It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Before the 16th amendment, Income tax on wages is an indirect tax, income tax on Rent, Dividends, Interest, and other property related income is a Direct Tax.
The 16th Amendment empowers Congress to impose income tax on all income no matter what the source without apportionment or regard to enumeration. What is your problem with that?
The terms direct and indirect no longer have relevant meaning with regard to income from any source.
Income from what ever source is Income and can be taxed without reference to any other provision in the Constitution other than the 16th Amendment.
Period. End of story. Pay your taxes, OK?
If you don't engage in an activity an earn an income from it then you don't have any tax to pay on that income you didn't earn.
Is that even an argument?
It is voluntary in the sense that 'We the People' have given consent to our Government to impose that tax. No tax is voluntary once imposed, period.
And before you cite me for overreaching again, even in your sense of voluntary, where you can avoid paying a tax by not engaging in an activity, the tax is not imposed until you actually engage in that activity. Then once imposed, the tax is not voluntary.
In other words, if you don't distill Whiskey, then you are not subject to the distillers tax and no such tax will be imposed. If you do distill Whiskey, you are subject to the distillers tax, such a tax will be imposed, and paying the imposed tax is not voluntary.
Do we really have to keep twisting this ad infinitum? It doesn't affect your argument against income tax because the 16th Amendment made Income a separate class of taxation, with its own rules separate from other tax provisions in the Constitution.
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.
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!
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.
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 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.
Your argument that the 16th Amendment created a third classification of taxes is wholly without foundation!
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
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]
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:
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,...
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.
If you mean on, as in regard to, or as a measurement of, then this is true, if you mean on as income as property then this is false.
Tax on Rent Income, Dividend Income, etc did need to be apportioned and enumerated before the 16th and do not need to be so after the 16th.
You would be hard pressed to prove that point.
The exact accomplishment of the 16th Amendment was that it forced all courts to view any non apportioned tax on income as an indirect tax and not a direct tax. This has been well established by Brushaber, Stanton and several other rulings.
Which part of the 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Do you have any capacity for a coherent argument, or are you just typing to keep your fingers warm?
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 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).
Oh please! It is not as if they spoke Elizabethan in the early 20th Century.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Once again, I have not changed my stance at any point.
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?
I was almost going to let this pass. But I really am tired of you lying about me, and calling me a liar.
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.
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.
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?
Deflective and silly?
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.
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.
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.
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.
You most certainly have changed your stance, and when called on it, you equivocate.
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.
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?
Yes. More than half your post is talking about everything except your argument.
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.
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.
You have said that Congress has always had the power to tax income. In what way does the 16th Amendment remove that power?
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.
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.
Nope