Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, WRM, Judge Gould certainly did not do his job since he relied on a previous Supreme Court ruling, Springer v. United States, 1881, to define the constitutional meaning of a direct tax which was fatally flawed, as I documented for you in THIS POST
So, WRM, I have a pertinent question for you. Since our Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed that any direct tax laid by Congress, regardless of the Sixteenth Amendment [See: EISNER v. MACOMBER , 252 U.S. 189 (1920), BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929), and National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012)], requires the protection of apportionment to be applied, is today’s federal tax which is taken from a working person’s earn wage when selling their labor a direct tax, and thus requires the protection of apportionment to be applied?
.
What is this garbage about selling labor? I've already refuted your claims on that. The 16th Amendment allows for an income tax regardless of what the source of the income is. And since Congress gets to define what constitutes income, the tax is legal.
That is absolutely correct. Unfortunately, WRM ignores that fact and embraces an unfettered way to suck every thin dime out of America's working-class citizens and their businesses, in order to spend money on communist social programs not authorized under the list of particulars found beneath Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, for which Congress is authorized tax and spend in promoting the common defense and general welfare of the United States.
And, with regard to FDR, let us not forget FDR, like the current conniving Democrat Party Leadership, took advantage of WWII to impose the Temporary Victory Tax of 1942/3 which imposed a new and unconstitutional, un-apportioned direct tax on working people's earned wages, which is essentially still being collected today in spite of it being an unconstitutional tax.
...
If the tax is not Constitutional, why is it still in place after 80 years? Don't you think someone would have litigated that over that time span? If you think the tax doesn't meet Constitutional requirements, why haven't you hired a lawyer to take it through the courts?
No, WRM. Congress does not get to define income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRM20
What is this garbage about selling labor? I've already refuted your claims on that. The 16th Amendment allows for an income tax regardless of what the source of the income is. And since Congress gets to define what constitutes income, the tax is legal.
If the tax is not Constitutional, why is it still in place after 80 years? Don't you think someone would have litigated that over that time span? If you think the tax doesn't meet Constitutional requirements, why haven't you hired a lawyer to take it through the courts?
"If someone is litigating a $15,000 tax bill to the Supreme Court, they are either very rich or someone is funding the litigation, which is well into 6 figures by now. It is very unusual for individuals facing a $15,000 tax bill to start litigating. Corporations might do it, to prove a point, but ordinary citizens seldom do that. Remember, I told you that if you litigate the constitutionality of the income tax you need to bring a lot of money."
.
Why do you continually deflect to nonsense which has already been addressed?
Direct taxes are still required to be apportioned, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRM20
The 16th Amendment allows Congress to impose a tax on incomes, without apportionment, and from whatever source. That includes the undistributed earnings of corporations in other countries that are controlled by US persons.
In EISNER v. MACOMBER , 252 U.S. 189 (1920), the source was a stock dividend, and a tax was imposed on $19,877 income derived therefrom, but it was held to be a direct tax and requiring apportionment.
The fact is, our Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed that direct taxes are still required to be apportioned, see: EISNER v. MACOMBER , 252 U.S. 189 (1920), BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929), and, National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012)
The 16th Amendment allows Congress to impose a tax on incomes, without apportionment, and from whatever source. That includes the undistributed earnings of corporations in other countries that are controlled by US persons.
Aside from what you state above, the Sixteenth Amendment does not read:
”The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
Nor is there any amendment which reads:
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on earned wages, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
But the Constitution does state:
Art. I, § 2, Cl. 3 "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States . . . "
Art. I, § 9, Cl. 4 "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."
The tax on the Moores' certainly falls withing the meaning of a direct tax, and not being apportioned it violates our Constitution's protection requiring direct taxes to be apportioned.
Aside from what you state above, the Sixteenth Amendment does not read:
”The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
Nor is there any amendment which reads:
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on earned wages, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
But the Constitution does state:
Art. I, § 2, Cl. 3 "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States . . . "
Art. I, § 9, Cl. 4 "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."
The tax on the Moores' certainly falls withing the meaning of a direct tax, and not being apportioned it violates our Constitution's protection requiring direct taxes to be apportioned.
.
Congress gets to determine what constitutes income for tax purposes. SCOTUS may disagree, but that's rare.
If you don't think Congress is correct, open up your moneybags and start litigating. That would be far more productive than trying to convince me of something that I will never agree with.
Why do you find it necessary to continually post unsubstantiated opinions, and ignore facts when they are posted and substantiated? Should we not use the forums’ given opportunity to engage in a productive dialogue and seek truth and facts?
Why do you find it necessary to continually post unsubstantiated opinions, and ignore facts when they are posted and substantiated? Should we not use the forums’ given opportunity to engage in a productive dialogue and seek truth and facts?
.
I am productive. I am countering the arguments you make that have no basis in current reality.
Congress can call anything it wants as income in tax law. If someone challenges that in the courts, the courts have the chance to tell Congress that the law was not written correctly. That's how businesses don't get to write off property immediately, but have to depreciate it over a defined period. And how US persons can be taxed on undistributed income of foreign corporations controlled by US persons. In some instances, Congress delegates the detailed definition to the IRS by telling the IRS to develop suitable regulations to enforce the law.
The Humpty Dumpty meaning of incomes advocated by WRM
The Humpty Dumpty meaning of incomes, advocated by WRM
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRM20
I am productive. I am countering the arguments you make that have no basis in current reality.
Congress can call anything it wants as income in tax law. If someone challenges that in the courts, the courts have the chance to tell Congress that the law was not written correctly. That's how businesses don't get to write off property immediately, but have to depreciate it over a defined period. And how US persons can be taxed on undistributed income of foreign corporations controlled by US persons. In some instances, Congress delegates the detailed definition to the IRS by telling the IRS to develop suitable regulations to enforce the law.
Your suggestion that "Congress gets to determine what constitutes income. . . " is factually incorrect and emphatically rejected by our Supreme Court:
"In order, therefore, that the clauses cited from Article I of the Constitution may have proper force and effect, save only as modified by the Amendment, and that the latter also may have proper effect, it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not "income," as the term is there used; and to apply the distinction, as cases arise, according to truth and substance, without regard to form. Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised." ___ See Eisner vs Macomber.
If Congress were allowed to define the meaning of "incomes" within the Sixteenth Amendment, Congress would then have the omnipotent authority to apply the Humpty Dumpty theory of language to taxation:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master-that’s all.”
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, WRM. Congress does not get to define income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment
