion is not true, and there is plenty of prima facie evidence by Title 26 alone, to demonstrate that the taxes imposed by that title do indeed conform to the rule of uniformity. The importance of this, and to your assertion of the 16th Amendment being null and void, is that such an argument is the same as saying that if the 16th Amendment was properly ratified it would make people liable for an income tax, and this is just not true. The 16th Amendment does not make any person liable for any tax what-so-ever.

Further, and to your question of why I have spent so much time "trying to convince someone" that the 16th Amendment was merely an Amendment written to prevent the courts from viewing any non apportioned tax as a direct tax, if you will notice, I have not responded to rnaa's last few posts.

I have not responded to them, because anyone paying attention will notice that rnaa has dramatically backed off of his position regarding that Amendment and the so called income tax, and has begun qualifying his assertions with "in my opinion". That member is most assuredly entitled to his opinion, but this opinion is not enough to justify unconstitutional enforcement of a tax. The 16th Amendment did not grant any new authority to Congress nor the IRS, and the latter is bound by Constitutional restraints the same is Congress is.

[edit on 7-9-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Thank you for that response. Titlte 26 was never ratified in the Federal Code either, thus it ONLY applies to "U.S. citizens" and not "Americans". We could talk about the term "person" too. Corporate fiction.

I have read Title 26 and have set the collection agency for the Federal Reserve, straight on more than one occasion. Being a private corporation they can not make law nor can they enforce law. Even acting under the premise and with the blessing of the ATF, it still has limited to no authority. But how many people have the balls to call them out?

Thus the 16th Amendment and the arguement.




Believe it or Not!
1. IRS/CRA is not a Government Agency; it is a collection agency. All Alphabet Agencies (CIA, DOT, etc.)
are agencies of the IMF (International Monetary Fund) which is an agency of the UN.
2. SSNs/SINs are issued by the UN via the IMF, not by Social Security Administration or CRA
3. There are no Judicial courts and hence no ‘judges’ overseeing ‘law’. There are Executive
Administrators enforcing Statutes and Codes.
4. You own no property; slaves can’t own property. Read the Deed to the property that you think is
yours. You are listed as a Tenant.
5. The Revolutionary War was a fiction/fraud/ruse. The King of England financially backed both sides
of the American Revolutionary war.
6. America is a British Colony. Britain is owned by the Vatican.
7. The Pope can abolish any law in USA/CA. Pope’s laws are obligatory. The Pope has ordered the
genocide and enslavement of millions of people.
8. We are slaves and own absolutely nothing – not even what we think are our children.
9. The duty of the police is not to protect you; it is to protect the Corporation and arrest code-breakers.
10. Everything in CA/USA is For Sale: roads, bridges (yes, the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale), schools,
hospitals, water, prisons, airports, etc.
11. Social Security/Insurance is not insurance; nor is there a Trust Fund holding it. The SS/SI cheque
comes directly from the IMF which is an Agency of the UN
12. A 1040/ T1 (filing) form is for tribute paid to Britain – the interest on the bankruptcy.
13. We are enemies of the State pursuant to Trading with the Enemy Act, 1933
14. The Constitution cannot be used to ‘defend’ oneself as none of us is a party to it.
15. Can/Am is a British colony. CA/USA are private corporations, not territories.
16. The UN has financed the operations of CA/USA gov’t for over 50 years; it owns every man, woman,
and child and also holds all the land in Can/Am in Fee Simple.
17. We do not owe ‘public/ national debt’ – we can discharge fictitious public obligations.
18. All wars are a scam/farce/fiction. USA/CA and other corporations were making loans to others all over the world during the Depression. USA financed the building of Germany’s infrastructure in the 1930s.
All those who died defending their non-existent ‘countries’ died in vain. Switzerland is ‘neutral’ as this is where the Bank of International Settlements is located. Wars are simply a red herring to keep us believing
that government is necessary.


Provided by Mary: Croft



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by daddio
 





I have read Title 26 and have set the collection agency for the Federal Reserve, straight on more than one occasion. Being a private corporation they can not make law nor can they enforce law. Even acting under the premise and with the blessing of the ATF, it still has limited to no authority. But how many people have the balls to call them out?


Having the gumption to call the IRS out on their shenanigans is only part of the equation. I applaud you if you were able to discourage the IRS from pursuing any action against you by using the argument you are making, however, if you wind up in a court of law and try to make these sort of arguments I fear you will find more trouble than it is worth making. By making the arguments you make, you assume the burden of proof, and as a defendant in a court of law, after being charged with "failure to file" or some other charge brought against you by the IRS, assuming burden of proof is not prudent.

Given that you have read Title 26, and have yourself declared it to be "all double talk and nonsense", of which I agree, it just seems to me that the stronger legal argument is to make those charging you with any crime prove that you have actually been made liable to begin with. To ensure that the burden of proof, at all times remains with the prosecution, where burden of proof belongs. To make sure that at the outset you are challenging the facts of the case, and demanding those facts be proven on record by some sort of credible evidence.

When you begin by asserting you are not liable because...(insert any argument here)...you are assuming the burden of proof and must prove your assertions to be true. I am not saying those assertions are not true, I am suggesting that the burden of proof could be more than most people could bear, and the same goes for any prosecution attempting to prove a person has actually been made liable by Title 26...unless one is engaged in the manufacture and/or importation of tobacco, or the distillation and/or importation of spirits, where Title 26 can in fact be quite clear who has been made liable for a tax, the IRS, and any prosecution would be hard pressed to point to a specific section in the Code that makes someone liable as clearly and concisely as Sections 5005, and 5703 do.

Where Sections 5005, and 5703 are painfully clear and easy to understand, much of the rest of Title 26 is a cornucopia of tautology and circumlocution of definitions that, as you say, is double talk and nonsense. After reading multitudes of case law where "tax protesters" lost their cases because of assuming burden of proof, instead of simply relying on the nonsensical nature of the legislation to set them free, I have become convinced that the strongest legal argument to make regarding this artful legislation is to not make any argument at all, other than the legislation itself cannot be understood. If any thing, my worthy opponent rnaa has shown quite effectively how difficult the legislation and case law regarding the legislation is to understand.

