Talk:Tax protester/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Tax protester. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
AfD results
This page was voted on for deletion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Tax protester. The final result was Keep. --Deathphoenix 03:48, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Axe to grind
It's obvious that the person who wrote it (and then further linked it with many articles regarding taxation), has a serious axe to grind though, and ignores any valid objections made by the opposing side. I'm sorry, but any article that refers to the people it is disparaging as "cranks" (and, more offensively, says the federal government sanctions this label) obviously has an agenda beyond genuine academic discourse. NPOV'd. Kade 18:31, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The article accurately reports that the IRS and the federal courts consider tax protestors to be "cranks" (although both branches may typically express the sentiment in more diplomatic terms). Every Federal Circuit Court has reported cases specifically excoriating the most common tax protester arguments, some quite harshly. The purportedly "valid objections made by the opposing side" have been addressed by the courts (and even by very conservative courts) and found to be invalid. If they hadn't, none of us would be paying taxes today! -- BD2412 talk 00:36, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
- BD2412... if you didn't actually have to pay, do you think they would tell you and risk losing a valuable revenue source? So long as we all go along with the game, so long as the only justification for paying taxes is "Don't we have to?", then there will never be a conclusion to this debate. JJ4sad6 August 17, 2005
- Actually, my justification is more like "if I don't pay my taxes, the government will put me in prison and confiscate my property." Which they will - I've seen it happen. It's rather futile to make semantic arguments about the inapplicability of the tax laws so long as the government divests and jails those who refuse to pay, as it has done with many, many persons who have actually raised such arguments. It may be unjust, especially with politicians from both parties lining their pockets and their buddies' pockets with our tax dollars, giving themselves midnight raises, giving their own companies exhorbitant no-bid contracts, etc. But the government is like a King - as long as enough people support it with enough force to keep the rest from opposing it, no amount of creativity in arguing against the tax laws will keep a tax protester out from behind bars. -- BD2412 talk 20:48, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Well, the fact is, IRS summonses have NO force of law unless backed up a federal court order. So simply not paying taxes will cause no ill effects. The government has to now tell you WHY you owe the money. Once they tell you why and it is legally justifiable (like a citation of the applicable section of law) and not just "Because you have to, because I pay my taxes, we all pay our taxes... why do you think you don't have to?", then if you ignore that court order, yeah, then you can be thrown in jail. FYI I used to work for the IRS, they don't have the resources to take us to court. They may be able to pick us off one by one as our taxes pile up, but in reality, they have the resources to take maybe 20,000 of us to court. JJ4sad6 August 17, 2005
- True, IRS summonses have no force of law - but the IRS can get a court order with about as much difficulty as I can make a ham sandwich. And the government can fairly easily cite the provision in the tax code (enacted and maintained by the Congress we elected) that says that we must pay a certain amount on a certain income - and as we're seeing now, conservative politicians are just as addicted to income tax dollars as liberals, so there's little chance of escaping it through political reform. And if enough people stopped paying taxes to put a pinch on government enforcement, they would find the resources to deprive all of us of liberty and property. Ergo, short of the traditional watering-of-the-tree-of-liberty, there are no sure things but death and taxes. -- BD2412 talk 01:13, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
- "the government can fairly easily cite the provision in the tax code ... that says that we must pay a certain amount on a certain income" And yet they haven't. In all these cases, they cite a penalty statute. I've read through a LOT of these cases, and in every case where the defendant asks to hear what law he is violating, the government merely states the penalty statute (Which is the "then this" part of the "If you do this... then this will happen to you" formula). Of often times, the judge won't even allow such questioning. The judge overrules the defendant often on the grounds of the argument "We all pay our taxes, that's the law." The thing is, in a court of law, a defendent must be charged with a violation of law. If I rob a store, I would be prosecuted under whatever city ordinance/state law covers robbery. I would be told "You are charged with violating section XX of the city charter/criminal code." But in these tax cases. That is lacking.JJ4sad6 August 17, 2005
- Well, I can't tell you why they don't cite the provision - maybe to the tax people, it's too obvious to bother saying (just as a airline pilot may be inclined to point out the Rocky Mountains, but would not mention that there are also clouds in the sky). In any event, 26 U.S.C. § 1 is titled "tax imposed," and the first paragraph states:
- True, IRS summonses have no force of law - but the IRS can get a court order with about as much difficulty as I can make a ham sandwich. And the government can fairly easily cite the provision in the tax code (enacted and maintained by the Congress we elected) that says that we must pay a certain amount on a certain income - and as we're seeing now, conservative politicians are just as addicted to income tax dollars as liberals, so there's little chance of escaping it through political reform. And if enough people stopped paying taxes to put a pinch on government enforcement, they would find the resources to deprive all of us of liberty and property. Ergo, short of the traditional watering-of-the-tree-of-liberty, there are no sure things but death and taxes. -- BD2412 talk 01:13, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Well, the fact is, IRS summonses have NO force of law unless backed up a federal court order. So simply not paying taxes will cause no ill effects. The government has to now tell you WHY you owe the money. Once they tell you why and it is legally justifiable (like a citation of the applicable section of law) and not just "Because you have to, because I pay my taxes, we all pay our taxes... why do you think you don't have to?", then if you ignore that court order, yeah, then you can be thrown in jail. FYI I used to work for the IRS, they don't have the resources to take us to court. They may be able to pick us off one by one as our taxes pile up, but in reality, they have the resources to take maybe 20,000 of us to court. JJ4sad6 August 17, 2005
- Actually, my justification is more like "if I don't pay my taxes, the government will put me in prison and confiscate my property." Which they will - I've seen it happen. It's rather futile to make semantic arguments about the inapplicability of the tax laws so long as the government divests and jails those who refuse to pay, as it has done with many, many persons who have actually raised such arguments. It may be unjust, especially with politicians from both parties lining their pockets and their buddies' pockets with our tax dollars, giving themselves midnight raises, giving their own companies exhorbitant no-bid contracts, etc. But the government is like a King - as long as enough people support it with enough force to keep the rest from opposing it, no amount of creativity in arguing against the tax laws will keep a tax protester out from behind bars. -- BD2412 talk 20:48, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
- BD2412... if you didn't actually have to pay, do you think they would tell you and risk losing a valuable revenue source? So long as we all go along with the game, so long as the only justification for paying taxes is "Don't we have to?", then there will never be a conclusion to this debate. JJ4sad6 August 17, 2005
- There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of --
- every married individual (as defined in § 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under § 6013, and
- every surviving spouse (as defined in § 2(a)), a tax determined in accordance with the following table...
- ...which is indeed followed by a table that shows how much tax is to assessed based on what amount of income. Similar tables are provided for the tax imposed on individuals, corporations, and trusts. These words imposing an income tax have been virtually unchanged since 1916 - written, enacted, and re-enacted by the Congress elected by (some) of the people, as part of a system to which we have surrendered some of our liberty in exchange for the seemingly elusive benefits of a federal government. Whether you agree with the imposition of the income tax or not, I assure you, it exists. -- BD2412 talk 03:38, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
- BD2412, I have the IRC right here. I looked up section 1, and it refers to taxable income. It tells you to look at section 63 for the definition of taxable income. You go to 63 and it tells you that taxable income is the gross income minus deductions. Then go to Part II (section 71 and on) for a list of all that is specifically included in gross income. You will not see Wages in that list. To be fair, you don't see it on the list for excluded income either (Part III section 101). So it looks like a very large loophole on the part of Congress. 01:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- Well, that's because income means income - i.e. any accession to wealth, no matter what the source. If you find money (or anything of value) on the street, that's income. If you are paid it in exchange for work, or property, or just out of someone's random kindness, that's income. If you own property, and it increases in value from one year to the next, that's income. You would have to come up with a pretty strange definition of income to exclude wages - and the fact is, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that income means everything that's not specifically excluded. Even Rehnquist and Scalia and Thomas have acceded to that view. Now, you could argue that the Court has a vested interest (as our taxes pay their salaries), but so do the folks who appoint/approve them (and most of them have so much money in the bank that they're beyond caring about taxes). So, we're back to the old axiom about watering the tree of liberty if you wish to correct the definition hewed to by the Court, because they have the last word on what Congress meant, and Congress has the last word as to what the law says. -- BD2412 talk 02:07, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
- BD2412, I have the IRC right here. I looked up section 1, and it refers to taxable income. It tells you to look at section 63 for the definition of taxable income. You go to 63 and it tells you that taxable income is the gross income minus deductions. Then go to Part II (section 71 and on) for a list of all that is specifically included in gross income. You will not see Wages in that list. To be fair, you don't see it on the list for excluded income either (Part III section 101). So it looks like a very large loophole on the part of Congress. 01:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- It says "taxable income". If your income isn't taxable it doesn't apply to you.--206.111.181.109 21:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)BB69
- Of course, you might also try looking at Section 61 (reproduced below). But I suppose it's just a conspiracy on the part of those corrupt judges on the Supreme Court to say that "including (but not limited to) the following items" means "including (but not limited to) the following items". And if you really think the Congress is spending money unwisely, you could vote for representatives who lower spending. And you might even consider not driving on taxpayer-subsidized roads, taking federally subsidized student loans, rely on the military, etc. — Mateo SA | talk 22:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- § 61. Gross income defined
- (a) General definition: Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
- (1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
- (2) Gross income derived from business;
- (3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
- (4) Interest;
- (5) Rents;
- (6) Royalties;
- (7) Dividends;
- (8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
- (9) Annuities;
- (10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
- (11) Pensions;
- (12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
- (13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
- (14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
- (15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.
- (b) Cross references: For items specifically included in gross income, see part II (sec. 71 and following). For items specifically excluded from gross income, see part III (sec. 101 and following).
- (a) General definition: Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
As you can see the General definition of gross income is income. You can't define a word using the same word. It makes it null and void. Keep looking for where it says Income is... and doesn't define it using the word income.
- Hi. We have dictionaries, and courts presume that legislatures use words with the most common dictionary meaning, unless the legislation specifies otherwise. If this were not the case, then every piece of legislation would have a disctionary appended to it, so that every word therein could be defined. For example, there's nothing in the Constitution that defines the term "apportionment", so how do you know what that use of the term means? BD2412 T 04:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
The courts have determined the constitutional meaning of the word income must be used meaning corporate profit or gain, not the common sense. Anything not defined in the constitution or IRC is decided in Supreme Court decisions. If you can't find a court case on apportionment it is the dictionary definition.
Edit made to article Added non spam necessary links and 16th Amendment Intent. Unclear as to Abramson's intent on what is to be clarified by "clarify" --bb69 17:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)BB69
- If you believe the things you've put in the article, I invite you to inform the IRS of all your financial gains, and that you will not be paying any taxes on them. It's unfair to advise people to act in a way that could land them in jail unless you can first demonstrate that the law is, in fact, what you believe it to be. BD2412 T 18:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
- I already have for the last 5 years. If it was against the law, I would be in jail already. I don't advise on things I wouldn't do myself or don't do already. It's unfair to misinform people and extort money from them and uphold that procedure.--bb69 19:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)BB69
- You've been in jail for the last 5 years? Seriously, you have reported your income to the IRS and told them that you're not going to pay any income tax? Are you a U.S. Citizen? Living in the U.S.? Do you actually have income (as defined by the 8-1 opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co. (1955), which is the Court's last word on the subject)? BD2412 T 20:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
- No, I've been free and reported zero income as the constitution states no direct taxes, or was that overturned? The constitution is the last word on direct taxation and that will never be overturned. Get it?--206.111.181.109 21:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)BB69
- So, in other words, you haven't been reporting your income and haven't gotten caught yet. In constitutional law, a "direct tax" generally means a property tax. The personal income tax is a tax on a transaction - the receiving of money - and not on the ownership of money, so it would be constitutional even if the 16th Amendment didn't exist. Consider it an exise tax on the selling of labor, if you want. CronoDAS 02:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- No, in the same words, I've been reporting how much income I've received, which is gain from my money and I have received none. A direct tax is a tax on wages, which is one reason the Constitution outlawed it and why the 16th Amendment goes along with that and only created income as unapportioned since it is not a direct tax. Congress rejected the idea of a direct tax on income. --bb69 21:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)BB
- Just so I'm clear on this... if you do a job, like painting a house or writing a column or teaching a seminar, and someone pays you, say $1,000 for doing that job, you don't tell the IRS that you received that $1,000, because of your belief that it is not "income" as the word is defined in the amendment? BD2412 T 22:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- correct--bb69 22:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)BB
- Tax protesters believe that when you are paid for a job it is an even exchange of services for money and not a "gain" on money such as capital gains. See http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf page 8 for the IRS response. - Tεxτurε 22:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- In the IRS Response, there is no refutation of information that I am advocating. It is merely the IRS play with words. It continues to say that income is the gain, like I'm saying and that the courts hold that up. --bb69 22:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)BB
- Actually it says (page 9 before relevant law) "All compensation for personal services, no matter what the form of payment, must be included in gross income. This includes salary or wages paid in cash" - Tεxτurε 22:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, all of those sources are included in gross income, which is the profit or gain FROM any of those sources--bb69 22:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)BB
- The IRS text disagrees with your interpretation, whether it be right or wrong. You make a distinction of "gain" on wages but you contradict your own position by doing so. If wages are an exchange for services then there is no gain by this definition. The IRS claims that all wages are gain (if you chose to use "gain" instead of income.) The positions of tax protester and IRS are mutually exclusive and do not overlap. To say that any income could have a "gain" over the service provided for it strays from standard tax protester claims and would open the door for the IRS to differ in what portion of the wages are "gain". - Tεxτurε 22:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Read it again. The IRS says Income is derived FROM these sources, not ARE these sources. The position is exactly the same as the protetestor in language. The IRS just chooses to extort the money from you anyways. --bb69 23:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)BB
- I won't argue that the IRS is extorting money from us. However, you are reading a distinction that isn't written. It gives no exemption from any portion of wages. (Please cite if you find one.) Any response to your contradiction? Are you saying that you can "gain" wages over what the service is worth? In that case you should be providing more than zero on your income tax statement as you evaluate the worth of your wages. Perhaps if you feel you are underpaid you can claim to have a "loss"? How do you justify the subjectiveness of your "gain" or "loss"? - Tεxτurε 23:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- I can see we won't agree, so why bother arguing over it? I clearly see it, and you don't. It clearly gives exemption from any portion directly ON the wages. It clearly states an INCOME(a profit) FROM the source(any source). What does that mean in reality? It means I get paid from my employer. Do I get a profit ON what my employer pays me, like a corporations profits or on a investment? No, because people don't get profits, corporations do, which is exactly what the Sixteenth Amendment was made for, and verified in Supreme Court Law. There is no contradiction. It is only being misapplied. --bb69 23:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)BB
