Common law is based in natural law and, in turn, is the foundation for civil law. Thus a statute is not necessarily a 'law' when it comes to the People.
Please help me here. What exactly is your point? Does it matter what we call a law. If the law exists, it exists. If it is unconstitutional, then challenge it. Do you have any rational point here?
You act like you know what your saying, but asking a question that has already been answered gives you away.
I think I'm sitting in the middle of the real Cuckoo's Nest, here on this thread.
I consider the war of America against Britain as the country's war, the public's war, or the war of the people in their own behalf, for the security of their natural rights, and the protection of their own property. Thomas Paine, On Financing the War, 1782
OK, maybe we're getting somewhere finally. How does this relate to the constitutionality of the income tax?
A legal document cannot contradict itself. Section 8 denotes the type of taxes the federal government has the authority to impose. If the 16th had the ability to operate in law in the manner you suggest, Article 1 section 8 would have to have been repealed.
A constitutional amendment has the same force and effect as the original document. And the 16th Amendment made it clear that the impact was to dismiss the distinctions between direct and indirect. I don't know where you learned that an article within the Constitution couldn't be amended.
These taxes were to be imposed on the States and in the manner specified....NOT the People. This was not changed since the 16th conferred no new powers of taxation.
Congress did not gain any new power to tax. It always had the power to lay and collect taxes and other revenues. The amendment merely changed the character of income with respect to direct v: indirect, eliminating the distinction and making clear that the Congress could lay and collect taxes on income from whatever source derived, without apportionment or enumeration. It is one of the clearest of the amendments.
A GAIN implies MORE than what you had before. Since you barter your labor for wages, there is no 'gain', it is an equitable exchange (i.e. private contract)
Not so. Your labor may have value, but the determination of income is based on cost, not value. Since your labor has no cost associated with it, all revenue received in return is gain, and is taxable. Any costs you can show may be deductible from the revenue.
According to your definition, no income ever occurs, since any exchange between consenting parties involves items representing a fair value. The key is the increase in wealth. If I sell a book for $100, its pretty safe to say the book is worth $100. By your definition, the transaction cancels out tax-wise. But the IRS wants to know how much you paid for the book, the difference being your gain, and presumptive increase in wealth. That is income.
I notice your still not sourcing anything to back up your assertions.
No, I just make everything up as I go along. I'm not going to do your homework for you. If I reference a specific law or case, I will refer to it. As to a general discussion of the meaning of income, you can go to the IRS website. Or you can go and get one of the tax protester's books and read. It will help them make bail.
Your just repeating the mantra of the mind-numbed robot- "They can tax us because they say they can"..."They can tax us because they say they can"..."They can tax us because they say they can"...
Yes, I just can't find the intellectual wherewithal to keep up. You guys are just too good for me.
I guess it's safe to say you don't pay any of those illegal income taxes...?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is a cost to every action (labor): it's called opportunity cost. I learned this in basic microeconomics.
So there is a cost involved with every action, although it may not be a monetary cost. Consider this: for an action, you may profit through receipt of goods, products, and services (tangibles) as well as non-tangible benefits. Right now, if I receive a gift card from an employer, according to the IRS, I must report its fair market value and pay income tax on that value.
What if the IRS were to require U.S. citizens to place a fair market value on non-tangible profits and benefits from all activities, e.g., if I read a book and learn something new, I must report some "fair market value" for that learning and pay tax on that value? The definition of "income" is so murky that I can certainly see this happening eventually.
Thus, the income tax would essentially be a tax on the act of being alive.
Taxing an individual simply for being alive is arguably equivalent to depriving that individual of his rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (as manifested in the right to personal property). That, by definition, is tyranny.