I find it hard to imagine a jury that would convict a person simply because they cannot understand legislation that clearly does not want to be understood. Let the legislation bury itself, and don't fall into the trap of taking on arguments that very well might bury you.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 





I have not responded to them, because anyone paying attention will notice that rnaa has dramatically backed off of his position regarding that Amendment and the so called income tax, and has begun qualifying his assertions with "in my opinion".


That is not quite true either.

I am saying that the words I use to describe the effects of the 16th Amendment may not necessarily be the words used by SCOTUS in their decisions about the effects of the 16th Amendment. That is partly because the language used in the decision written in the early 20th century is different that the language used in the early 21st century. I am not backing away from my wording, I am just acknowledging that the court uses different words to describe the same result.

No matter which set of words you want to use, the effect of the 16th Amendment is to allow Congress to treat all income in a uniform manner when it imposes an income tax. Nothing more, nothing less. It removes the necessity for Congress to consider an income tax on some types of income as an indirect tax and on other types of income as a direct tax. That is all it does.

You are right that it doesn't give Congress any new power to impose an income tax, it has always had that power. I will repeat, for the umpteenth time, what the 16th Amendment was allow Congress, when it did impose the income tax it was always empowered to impose, to treat all income, from whatever source, in exactly the same way.



That member is most assuredly entitled to his opinion, but this opinion is not enough to justify unconstitutional enforcement of a tax. The 16th Amendment did not grant any new authority to Congress nor the IRS, and the latter is bound by Constitutional restraints the same is Congress is.


What is your argument exactly? Does Congress have the authority to impose an income tax or not? You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth here. Either it has always had the power to impose an income tax (which is what I thought you were arguing all along), or the 16th Amendment gives it the power to do so (which you are somehow trying to make my argument, even though it isn't). Now you are trying to say that it doesn't have any such authority.

Do you have any capacity for a coherent argument, or are you just typing to keep your fingers warm?



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 





I am saying that the words I use to describe the effects of the 16th Amendment may not necessarily be the words used by SCOTUS in their decisions about the effects of the 16th Amendment. That is partly because the language used in the decision written in the early 20th century is different that the language used in the early 21st century.


Oh please! It is not as if they spoke Elizabethan in the early 20th Century. Sure they had idiomatic language just as we do today, the difference being much of the idioms coined in the early 20th century are no longer idiomatic and much more a part of every day common usage today. Words such as "freeways" and "parkways", or terms such as "double park" and "parallel park" were new words coined in the early 20th Century, but they are standard words and phrases used today. Words such as "bartender" "longshoreman" and "patrolman" were new then, but are not so new and incomprehensible today. While terms such as "bellhop" "hobo" and "roustabout" are not so commonly used today, they are not so difficult to discern their meaning as if they were Shakespearean words from a different land and culture.

Novels such as Red Badge of Courage Upton Sinclair's The Jungle
were popular at that time, and not so new, but they are classic literature that most middle school children today are required to read. Just to make clear that the language of the early 20th Century was not so remarkably different from today, allow me to quote both Sinclair and Crane:


It is a sound, a sound made up of ten thousand little sounds. You scarcely noticed it at first-it sunk into your consciousness, a vague disturbance, a trouble.


~The Jungle by Upton Sinclair; Chapter 2, page 29~

or:


The line of the buildings stood clear-cut and black against the sky; here and there out of the mass rose the great chimneys, with the river of smoke streaming away to the end of the world.


~The Jungle by Upton Sinclair; Chapter 2, page 33~


He had burned several times to enlist. Tales of great movements shook the land. They might not be distinctly Homeric, but there seemed to be much glory in them. He had read of marches, sieges, conflicts, and he had longed to see it all. His busy mind had drawn for him large pictures extravagant in color, lurid with breathless deeds.


~Red Badge of Courage by Stephen Crane; Chapter 1, page 16~

or:


He seemed no more to be continually regarding the proportions of his personal prowess. He was not furious at small words that pricked his conceits. He was no more a loud young soldier. There was about him now a fine reliance. He showed a quiet belief in his purposes and his abilities. And this inward confidence evidently enabled him to be indifferent to little words of other men aimed at him.


~Red Badge of Courage by Stephen Crane; Chapter 14, page 96~

While modern day novelists such as Stephen King and Dan Brown do not write in the same fashion, few people, if any, have dared to suggest that King and Brown rise to the literary skills of Crane, or even Sinclair. Your assertion that the language of the early 20th Century was different than the language used today is nothing more than a lame and desperate attempt to make it seem as if you have said what Chief Justice White would have said if he were rendering the decision today. It is, to use the vernacular of today, a bogus claim made by an ignoramus.

Just to be clear, and to perfectly demonstrate the deceit of your claim, lets take a look at the first two paragraphs of Brushaber ruling and the Citizen United ruling respectively, and compare the language used by Chief Justice White to that of Justice Kennedy:


As a stockholder of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, the appellant filed his bill to enjoin the corporation from complying with the income tax provisions of the tariff act of October 3, 1913 ( II., chap. 16, 38 Stat. at L. 166). Because of constitutional questions duly arising the case is here on direct appeal from a decree sustaining a motion to dismiss because no ground for relief was stated.


~Brushaber v Union Pacific R.R. Co.~


Federal law prohibits corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech defined as an "electioneering communication" or for speech expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate. 2 U. S. C. §441b. Limits on electioneering communications were upheld in McConnell v. Federal Election Comm'n, 540 U. S. 93, 203-209 (2003). The holding of McConnell rested to a large extent on an earlier case, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U. S. 652 (1990). Austin had held that political speech may be banned based on the speaker's corporate identity.


~Citizen United v Federal Election Commission~


The right to prevent the corporation from returning and paying the tax was based upon many averments as to the repugnancy of the statute to the Constitution of the United States, of the peculiar relation of the corporation to the stockholders, and their particular interests resulting from many of the administrative provisions of the assailed act, of the confusion, wrong, and multiplicity [240 U.S. 1, 10] of suits and the absence of all means of redress which would result if the corporation paid the tax and complied with the act in other respects without protest, as it was alleged it was its intention to do.