- I won't argue that the IRS is extorting money from us. However, you are reading a distinction that isn't written. It gives no exemption from any portion of wages. (Please cite if you find one.) Any response to your contradiction? Are you saying that you can "gain" wages over what the service is worth? In that case you should be providing more than zero on your income tax statement as you evaluate the worth of your wages. Perhaps if you feel you are underpaid you can claim to have a "loss"? How do you justify the subjectiveness of your "gain" or "loss"? - Tεxτurε 23:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Read it again. The IRS says Income is derived FROM these sources, not ARE these sources. The position is exactly the same as the protetestor in language. The IRS just chooses to extort the money from you anyways. --bb69 23:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)BB
- The IRS text disagrees with your interpretation, whether it be right or wrong. You make a distinction of "gain" on wages but you contradict your own position by doing so. If wages are an exchange for services then there is no gain by this definition. The IRS claims that all wages are gain (if you chose to use "gain" instead of income.) The positions of tax protester and IRS are mutually exclusive and do not overlap. To say that any income could have a "gain" over the service provided for it strays from standard tax protester claims and would open the door for the IRS to differ in what portion of the wages are "gain". - Tεxτurε 22:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, all of those sources are included in gross income, which is the profit or gain FROM any of those sources--bb69 22:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)BB
- Actually it says (page 9 before relevant law) "All compensation for personal services, no matter what the form of payment, must be included in gross income. This includes salary or wages paid in cash" - Tεxτurε 22:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- In the IRS Response, there is no refutation of information that I am advocating. It is merely the IRS play with words. It continues to say that income is the gain, like I'm saying and that the courts hold that up. --bb69 22:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)BB
- Just so I'm clear on this... if you do a job, like painting a house or writing a column or teaching a seminar, and someone pays you, say $1,000 for doing that job, you don't tell the IRS that you received that $1,000, because of your belief that it is not "income" as the word is defined in the amendment? BD2412 T 22:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- No, in the same words, I've been reporting how much income I've received, which is gain from my money and I have received none. A direct tax is a tax on wages, which is one reason the Constitution outlawed it and why the 16th Amendment goes along with that and only created income as unapportioned since it is not a direct tax. Congress rejected the idea of a direct tax on income. --bb69 21:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)BB
- So, in other words, you haven't been reporting your income and haven't gotten caught yet. In constitutional law, a "direct tax" generally means a property tax. The personal income tax is a tax on a transaction - the receiving of money - and not on the ownership of money, so it would be constitutional even if the 16th Amendment didn't exist. Consider it an exise tax on the selling of labor, if you want. CronoDAS 02:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- No, I've been free and reported zero income as the constitution states no direct taxes, or was that overturned? The constitution is the last word on direct taxation and that will never be overturned. Get it?--206.111.181.109 21:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)BB69
- You've been in jail for the last 5 years? Seriously, you have reported your income to the IRS and told them that you're not going to pay any income tax? Are you a U.S. Citizen? Living in the U.S.? Do you actually have income (as defined by the 8-1 opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co. (1955), which is the Court's last word on the subject)? BD2412 T 20:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
- I already have for the last 5 years. If it was against the law, I would be in jail already. I don't advise on things I wouldn't do myself or don't do already. It's unfair to misinform people and extort money from them and uphold that procedure.--bb69 19:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)BB69
- (Realign discussion to left) You are basing your claim on defitions that aren't present. Where does income = profit? I'm only asking for a cite. Without that your claim has no basis. - Tεxτurε 23:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- "Lonsdale v. Commissioner, 661 F.2d 71, 72 (5th Cir. 1981) - the court rejected as meritless the taxpayer's contention that the exchange of services for money is a zero-sum transaction."
- "McCoy v. United States, 88 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 7116, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18986 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 16, 2001) - the court rejected the taxpayer's argument that wages received were not income and described this position as meritless."
- "Reading v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 730 (1978), aff'd, 614 F.2d 159 (8th Cir. 1980) - the court said the entire amount received from the sale of one's services constitutes income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment."
