Posted on 09/01/2003 4:10:28 PM PDT by TIElniff
By the way what is the definition of "is".
With all that has been written in this forum you are not even a contender.
Please sit down.
According to "minion" AKA god I'm dumb and stupid. So that has already been established and affirmed by congress and the president.
What happens though when the "dumb" and "stupid" make god look dumb and stupid? Somebody else wants to take god's place. Is it your turn god?
By the way what is the definition of "is".
With all that has been written in this forum you are not even a contender.
Please sit down.
According to "minion" AKA god I'm dumb and stupid. So that has already been established and affirmed by congress and the president.
What happens though when the "dumb" and "stupid" make god look dumb and stupid? Somebody else wants to take god's place. Is it your turn god?
Actually, they do--they refer to the existing case law.
They simply eviscerate his legal theory and then move on with the rest of the case.
And they eviscerate it by citing the cases where those arguments had already failed.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FRANK K. BOWERS, Collector of Internal Revenue v. KERBAUGH-EMPIRE CO.
Docket: 173 Filed May 3, 1926
< Snip> The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes' on income, "from whatever source derived" without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It was not the purpose or effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had power to tax all incomes. But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be "direct taxes" within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. Art. 1, section 2, cl. 3, section 9, cl. 4; Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601. The Amendment relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes "from whatever source derived." Brushaber v. Union Pac. R. R., 240 U.S. 1, 17. "Income" has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, in the Sixteenth Amendment, and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed. Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, 335; Merchants' L. & T. Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509, 519. After full consideration, this court declared that income may be defined as gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, including profit gained through sale or conversion of capital. Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415; Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185; Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207. And that definition has been adhered to and applied repeatedly. See, e.g., Merchants' L. & T. Co. v. Smietanka, supra, 518; Goodrich v. Edwards, 255 U.S. 527, 535; United States v. Phellis, 257 U.S. 156, 169; Miles v. Safe Deposit Co., 259 U.S. 247, 252, 253; United States v. Supplee-Biddle Co., 265 U.S. 189, 194; Irwin v. Gavit, 268 U.S. 161, 167; Edwards v. Cuba Railroad, 268 U.S. 628, 633. In determining what constitutes income substance rather than form is to be given controlling weight. Eisner v. Macomber, supra, 206.
I for one, fully support a national retail sales tax as a replacement for the income tax laws currently on the books. There is much to critique about the federal income tax.
By the way, federal judges rule against the IRS continually. They have no qualms about it, nor would they have any fear of being fired. I mean, really, look at the 9th Ciruit in SF. I have no doubts, that they would love to make some kind of political statement such as finding the income tax unconstitutional, especially with Republicans in office.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FRANK K. BOWERS, Collector of Internal Revenue v. KERBAUGH-EMPIRE CO.
Docket: 173 Filed May 3, 1926
< Snip> The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes' on income, "from whatever source derived" without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It was not the purpose or effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had power to tax all incomes. But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be "direct taxes" within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. Art. 1, section 2, cl. 3, section 9, cl. 4; Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601. The Amendment relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not,(those that are called "not" are excise taxes) and so put on the same basis all incomes "from whatever source derived." Brushaber v. Union Pac. R. R., 240 U.S. 1, 17. "Income" has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, in the Sixteenth Amendment, and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed. Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, 335; Merchants' L. & T. Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509, 519. After full consideration, this court declared that income may be defined as gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, including profit gained through sale or conversion of capital. Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415; Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185; Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207. And that definition has been adhered to and applied repeatedly. See, e.g., Merchants' L. & T. Co. v. Smietanka, supra, 518; Goodrich v. Edwards, 255 U.S. 527, 535; United States v. Phellis, 257 U.S. 156, 169; Miles v. Safe Deposit Co., 259 U.S. 247, 252, 253; United States v. Supplee-Biddle Co., 265 U.S. 189, 194; Irwin v. Gavit, 268 U.S. 161, 167; Edwards v. Cuba Railroad, 268 U.S. 628, 633. In determining what constitutes income substance rather than form is to be given controlling weight. Eisner v. Macomber, supra, 206.
There is no classification of tax in-between as you just confirmed further for me. This clearly says income is an excise tax. Not subject to apportionment, but subject to uniformity. Thank you very much. Do you have any others I can add to my list.