~Brushaber v Union Pacific R.R. Co.~ (In part)


In this case we are asked to reconsider Austin and, in effect, McConnell. It has been noted that "Austin was a significant departure from ancient First Amendment principles," Federal Election Comm'n v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U. S. 449, 490 (2007) (WRTL) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). We agree with that conclusion and hold that stare decisis does not compel the continued acceptance of Austin. The Government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether. We turn to the case now before us.


~Citizens United v Federal Election Commission~

The language in both of these rulings is fundamentally the same, and any differences are so subtle and indiscernible so as to only underscore your desperation when claiming that your own misquoting and disingenuous paraphrasing of Brushaber was done so do clear up the differences of language between then and now.




I am not backing away from my wording, I am just acknowledging that the court uses different words to describe the same result.


Yeah right, that is why twice you qualified your most recent language, (prior to this last post I am quoting), with "in my opinion", and "an opinion" and asserting acronymistically that you are not a lawyer.




No matter which set of words you want to use, the effect of the 16th Amendment is to allow Congress to treat all income in a uniform manner when it imposes an income tax.


And here is just one more example of you backing off of your original stance. Congress treating the so called "income tax" in a uniform manner is Congress adhering to the rule of uniformity in relation to indirect taxation, and is not in any way evidence of a "new third category where direct and indirect taxation no longer apply". All indirect taxes are subject to the rule of uniformity.




Nothing more, nothing less. It removes the necessity for Congress to consider an income tax on some types of income as an indirect tax and on other types of income as a direct tax. That is all it does.


More shucking and jiving with your bad game of Three Card Monty. Everyone paying attention knows exactly what you did with pea and it sure isn't under any of the walnut shells my friend. Your game of fraud is evident.




You are right that it doesn't give Congress any new power to impose an income tax, it has always had that power. I will repeat, for the umpteenth time, what the 16th Amendment was allow Congress, when it did impose the income tax it was always empowered to impose, to treat all income, from whatever source, in exactly the same way.


Which is an indirect tax subject to the rule of uniformity.




What is your argument exactly? Does Congress have the authority to impose an income tax or not? You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth here.


Your perception is symptomatic of all liars, as the greatest punishment to being a liar is not that other people will never believe you again, but that you cannot find it within you to believe anyone else. When I say you are entitled to your opinion, I am referring directly to your assertions that the 16th Amendment "in effect" created a "third classification" of taxation. This is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, but the IRS has no Constitutional authority to enforce taxation under the guidance of your opinion, and must adhere to the restraints imposed upon them by Constitution.




Do you have any capacity for a coherent argument, or are you just typing to keep your fingers warm?


Uh-huh, this coming from the man who explained his capitalization of the word whiskey as being nothing more than "fumble fingers". Please!

[edit on 7-9-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by daddio
 




I am not sure why you are expending so much time and energy trying to convince someone who does not understand that the 16th Amend ment was NEVER properly ratified.


Your premise is false; the 16th Amendment was indeed ratified properly. While the 16th Amendment ratification controversy is interesting, is it ultimately fruitless for your argument.

For those who aren't familiar with the controversy, there are two basic objections to the incorrect ratification theory:

  1. Ohio wasn't a state until 1953
  2. some States ratification statutes contained typographical errors which got the wording wrong


Ohio wasn't a State until 1953

This is just silly nitpicking. Ohio has been a state since 1803. There was a controversy over exactly when in 1803 it became a state because as one of the first states to be invited to join the union, the formal wording of its invitation hadn't been settled. This meant that in 1953, when Ohio was preparing to celebrate its 150th anniversary, they weren't sure whether it was a state on the date the statehood offer was made, the date they ratified their state constitution, the date they held their election for state officers, or the date the legislature first sat in session. So Congress settled it for them with a resolution fixing the exact date, March 1, 1803 that would be used as the official admittance date.

As you can see, there was never a question that Ohio was not a State until that resolution in 1953, only what the exact date in 1803 (or for some, late 1802) the admission took effect. All argument against the 16th Amendment on this basis has been officially ruled frivolous, and cannot be used in a court of law as an argument against income tax.

So the official story is that on 3 February 1913, Delaware became the 36th State to ratify the amendment and the process of putting it into effect started on that date. But let's for just a moment and for the sake of argument suppose that Ohio was not a State until 1953. What effect on the ratification of the 16th Amendment would it have had? (Remember that date though, 3 February 1913)

On June 10, 1909 when the Amendment was proposed to the States by Congress, there were 46 states, oops 45 states if we leave out Ohio. That means that 34 states were required for ratification (45 * 0.75 = 33.75 rounded up to 34). Minnesota became the 34th state (not including Ohio) to ratify the amendment on 11 June 1912. Except that New Mexico (6 January 1912) and Arizona (14 February 1912) had been added before then raising the requirement to 36 (47 * 0.75 = 35.25 rounded up to 36).

So on 3 February 1913, Delaware became the 35th state to ratify the amendment if we don't count Ohio. That means that on 3 February 1913 New Mexico became the 36 state (not including Ohio) to ratify the Amendment, and just for good measure on 3 February 1913, Wyoming became the 37th state. New Jersey followed one day later.

So it doesn't matter whether Ohio was a State or not, on 3 February 1913, the 16 Amendment had been ratified by a sufficient number of states and certification time frames would have been identical, with or with out Ohio as a State.

End of story to the Ohio statehood 'problem'.

Typographical errors

This to me, is both more interesting, while at the same time, more legally simple that the Ohio case.

This argument asserts that "the legislatures of various states passed ratifying resolutions in which the quoted text of the Amendment differed from the text proposed by Congress in terms of capitalization, spelling of words, or punctuation marks (e.g. semi-colons instead of commas), and that these differences made the ratification invalid." (quotation from the Wikipedia summary of the argument).

The problem with this argument is that courts have always recognized that typographical (whether handwritten or mechanical) errors occur from time to time. Remember that typewriters were in the process of being standardized, very expensive, and not readily available to every legislative clerk, in Congress or in the States. Handwritten bills especially provide lots of room for error. Where they are just that, innocent and trivial typographical errors that do not radically change the sense that the lawmakers understand is the import of the law, then the courts have always held that the typographical errors are to be ignored, and the correct text assumed.

Excerpt from Tax Protestor 16th Amendment Arguements



...the Supreme Court follows the "enrolled bill rule." If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted. Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 36 L.Ed. 294, 12 S.Ct. 495 (1892).


