Register :: Log in :: Profile :: Mail   
Federal Reserve

Home // Government Watch



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Author Message
thelast007
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 525

PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 12:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
exton wrote:
thelast007 wrote:
exton wrote:
Appeals are ruled on by judges, not juries. This is not a matter of a jury full of idiots ignoring a blood soaked driveway and pair of gloves. The ratification argument has been tried multiple times in multiple courts (appeals courts, mind you), and has failed each and every time.

You can read about the cases here. And since it's wiki, i know you'll want to doubt it, but if provides case names for you to look up if you're still left wanting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T....._arguments


jury or judge same argument.


So, in other words, you're arguing from human fallibility?

In some cases that might be a valid concern. Where the study of the natural universe is concerned, human opinion is not the final word on how things go.

That is not the case with laws. It is, in fact, the case that when a judge says something in a ruling, it's a valid comment on the nature of the law. The ruling may be later overturned, but again, that's judges commenting on laws.

Quote:

recent court case.
U.S. District Court Judge James C. Fox "...if you examined the 16th ammendment carefully you will find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that ammendment." 2003

so it is just like i said. some belive in the court decision and some people & UNITED STATES JUDGES believe in reality.


Quote mining? Ouch. That's really low. Pitiful, even.
Have a read:

To buttress the claim that the 16th Amendment is invalid, the film displays a quotation from a federal district judge, James C. Fox. But the transcript from which the judge’s words were taken shows that while he spoke those words, they were in the context of laying out issues and that the conclusion he reached was the opposite of the words quoted.

Judge Fox, the transcript shows, concluded that no court would accept any argument that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified and therefore invalid.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07.....nted=print

And i would highly recommend reading this webpage:
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

Particularly this part:
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#ratification


IF YOU WANT TO BELIEVE THE 16th AMMENDMENT WAS LEGALLY RATIFIED we can let you live in decpetion.

HOWEVER, YOU ARE STILL BACK WHERE YOU STARTED IN THE WORLD OF ILLEGAL TAXES

the U.S. SUPREME COURT RULED in the case of Stanton v. Blatic Mining "The provisions of the 16th ammendment confered no new power of taxation."

so if taxes we not legal before the 16th ammendment they still were not legal after it.

that is the U.S. Supreme Courts ruling on this.

I'm sorry but a direct tax on labor wages is not legal. Hate to be the one to inform you of the good news. Please forgive me.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 1:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
thelast007 wrote:

IF YOU WANT TO BELIEVE THE 16th AMMENDMENT WAS LEGALLY RATIFED the U.S. SUPREME COURT RULED in the case of Stanton v. Blatic Mining "The provisions of the 16th ammendmnt confered no new power of taxation."
so if taxes we not legal beforethe 16th ammendment they still were not leagl after it.

I'm sorry but a direct tax on labor wages is not legal.


And do you know why the supreme court said that?

Because they believe that the power to tax incomes existed before the sixteenth amendment!

by the previous ruling [in Brushaber] it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of INDIRECT taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation....

That's from Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/.....;invol=103

In other words, as far as the supreme court is concerned, the sixteenth amendment's purpose is actually to explicitly place 'incomes' in with the 'indirect' taxes (which is where the supreme court thought it properly belongs), so that the constitution would be abundantly clear on the matter in the future.
Back to top
thelast007
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 525

PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 1:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
exton wrote:
thelast007 wrote:

IF YOU WANT TO BELIEVE THE 16th AMMENDMENT WAS LEGALLY RATIFED the U.S. SUPREME COURT RULED in the case of Stanton v. Blatic Mining "The provisions of the 16th ammendmnt confered no new power of taxation."
so if taxes we not legal beforethe 16th ammendment they still were not leagl after it.

I'm sorry but a direct tax on labor wages is not legal.


And do you know why the supreme court said that?

Because they believe that the power to tax incomes existed before the sixteenth amendment!

by the previous ruling [in Brushaber] it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of INDIRECT taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation....

That's from Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/.....;invol=103

In other words, as far as the supreme court is concerned, the sixteenth amendment's purpose is actually to explicitly place 'incomes' in with the 'indirect' taxes (which is where the supreme court thought it properly belongs), so that the constitution would be abundantly clear on the matter in the future.




In the United States, Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution requires that direct taxes imposed by the national government be apportioned among the states on the basis of population. After the 1895 Pollock ruling (essentially, that taxes on income from property should be treated as direct taxes) this provision made it difficult for Congress to impose a national income tax that applied to all forms of income until the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913. After the Sixteenth Amendment, no Federal income taxes are required to be apportioned, regardless of whether they are direct taxes (taxes on income from property) or indirect taxes (all other income taxes). "


the underlined and highligted is the only thing the 16th ammendment did.

the 16th ammendment granted no rights imposed any new taxes.