- Read below all the cases that say income means profit. --bb69 15:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)BB
- I love the term "time reinbursement transactions" used to avoid saying "income". - Tεxτurε 22:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Where did you see that?--bb69 22:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)BB
- Also page 9 first paragraph in "The Law" - Tεxτurε 22:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Where did you see that?--bb69 22:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)BB
- I love the term "time reinbursement transactions" used to avoid saying "income". - Tεxτurε 22:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Read below all the cases that say income means profit. --bb69 15:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)BB
Court cases to support Sixteenth Amendment intent
Relevant tax cases:
Congress has taxed INCOME, not compensation." - [Conner v. U.S., 303 F Supp. 1187 (1969)]
"Income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment and the Revenue Act means, gain ... and, in such connection, gain means profit... proceeding from property severed from capital, however invested or employed and coming in, received or drawn by the taxpayer for his separate use, benefit and disposal." - [Staples v. U.S., 21 F Supp 737 U.S. Dist. Ct. ED PA, 1937] -
- Over-ruled by Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co. 348 U.S. 426 (1955): "Congress applied no limitations as to the source of taxable receipts, nor restrictive labels as to their nature. And the Court has given a liberal construction to this broad phraseology in recognition of the intention of Congress to tax all gains except those specifically exempted." "except those specifically exempted"
- Yes, except those specifically exempted by Congress in the tax code - e.g., gifts, scholarships, a few others. Wages, money found on the street, gains from barter transactions, qui tam bounties, exemplary damages, points for airline miles, and dinners at board meetings are all among the many things which federal courts have specifically found not to have been "specifically exempted", and which therefore require taxes to be paid on them. BD2412 T 03:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thecourts opinion is "any gain from any source was taxable". Gain is profit. That means any profit you make from your wages. --bb69 15:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)BB69
- Ah, but all good things that happen to you, those are the wages of your good deeds (much as death is "the wages of sin", Romans 6:23 (47)); therefore "wages" encompasses all increases in wealth, including the daily blessing of waking up each day. After all, if you want to say that "gain" equals "profit", and then define "profit" as being limited to "wages", then "wages" must include all those things that Congress and the Courts have determined can be taxed - lucky finds, those airlines miles, barter - in fact, gifts can be taxed as well (see the estate tax, but Congress has chosen to let you keep them (unless you're worth many millions, in which case you keep most of it).BD2412 T 15:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Congress and the Supreme court didn't include wages as profit, it is profit DERIVED from wages, meaning you get paid from your employer and if you make a profit or gain off of the wages, then those are taxed. Ahhh, but who makes a profit off their wages like a corporation? no one. Now you start to understand. --bb69 19:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)BB69
- Ahhh, now I start to understand that with semantic sleight-of-hand, you can interpret a word to mean something totally different from its obvious intent. The Sixteenth Amendment does not read, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on profit derived from wages..."; it gives Congress "power to lay and collect taxes on incomes" - note, incomes - plural, meaning multiple sources of income, otherwise it would have said income in the singular. The Amendment also says that Congress can tax incomes "from whatever source derived". Well, everything you own is derived from some source - if you plant a seed and it grows into a tree, the source of the growth is the sunlight from the sky and the nutrients in the soil, and the states, by ratifying the Sixteenth Amendment, have empowered the Congress to tax you on the increased value of that tree based on its growth from those sources. (not saying they should, just that they can) BD2412 T 19:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, you can interpret a word to mean something totally different from its obvious intent. The 16th Amendment purpose and intent[1] as said by President William H. Taft, when he introduced the Amendment "I therefore recommend an amendment to the tariff bill Imposing upon all corporations and joint stock companies for profit, except national banks (otherwise taxed), savings banks, and building and loan associations, an excise tax measured by 2 per cent on the net income of such corporations. This is an excise tax upon the privilege of doing business as an artificial entity and of freedom from a general partnership liability enjoyed by those who own the stock. So what the President proposed was an excise tax on the government itself, and nothing more.