That is since Secretary Knox (the 'appropriate official') studied the discrepancies and under the best advice available, authenticated them, the court will treat the amendment "as properly adopted".

Sorry Daddio, your argument doesn't hold up to the light of day.






[edit on 7/9/2010 by rnaa]



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 




Oh please! It is not as if they spoke Elizabethan in the early 20th Century.


Correct. They spoke late Victorian, or if you prefer even more precision, Edwardian, (George hadn't been around long enough to qualify the language as Georgian yet, in my opinion). And your miles and miles of quotes from various pieces of literature is silly, and deflective.

Whether or not conversational English in the early 21st century is different from legal English in the early 20th century, isn't the argument, nor is whether or not either can be understood with a modicum of analysis. I put forth my 'model' of a way to look at the results as just that: an alternative way of looking at the effects of the 16th amendment. Get over it already, I never said it was the legal or case law view, I said it was a way of looking at the end result.

I have acknowledged that the 'three category model' is my personal view of the essential effect of the 16th amendment with regards to the Constitutional classes of taxation in order to allow you to get beyond the distraction and put your own argument. Since you don't seem to have one, you continue to dwell on me and my way of looking at the effect of the 16th amendment upon the Constitutional classification of taxes and the limits that the Constitution puts on Congress when imposing taxes that fit those classifications.

It has no effect in law whether you view it as I do that a third category of taxation has been created, or whether you view it as removal of the need to apportion and enumerate the tax on income from sources that Pollack required Congress to treat as a direct tax. None what-so-ever. The only difference is that my model makes it easier to picture what is going on.

This difference is exactly the same as the difference between saying the Sun orbits the Earth or the Earth orbits the Sun. If you are only talking about those two heavenly bodies it makes no difference what-so-ever, except that since the center of gravity of the orbit is actually inside the radius of the Sun, it is a lot simpler to talk about it as the Earth orbiting the Sun.

So have it your way, I don't need to talk about the third class of taxation, and you can stop using it to deflect from answering the other points you don't have an answer for.



And here is just one more example of you backing off of your original stance. Congress treating the so called "income tax" in a uniform manner is Congress adhering to the rule of uniformity in relation to indirect taxation, and is not in any way evidence of a "new third category where direct and indirect taxation no longer apply". All indirect taxes are subject to the rule of uniformity.


Once again, I have not changed my stance at any point. That you somehow perceive a change in stance is only because you will not acknowledge my point above, and that perception is wrong. My argument in every post has consistently been that 16th has made it possible for Congress to write an income tax law that treats all income, from whatever source, in exactly the same manner. It turns out that Congress has written an income tax law that treats all income, no matter the source, in the same way it treats something that would otherwise be subject to an indirect tax. At no place have I ever said anything different.

The 16th Amendment has no effect on the treatment of an income tax on wages or professional income and the like, which before the 16th Amendment would always be considered as an indirect tax and after the 16th Amendment is still treated in exactly the same way, that is without reference to apportionment or enumeration.

The 16th Amendment does have an effect on income tax on property rental or interest or the like, which since Pollack had to be considered as a direct tax and apportioned according to the Constitutional provisions for a direct tax, and after the 16th Amendment is now treated differently, that is there is is no longer any need to use the apportionment and enumeration treatment when levying a tax on income from personal property.

It is this last provision, and this last provision only, that the 16th Amendment addresses. Income from any source, wages or professional, rental or interest, can receive the same treatment in an Income Tax. The concepts of an indirect tax treatment or a direct tax treatment have no meaning in a discussion of an income tax after the 16th Amendment. Income is income. Period.

And that has been my consistent argument in this entire thread. It is exactly my argument in every post, and your lying about some non-existent change of stance doesn't change the words in every post I've made that are available for the other one persons still interested in our argument to read at their leisure.

I don't like calling people liars, even when they have earned it. But I am frankly sick of you calling me a liar when you don't even have the intellectual fortitude to advance your own argument.

I still don't know what your argument on the topic is because you refuse to address it, consistently deflecting onto something else entirely, like "The Red Badge of Courage" or something.

You refuse to defend several assertions you have made, presumably because you can't, and instead continue to attack the description I made of the effect of the 16th, a description which does not in any way affect the discussion of those effects, other than simplify them for general consumption, and so is a pointless attack because I have already conceded the point as irrelevant in order to allow you to get past it.

So try again with something substantive.

In your post to Daddio, you implied that somehow Congress doesn't have the authority to impose an income tax. Perhaps you could expand on this argument. You have said in an earlier posts that Congress has always had the authority to tax incomes, so why have you changed your stance?

Were you lying then, or lying now?



[edit on 7/9/2010 by rnaa]



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 





The never properly ratified argument is a losing argument when it comes to tax liability. The primary problem with the never properly ratified argument is it plays into rnaa's argument that the 16th Amendment made people liable for an income tax.


I was almost going to let this pass. But I really am tired of you lying about me, and calling me a liar.

At no time have I said anything even remotely resembling your accusation. You said something like that before and I pointed it out to you then.

It is not and never has been my assertion that the 16th Amendment gave Congress the authority to levy an income tax or (to use the words you seem to think have some magic difference about them) 'to make people liable for an income tax'.

For the umpteenth time: Congress has always had the authority to levy an income tax. After Pollack, Congress has had to treat income from some sources differently than income from other sources. The 16th Amendment allows them to treat all income in exactly the same way, no matter what the source. That is all the 16th Amendment does, it does no more than that.

I have said that in every post, and you seem to not be able to read it.

Are you mentally disabled from understanding the words you read, a congenital liar, or merely a troll trying to take the piss out of your readers?



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 02:54 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 





Correct. They spoke late Victorian, or if you prefer even more precision, Edwardian, (George hadn't been around long enough to qualify the language as Georgian yet, in my opinion). And your miles and miles of quotes from various pieces of literature is silly, and deflective.


Deflective and silly? Both Red Badge of Courage and The Jungle were quite popular in 1913 and reflective of the language spoken and understood at that time. I'll tell you what is deflective and silly, attempting to frame the language of Chief Justice White as being fundamentally different from the language spoken today.