‘IRS management does what it wants, to whom it wants, when it wants, how it wants with almost complete immunity,’ retired Internal Revenue Service official Tommy Henderson told the U.S. Senate Finance Committee."
Did you skip right over this ?
Congress already had power to tax all incomes
Let me try an example. In order for someone to swallow what Shiff is selling they need to be a complete idiot. If finally they decide to reject what he taught, they are still complete idiots.
So, like the income tax. The income tax has NEVER been considered by the courts not to be a direct tax. Its still an income tax. Just like a TPer' is still an idiot.
When you are let free from the grasp that Satan has on you thru Shiff then you will be able to be free again. Until then you are a slave to self deceit.
Funny that not a single decision in these 90 years has found that taxing income from salaries and wages is unconstitutional.
It took a few years for Pollock to come around. A lie no matter how long it is portrayed or believed is still a lie.
"taxing income from salaries and wages is unconstitutional".
Let me clarify one point here. Taxing salaries and wages is constitutional when levied as an excise tax through uniformity. For the millionth time it is about the application and administration of this law.
Seems that pesky old 16th has withstood the test of time.
I hope the 16th stays around forever. The understanding of it has been severely challenged in this forum.
And lets be serious and not try parsing meanings.
As you know I'm very serious. The parsing of words was and is not my doing and not even your doing.
Of course, a tax on wages is a direct tax.
Yes, again that is how it is levied as a direct tax.
But since it's also income, that old 16th permits taxation without apportionment.
Yes it is income. No it is not supported anywhere in the law I quoted.
Where do I file for my refunds for these past years?
How about WWW.PAYNOINCOMETAX.COM. If you want a book that shows what the gubbermint has said and put in print about taxes the "Federal Mafia" is very good even if you don't agree with him. There is some awful embarrassing gubbermint documents that have been reproduced. I think I'd ban the book if I were the government. It's to revealing. If you get this book and still believe it's garbage keep it anyway. If the gubbermint allows the lifted ban to continue, well you can just sell that $38.00 book for up to $300.00 on ebay for those of you who are enterprising.
If you want historical content then the "Great Income Tax Hoax" is very good but a hard read.
But then maybe you're right.
If one thing I fault Schiff for he is eternally optimistic. I don't think anyone should jump and decide to thumb there nose at the gubbermint without understanding what they are doing or why. It may be a matter of timing. It may be that some shouldn't even try.
I do believe though that if you pay the bill you should know why. If you accept that you must go along, at least you knew there was a choice.
"Freedom is the ability to keep what you produce." Irwin Schiff.- "The Great Income Tax Hoax"
Congress already had power to tax all incomes
This is beyond redundant and sanity. Yes, that is extremely clear. Just as long as it is by apportionment or uniformity. The uniformity and apportionment provisions still exist. You can tax anything as long as it is by apportionment or uniformity. If I say this 10 more times will it make it any more clear as to my position.
You said the income tax was a direct tax. I didn't argue with you. I just asked why isn't it apportioned. You said because the SC said so. Well yes the USSC in every decision claims it's an excise tax so that is why it is not apportioned as is grossly clear by those decisions.
Now I'm "dumb" and "stupid". So what does that make you as you continue the way you are?
Show me where the SC say the income tax is an excise tax ? Hint: Saying the income tax is an excise tax is the most idiotic thing you have stated so far.
My apologies minion I didn't realize that you are not even a teenager. Let me help guide you to a more appropriate web site. http://disney.go.com This forum is for adults I think. You can' t play here anymore.
If this were true, it would not invalidate the income tax; "uniformity" doesn't preclude varying rates based on income. All the Constitution says is that excise taxes "shall be uniform throughout the United States." (Art. I, sec. 8). This only means that the tax rates can't vary from state to state, and they don't.
You must have missed this language from the Brushaber case you like to cite: "So far as these numerous and minute, not to say in many respects hypercritical, contentions are based upon an assumed violation of the uniformity clause, their want of legal merit is at once apparent, since it is settled that that clause exacts only a geographical uniformity, and there is not a semblance of ground in any of the propositions for assuming that a violation of such uniformity is complained of." Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1 (emphasis added).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.