- Aside from the fact that it would make no sense for the government to impose a tax on itself, the President has no constitutional role in the amendment process, so anything Taft would have to say on the matter would be meaningless. Congress wrote the amendment, and new how to make clear the intended limitations - and put in no such limitations. Congress could also tax you for the value of the sunlight that lights up your face, they have just chosen not to. BD2412 T 23:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Congress created the amendment. It's important to know the reason for it and necessary and congress has put in the limitations, if you look at the link it will show you exactly what was vetoed. It vetoed a direct tax. See below --bb69 16:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)BB69
- Aside from the fact that it would make no sense for the government to impose a tax on itself, the President has no constitutional role in the amendment process, so anything Taft would have to say on the matter would be meaningless. Congress wrote the amendment, and new how to make clear the intended limitations - and put in no such limitations. Congress could also tax you for the value of the sunlight that lights up your face, they have just chosen not to. BD2412 T 23:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, you can interpret a word to mean something totally different from its obvious intent. The 16th Amendment purpose and intent[1] as said by President William H. Taft, when he introduced the Amendment "I therefore recommend an amendment to the tariff bill Imposing upon all corporations and joint stock companies for profit, except national banks (otherwise taxed), savings banks, and building and loan associations, an excise tax measured by 2 per cent on the net income of such corporations. This is an excise tax upon the privilege of doing business as an artificial entity and of freedom from a general partnership liability enjoyed by those who own the stock. So what the President proposed was an excise tax on the government itself, and nothing more.
- Ahhh, now I start to understand that with semantic sleight-of-hand, you can interpret a word to mean something totally different from its obvious intent. The Sixteenth Amendment does not read, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on profit derived from wages..."; it gives Congress "power to lay and collect taxes on incomes" - note, incomes - plural, meaning multiple sources of income, otherwise it would have said income in the singular. The Amendment also says that Congress can tax incomes "from whatever source derived". Well, everything you own is derived from some source - if you plant a seed and it grows into a tree, the source of the growth is the sunlight from the sky and the nutrients in the soil, and the states, by ratifying the Sixteenth Amendment, have empowered the Congress to tax you on the increased value of that tree based on its growth from those sources. (not saying they should, just that they can) BD2412 T 19:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Congress and the Supreme court didn't include wages as profit, it is profit DERIVED from wages, meaning you get paid from your employer and if you make a profit or gain off of the wages, then those are taxed. Ahhh, but who makes a profit off their wages like a corporation? no one. Now you start to understand. --bb69 19:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)BB69
- Ah, but all good things that happen to you, those are the wages of your good deeds (much as death is "the wages of sin", Romans 6:23 (47)); therefore "wages" encompasses all increases in wealth, including the daily blessing of waking up each day. After all, if you want to say that "gain" equals "profit", and then define "profit" as being limited to "wages", then "wages" must include all those things that Congress and the Courts have determined can be taxed - lucky finds, those airlines miles, barter - in fact, gifts can be taxed as well (see the estate tax, but Congress has chosen to let you keep them (unless you're worth many millions, in which case you keep most of it).BD2412 T 15:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thecourts opinion is "any gain from any source was taxable". Gain is profit. That means any profit you make from your wages. --bb69 15:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)BB69
- Yes, except those specifically exempted by Congress in the tax code - e.g., gifts, scholarships, a few others. Wages, money found on the street, gains from barter transactions, qui tam bounties, exemplary damages, points for airline miles, and dinners at board meetings are all among the many things which federal courts have specifically found not to have been "specifically exempted", and which therefore require taxes to be paid on them. BD2412 T 03:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
"The 16th Amendment does not provide authority for a direct tax on incomes, but only authority for an indirect tax on incomes. A direct tax on incomes is a tax that diminishes the source of the income. An indirect tax on income is a tax on unearned income or profit; such a tax leaves the source of the income undiminished. Twice during the debates on the 16th Amendment (S.J.R. No. 25 and S.J.R. No. 39), Congress rejected the idea of bringing direct taxes within the authority of the 16th Amendment. Then twice more, on July 5, 1909, Congress rejected the idea by direct vote of the Senate. Despite this congressional hostility to the idea, the IRS and the lower courts admit they are collecting a direct tax. At a minimum this is scandalous. In reality it is probably criminal" Direct taxes were voted out of in putting together the 16th Amendment. "Congress did not modify the direct taxation clauses of the Constitution by the construction of the 16th Amendment." --bb69 22:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)BB69