Never mind the fact that both the Victorian Era, and the Edwardian Era are periods that best represented Great Britain far more than they did American culture and language. Hence Victorian, derived from the reign of Queen Victoria, and Edwardian derived from the reign of King Edward. To suggest that Chief Justice White was influenced by the culture of two monarchs, or even just one of them is to suggest that Chief Justice White was less American in his sensibilities and more British.

While there was a Victorian Era in America, it was an offshoot of the Victorian Era of England. As to the Edwardian Era, in America this era is known as the Gilded or Progressive Age and not commonly referred to as "The Edwardian American Age". Further, the Victorian Age in America was more of a mimicking of the British culture, and was predominantly Episcopalian families of wealth:


Victorian America was a time of uncertainty for the Americans with "old money." The wealthy were not yet sure what it was to be an American and they showed their uncertainty by borrowing heavily from European culture, especially French culture. These old moneyed families ate French cuisine prepared by French cooks imported from France and drank French wines. Often these families would buy up the entire stocks of a French vineyard for their house. In religion the rich were also European. Most of these families were Episcopalian. This church was very ritualistic, showy and British, consequently it had a somewhat foreign feel.


en.wikipedia.org...

Conversely, Edward Douglas White was:


White's paternal ancestors were of Irish descent, and he was a devout Roman Catholic his entire life. He studied first at the Jesuit College in New Orleans, then at Mount St. Mary’s College, near Emmitsburg, Maryland, and then attended Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. where he was a member of the Philodemic Society. He later studied law at the University of Louisiana, renamed Tulane University in 1884.


Given White's heritage, and the predominant anti Irish sentiments of the Victoria Era, both in England and in The United States, it is hard to buy that Chief Justice White was heavily influenced by Victorianism:


Anti-Irish racism in Victorian Britain and 19th century United States included the stereotyping of the Irish as alcoholics, and implications that they monopolized certain (usually low-paying) job markets. In addition, some Irish immigrants married recently free black slaves and were subject to a brutal discrimination. They were often called “white Negroes". Throughout Britain and the US, newspaper illustrations and hand drawings depicted the Irish with the "ape like image" of Irish people's faces appeared to be primordial like a monkey's, and claims of evolutionary racism about the origin of Irish people as an "inferior race" compared to Anglo-Saxons were propagated


en.wikipedia.org...

Even further, one of the most prominent authors of the Victorian Era was Charles Dickens. Dickens language was not so far from the language spoken today which is why his books remain so popular today, as they are easy to read. Consider, perhaps Dickens most often quoted sentence from a novel in A Tale of Two Cities


It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way--in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.


~A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens~

What is so hard to understand about that language? All this deflection is a direct result of your vain and futile attempt to justify misrepresenting what Chief Justice White actually said by claiming the language he spoke was different from the language we speak today. It is an elaborate falsehood invented by you!




Whether or not conversational English in the early 21st century is different from legal English in the early 20th century, isn't the argument, nor is whether or not either can be understood with a modicum of analysis. I put forth my 'model' of a way to look at the results as just that: an alternative way of looking at the effects of the 16th amendment. Get over it already, I never said it was the legal or case law view, I said it was a way of looking at the end result.


The operative in all of that backpedaling would be "alternative" view. Rather than take an "alternative" view, I think it prudent to take the standard view of what was actually said and held by Chief Justice White. Your Machiavellian "end result" is just that, a Machiavellian justification for usurpation and power grabbing.




I have acknowledged that the 'three category model' is my personal view of the essential effect of the 16th amendment with regards to the Constitutional classes of taxation in order to allow you to get beyond the distraction and put your own argument. Since you don't seem to have one, you continue to dwell on me and my way of looking at the effect of the 16th amendment upon the Constitutional classification of taxes and the limits that the Constitution puts on Congress when imposing taxes that fit those classifications.


This is just more deception from you! My argument, since you insist on being so dense about it, is precisely this: The 16th Amendment forced the courts, and by way of the courts, the rest of us, to view any non apportioned tax on income as an indirect tax upon some specific activity. I have made this argument several times in this thread. I made the argument here, and here.




It has no effect in law whether you view it as I do that a third category of taxation has been created, or whether you view it as removal of the need to apportion and enumerate the tax on income from sources that Pollack required Congress to treat as a direct tax. None what-so-ever. The only difference is that my model makes it easier to picture what is going on.


Your model makes it easier to be made as a mark by con men and frauds. The effect on the law is that any non apportioned tax on income is an indirect tax, not on income as property, but where income is merely used to measure how much tax is owed. The actual tax imposed would have to be on some specified activity, and the "activity of earning income" is not specified by the Code. When the Code wants to be clear, as in the activity of distilling and/or importing spirits, or the manufacture of and/or importation of tobacco, it is remarkably clear and lucid. When it comes to the vast majority of other people duped into believing they have actually been made liable for a tax, there is not clear, concise language that explains how this happened.




This difference is exactly the same as the difference between saying the Sun orbits the Earth or the Earth orbits the Sun. If you are only talking about those two heavenly bodies it makes no difference what-so-ever, except that since the center of gravity of the orbit is actually inside the radius of the Sun, it is a lot simpler to talk about it as the Earth orbiting the Sun.


Are you serious? Are you suggesting that Galileo's advocacy of a heliocentric solar system was all for not, and his trial and house arrest could have simply been avoided if only he had the wisdom to view the universe as you do? It makes all the difference in the world, (no pun intended), whether the tax is a direct tax on property, or an indirect tax on some specified activity.




So have it your way, I don't need to talk about the third class of taxation, and you can stop using it to deflect from answering the other points you don't have an answer for.


Good! Let us both agree then, that there is not any "third class of taxation", and there is now, as there has been since the implementation of The Constitution only two classes of taxation, direct, and indirect, and the rules regarding these forms of taxation remain the same as they did when they were written, and all the 16th Amendment accomplished was to ensure that any non apportioned tax Congress levied upon income was to be viewed as an indirect tax, and not a direct tax.




Once again, I have not changed my stance at any point.


You most certainly have changed your stance, and when called on it, you equivocate.

Continued...



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


Here is a prime example of your equivocation:




It turns out that Congress has written an income tax law that treats all income, no matter the source, in the same way it treats something that would otherwise be subject to an indirect tax. At no place have I ever said anything different.


As it turns out, Congress has written an income tax law that treats all income, (and your constant nattering on "no matter the source" is fairly well covered in all income), as an indirect tax, which is why the tax code is uniform in its nature.




The 16th Amendment has no effect on the treatment of an income tax on wages or professional income and the like, which before the 16th Amendment would always be considered as an indirect tax and after the 16th Amendment is still treated in exactly the same way, that is without reference to apportionment or enumeration.


Thank you for that breath of fresh air, void of any deception or equivocation what-so-ever. You are correct that 16th Amendment has no effect on wages or professional income. Congress most assuredly has the authority to name any specific wage or professional income as an activity that becomes a taxed event. To the best of my knowledge, Congress has not named numerous wages and professional activities as some sort of taxed event. The act of washing dishes in a restaurant, for example, is not a taxed event. The act of landscaping, as another example, is not a taxed event. The act of woodworking, or construction, or architecture, are not taxed events. What has not been named as taxed events far outweighs all that has been named as taxed events within the tax as it is written today.




The 16th Amendment does have an effect on income tax on property rental or interest or the like, which since Pollack had to be considered as a direct tax and apportioned according to the Constitutional provisions for a direct tax, and after the 16th Amendment is now treated differently, that is there is is no longer any need to use the apportionment and enumeration treatment when levying a tax on income from personal property.


The effect the 16th Amendment had on property rentals, or interest or dividends, that any tax not apportioned on these events, must be viewed as an indirect tax, and of course, as an indirect tax, such tax is subject to the rule of uniformity just as all other indirect taxes are.




It is this last provision, and this last provision only, that the 16th Amendment addresses. Income from any source, wages or professional, rental or interest, can receive the same treatment in an Income Tax. The concepts of an indirect tax treatment or a direct tax treatment have no meaning in a discussion of an income tax after the 16th Amendment. Income is income. Period.


The concept of an indirect tax that functions under the rule of uniformity most assuredly does have meaning since the 16th Amendment, and the meaning is that as an indirect tax, it is not income that is the subject of the tax, but what is the subject of the tax is some taxed activity. Distilling and/or importing spirits is a taxed activity. Manufacturing and/or importing tobacco is a taxed activity. When engaging in such an activity, it is not the income earned from such activity that is being taxed, but the activity itself, and income is what is used to measure how much tax is owed. That is the meaning in a discussion of income tax after the 16th Amendment. Explanation mark!




And that has been my consistent argument in this entire thread. It is exactly my argument in every post, and your lying about some non-existent change of stance doesn't change the words in every post I've made that are available for the other one persons still interested in our argument to read at their leisure.


Your change is not non existent, and for sure, the more you were backed into a corner, you finally began backpedaling with this was "your opinion", or an "opinion" qualified with INAL, which is hardly the surefooted assertions you were making to begin with. Your equivocations now don't change this in anyway.




I don't like calling people liars, even when they have earned it. But I am frankly sick of you calling me a liar when you don't even have the intellectual fortitude to advance your own argument.


You are willfully ignoring the argument I am advancing, and that is that the so called "income tax", (a qualification I have often made, carefully placing quotations marks around the term "income tax" to make clear it is such in name only), is an indirect tax on some specified activity where income is then used to measure how much is owed. It is you who has earned the label of liar, as you continue to do it even now!

Here is another example of your lying:




I still don't know what your argument on the topic is because you refuse to address it, consistently deflecting onto something else entirely, like "The Red Badge of Courage" or something.


I have made my argument. If you insist on ignoring that argument, this is your choice. It was not I who deflected with the Red Badge of Courage, that was a direct response to your deflection of claiming your interpretation of Chief Justice Whites language was necessary because he spoke a different language than we do today. I took the time to illustrate that the language spoken today is not fundamentally different from the language spoken then, and what is really telling is how you have completely sidestepped my comparison of the language of Citizens United to Brushaber. That's equivocation.




You refuse to defend several assertions you have made, presumably because you can't, and instead continue to attack the description I made of the effect of the 16th, a description which does not in any way affect the discussion of those effects, other than simplify them for general consumption, and so is a pointless attack because I have already conceded the point as irrelevant in order to allow you to get past it.


Yet another lie! I have absolutely defended my assertion that the so called "income tax" is an indirect tax where income is used to measure how much tax is owed, and I have not only relied upon Brushaber and Stanton to defend my position, I have relied upon the Congressional House Record of March 27, 1943, yet another citation you chose to ignore in order to advance your lies now.




So try again with something substantive.


You keep ignoring it! Pretending I haven't offered substantive authority doesn't make it so.




In your post to Daddio, you implied that somehow Congress doesn't have the authority to impose an income tax.


I made no such implication, and at best you are inferring this, but given your sequential series of lies just now told, I suspect you have not inferred this and are once again lying.




Perhaps you could expand on this argument. You have said in an earlier posts that Congress has always had the authority to tax incomes, so why have you changed your stance?


Instead of asking me to guess at what you are referring to, which is based upon deception, why don't you quote specifically where I changed my stance and argued that Congress did not have the authority to tax income. I dare you. I double dare you!




Were you lying then, or lying now?


Show me the lie, rnaa! What manner of dis ingenuousness is this, where you must necessarily avoid quoting this so called lie, in order to declare it a lie? Who do you expect to fool with this nonsense?



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 02:56 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 





I was almost going to let this pass. But I really am tired of you lying about me, and calling me a liar.


Uh-huh. Well okay, let's take a look at what you have done. You take something I said and quote it as such:




The never properly ratified argument is a losing argument when it comes to tax liability. The primary problem with the never properly ratified argument is it plays into rnaa's argument that the 16th Amendment made people liable for an income tax.


However, these are the exact words I used in the full context of that remark:




The never properly ratified argument is a losing argument when it comes to tax liability. The primary problem with the never properly ratified argument is it plays into rnaa's argument that the 16th Amendment made people liable for an income tax. Of course, this is not precisely what rnaa is arguing, however, he is arguing that the 16th Amendment created a new classification of taxation not subject to the rule of apportionment, nor the rule of uniformity.


Why is it you felt compelled to leave out the rest of that paragraph in order to make it appear as if I am lying? You have in fact, argued that the 16th Amendment created a new classification of taxation not subject to the rule of apportionment, nor the rule of uniformity, or to be more precise, have argued that neither direct or indirect have any meaning since the 16th Amendment. You have made this argument time and time again, even when equivocating and changing your stance, do you make this argument, and if it were true, that neither direct, or indirect taxation have any meaning since the 16th Amendment, then what must be true is that, as you have argued, a third class of taxation was created, where income functions free of any Constitutional restraint, and under those circumstances then Congress is free to tax income however they see fit and irregardless of any rules, and as such then the 16th Amendment "in effect" made all people who earn income liable for an "income tax", all of which is untrue.

Your willingness to outright lie, to equivocate, and subvert the truth is astounding.




It is not and never has been my assertion that the 16th Amendment gave Congress the authority to levy an income tax or (to use the words you seem to think have some magic difference about them) 'to make people liable for an income tax'.


You want to make light of legal terms such as "made liable for"? Something makes people liable for an "income tax" and if it isn't income, then what the hell is it?




For the umpteenth time: Congress has always had the authority to levy an income tax. After Pollack, Congress has had to treat income from some sources differently than income from other sources. The 16th Amendment allows them to treat all income in exactly the same way, no matter what the source. That is all the 16th Amendment does, it does no more than that.


And those are your "magic words", aren't they; "no matter what the source", as if this phrase somehow does what? What do you hope to accomplish by relying on this phrase ad nauseum? What about this phrase do you think has "in effect" accomplished something? Something has to make people liable for a tax. If it is a direct tax, it is either a capitation tax, or a tax on property that makes people liable for a tax. If it is an indirect tax, it is some sort of taxed activity that makes people liable for a tax. What taxed activity makes a farmer liable for the so called "income tax"?




I have said that in every post, and you seem to not be able to read it.


You equivocate in between outright lies. I certainly get that.




Are you mentally disabled from understanding the words you read, a congenital liar, or merely a troll trying to take the piss out of your readers?


You sir, are the liar. Your mental ability is greatly undermined by your constant lying, and it is you who jumped into this thread and began to troll, and I was not the first to call you a liar, the O.P. was very quick to call you on that.

[edit on 8-9-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 




Deflective and silly?


Yes. More than half your post is talking about everything except your argument.



My argument, since you insist on being so dense about it, is precisely this: The 16th Amendment forced the courts, and by way of the courts, the rest of us, to view any non apportioned tax on income as an indirect tax upon some specific activity. I have made this argument several times in this thread. I made the argument here, and here.


Then why don't you address the argument instead of rambling out over the hill and down the dale.

Where exactly in the words of the 16th amendment does it say anything about the courts? I can see the words "Congress shall have the power", I don't see the words "The courts must view". Please enlighten us all.



The effect on the law is that any non apportioned tax on income is an indirect tax, not on income as property, but where income is merely used to measure how much tax is owed.


Again, if this is your argument, address it, justify it, stop deflecting off into never never land.

I don't see those words or sentiment in the Amendment. I see the words "from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration". I cannot see how that magically transforms direct taxes into an indirect tax, only that Congress is allowed to treat a tax on income that would, under Pollack be considered a direct tax in the same was that it treats a tax on income that has always been considered indirect.



The actual tax imposed would have to be on some specified activity, and the "activity of earning income" is not specified by the Code.


You have said that Congress has always had the power to tax income. In what way does the 16th Amendment remove that power?



It makes all the difference in the world, (no pun intended), whether the tax is a direct tax on property, or an indirect tax on some specified activity.


No it doesn't. And the 16th Amendment says so. Income is income, no matter how it is derived. Wage income is income. Rental Income is income. Pollack says they are different. The 16th Amendment says they can be treated in the same way.

After Pollack and before the 16th amendment, Wage income could be taxed without apportionment of enumeration, it is an indirect tax; a tax on Rental Income is a direct tax would have to have been apportioned. A wage earner that rented out a room in his house had two different kinds of income, and for a tax to 'see' all that income, it would have to be taxed in two different manners.

The 16th lifted this anomaly so that all income, from whatever source is treated in exactly the same way. The wage earner has income from his wage, and he has income from his room rental, he adds them together to get his total income.



and all the 16th Amendment accomplished was to ensure that any non apportioned tax Congress levied upon income was to be viewed as an indirect tax, and not a direct tax.


I was with you until you got there. It is not correct, and cannot be spun as correct. The 16th Amendment allowed Congress to levy an income tax on any income no matter what the source and not apportion it. The 16th amendment didn't affect income tax on income that was already within reach of its power to levy indirect taxes. It relieved Congress of the requirement to apportion an income tax on income that was within reach of its power to levy a direct tax.

Some income was within reach of an indirect tax, and some income was within reach of a direct tax. The 16th allowed them to be treated the same way, not transform them into something else.

Your claim that somehow an income tax on rental or interest income was transformed into an indirect tax by the 16th amendment is exactly as problematic as me claiming that in effect a third class of tax was created.



You most certainly have changed your stance, and when called on it, you equivocate.


Nope



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 03:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 





Thank you for that breath of fresh air, void of any deception or equivocation what-so-ever. You are correct that 16th Amendment has no effect on wages or professional income. Congress most assuredly has the authority to name any specific wage or professional income as an activity that becomes a taxed event. To the best of my knowledge, Congress has not named numerous wages and professional activities as some sort of taxed event. The act of washing dishes in a restaurant, for example, is not a taxed event. The act of landscaping, as another example, is not a taxed event. The act of woodworking, or construction, or architecture, are not taxed events. What has not been named as taxed events far outweighs all that has been named as taxed events within the tax as it is written today.


The income tax law is taxing income. Income is an increase in assets.

The income tax law does not need to list every possible source of income, because the 16th Amendment says that The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived....

You are being flippantly derisive of those words, but they are the Constitutional provision that is applicable. Income is income, from whatever source derived. To the best of my knowledge, wages and professional activities are a source of income. Washing dishes in a restaurant, for example, is a source of income for some people. The act of landscaping, is a source of income for some people. What has not be named as taxed events is defined by the words in the Constitution: from whatever source derived.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 03:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 




Why is it you felt compelled to leave out the rest of that paragraph in order to make it appear as if I am lying?


Because that was the part of the paragraph that lied about my argument. The other sentence was not a lie.

Do you feel guilty about lying even when you are telling the truth? The simple solution to that is to avoid telling lies, then you don't have to worry about remembering what lies you are telling and getting caught out.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 04:16 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 





Yes. More than half your post is talking about everything except your argument.


Yet more deflection buried in deception from you! Again, you take a small portion of what I said, and quote that, in order to advance your own lies. You brought the so called language differences into this debate, not I, I merely took the time to demonstrate that the differences of language between 1916 and today, are not substantially different. Yet, when confronted with this reality, what do you do? Deflect!




Then why don't you address the argument instead of rambling out over the hill and down the dale.


I have addressed the argument, and long before you deflected with your pathetic attempt to claim the "late Victorian" language of 1916 was different than the language we use today, and still, instead of addressing my argument, what do you do thus far? Deflect of course!




Where exactly in the words of the 16th amendment does it say anything about the courts? I can see the words "Congress shall have the power", I don't see the words "The courts must view". Please enlighten us all.


Where exactly in the Constitution does it grant the courts the power of judicial review? That would be the same judicial review that was being used in the matter of Brushaber and Stanton.




Again, if this is your argument, address it, justify it, stop deflecting off into never never land.


This coming directly after your disingenuous question of the courts mentioned in the 16th Amendment, and of course, still ignoring the fact that I have addressed my argument by relying on Brushaber, Stanton, and The Congressional House Record of March 27, 1943, as well as the fact that the tax code as written today is a uniform tax completely harmonious with the rule of uniformity.

You have created another post where you refuse to speak to the House Congressional Record of 1943 and what it states, you are not addressing my argument, and instead rely on the language of the 16th Amendment, as a deflection of my argument, claiming because the 16th Amendment doesn't state what I argue, it must not be true. Here is your disingenuous statement in your own words:




I don't see those words or sentiment in the Amendment. I see the words "from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration". I cannot see how that magically transforms direct taxes into an indirect tax, only that Congress is allowed to treat a tax on income that would, under Pollack be considered a direct tax in the same was that it treats a tax on income that has always been considered indirect.


There is no magic to it at all, you mystical priest class sycophant, it is simple logic. If a tax is imposed without apportionment, and without any regard for enumeration, then it is clearly not a direct tax, and given there are only two classes of taxation, than any non apportioned tax, without regard for enumeration levied upon income must be an indirect tax. I certainly don't see in the 16th Amendment where Congress has stated they are inventing a third class of taxation, do you?




You have said that Congress has always had the power to tax income. In what way does the 16th Amendment remove that power?


It doesn't, it removes the power from the courts to view such a tax as anything other than an indirect tax.




No it doesn't. And the 16th Amendment says so. Income is income, no matter how it is derived. Wage income is income. Rental Income is income. Pollack says they are different. The 16th Amendment says they can be treated in the same way.


As an indirect tax, and not a direct one.




After Pollack and before the 16th amendment, Wage income could be taxed without apportionment of enumeration, it is an indirect tax; a tax on Rental Income is a direct tax would have to have been apportioned. A wage earner that rented out a room in his house had two different kinds of income, and for a tax to 'see' all that income, it would have to be taxed in two different manners.


Now all of it is to be viewed as an indirect tax, not some "third class of taxation", but as an indirect tax!




The 16th lifted this anomaly so that all income, from whatever source is treated in exactly the same way. The wage earner has income from his wage, and he has income from his room rental, he adds them together to get his total income.


Now you are lying again. The 16th Amendment certainly doesn't say any of that, neither does Brushaber, nor Stanton, and the code itself certainly doesn't say any such thing, so where are you getting this from? Address this argument with a credible source, and by credible, I mean a statute, or Supreme Court ruling that would support your contention, not with you rephrasing what the Supreme Court, but with language that actually states this.

The total of a persons income is irrelevant, unless there has been some specific activity named by the Code that compels a tax collector to total the income.




I was with you until you got there. It is not correct, and cannot be spun as correct. The 16th Amendment allowed Congress to levy an income tax on any income no matter what the source and not apportion it.


Congress all ready had the authority to do this, before the Pollack ruling, and now again after the 16th Amendment, they had this authority by taxing income as a measurement on a specific activity, where income is not the subject of the tax, and there is no language within the 16th Amendment declaring income the subject of any tax.




The 16th amendment didn't affect income tax on income that was already within reach of its power to levy indirect taxes. It relieved Congress of the requirement to apportion an income tax on income that was within reach of its power to levy a direct tax.


No it did not, it relieved the courts of any authority to view such a tax as anything other than an indirect tax.




Some income was within reach of an indirect tax, and some income was within reach of a direct tax. The 16th allowed them to be treated the same way, not transform them into something else.


All income was, and still is within the reach of both direct and indirect taxation, and if Congress so chooses to tax income directly, they can still do so regardless of what the 16th Amendment says. They must, however, if taxing income directly apportion it according to the rules of apportionment written in the Constitution. Apportionment is too difficult a task on such a thing as income, which was why the Revenue Act of 1861 was repealed and replaced with the Revenue Act of 1862. The Revenue act of `1861 was a direct tax on income apportioned among the several states.

When taxing income directly as property, "from whatever source derived" becomes irrelevant, as it is the property of income being taxed, and where that income was gained is moot.




Your claim that somehow an income tax on rental or interest income was transformed into an indirect tax by the 16th amendment is exactly as problematic as me claiming that in effect a third class of tax was created.


No, it is not. Congress responded directly to Pollack by asserting their own authority, and made clear that they could, if they so chose, to tax incomes on rents, dividends, and interests, indirectly and subject to the rule of uniformity if they wanted to, and told future courts that this is precisely how any non apportioned tax levied upon income, from whatever source derived, must now be viewed. If it were a direct tax on income as property, then where this income was derived just doesn't matter, as it is most assuredly subject to the rule of apportionment. When not subject to the rule of apportionment, it is not then, a direct tax on property, but is by its nature an excise tax, subject to the rule of uniformity, and in light of the Pollack ruling, now from whatever source derived has meaning.




Nope


Yep.





new topics
 
38
<< 20  21  22    24 >>

log in

join