Like is said...if it was not taxable before it was not taxable afterwards.

now we go in a circle back to #1 of the full issue

what is the definition of income inthe U.S. Constitution?

eisner v. montgomery
doyle v. mitchell

income: gains or increase arising from corprorate activity.

DIRECT TAXES ON WAGES IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
thelast007 wrote:

In the United States, Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution requires that direct taxes imposed by the national government be apportioned among the states on the basis of population. After the 1895 Pollock ruling (essentially, that taxes on income from property should be treated as direct taxes) this provision made it difficult for Congress to impose a national income tax that applied to all forms of income until the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913. After the Sixteenth Amendment, no Federal income taxes are required to be apportioned, regardless of whether they are direct taxes (taxes on income from property) or indirect taxes (all other income taxes). "


the underlined and highligted is the only thing the 16th ammendment did.

the 16th ammendment granted no rights imposed any new taxes.


If that text comes from an actual court case, i can't find it.

The supreme court, on the other hand, is abundantly clear on the matter.

Quote:

Like is said...if it was not taxable before it was not taxable afterwards.


And like i said, the supreme court believes income was taxable beforehand. That's the reason that they wrote that it creates 'no new power to tax'.

This isn't something that's in dispute. It's written down.

Quote:

now we go in a circle back to #1 of the full issue

what is the definition of income inthe U.S. Constitution?

eisner v. montgomery


I can't find an eisner v. montgomery.
I CAN find an Eisner v. Macomber, though.

And that one says about income tax:

'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,' provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/.....;invol=189

Quote:

doyle v. mitchell
income: gains or increase arising from corprorate activity.


That's actually not what it says. Did you even read it?

It says the same thing as the eisner case:

'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined.'

http://www.oscn.net/applicatio.....eid=419275
Back to top
TrespassersW
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 988
Location: North Carolina, USA

PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
thelast007 wrote:
I'm sorry but a direct tax on labor wages is not legal.

Rather than repeating yourself, can you please explain this conclusion in light of the points I made previously?
Back to top
thelast007
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 525

PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
exton wrote:
thelast007 wrote:

In the United States, Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution requires that direct taxes imposed by the national government be apportioned among the states on the basis of population. After the 1895 Pollock ruling (essentially, that taxes on income from property should be treated as direct taxes) this provision made it difficult for Congress to impose a national income tax that applied to all forms of income until the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913. After the Sixteenth Amendment, no Federal income taxes are required to be apportioned, regardless of whether they are direct taxes (taxes on income from property) or indirect taxes (all other income taxes). "


the underlined and highligted is the only thing the 16th ammendment did.

the 16th ammendment granted no rights imposed any new taxes.


If that text comes from an actual court case, i can't find it.

The supreme court, on the other hand, is abundantly clear on the matter.

Quote:

Like is said...if it was not taxable before it was not taxable afterwards.


And like i said, the supreme court believes income was taxable beforehand. That's the reason that they wrote that it creates 'no new power to tax'.

This isn't something that's in dispute. It's written down.

Quote:

now we go in a circle back to #1 of the full issue

what is the definition of income inthe U.S. Constitution?

eisner v. montgomery


I can't find an eisner v. montgomery.
I CAN find an Eisner v. Macomber, though.

And that one says about income tax:

'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,' provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/.....;invol=189

Quote:

doyle v. mitchell
income: gains or increase arising from corprorate activity.


That's actually not what it says. Did you even read it?

It says the same thing as the eisner case:

'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined.'

http://www.oscn.net/applicatio.....eid=419275

After examining dictionaries in common use (Bouv. L. D.; Standard Dict.; Webster's Internat. Dict.; Century Dict.), we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 (Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 , 34 S. Sup. Ct. 136, 140 [58 L. Ed. 285]; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 [62 L. Ed. 1054]), 'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,' provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle Case, 247 U.S. 183, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 (62 L. Ed. 1054).



provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets

You just proved my point exactly.

You can't leave out the second part which refers to coporate activity.

Doyle V. mitchell 1918 (first income precedent)
-------------------------
the 1st part
-wage income taxes were not collected before the 16th. the 16th changed the apportionment law but since income was still the same by definition it made no difference.

Back to top
thelast007
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 525

PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
TrespassersW wrote:
thelast007 wrote:
I'm sorry but a direct tax on labor wages is not legal.

Rather than repeating yourself, can you please explain this conclusion in light of the points I made previously?



THE LAST 007
Quote:

no one ever disageed or disagrees with the fact that the government has the right to collect taxes and create the dept. to collect them.

that is not the issue at hand in this debate.

the issue is this: is it constitutional to impose a FEDERL tax on LABOR wages.

Within that debate are 3 other debates/issues.

(1) how is income defined constitutionally?

which takes you directly into debate #2

(2) are DIRECT taxes on labor wages(income) constitutional?

which then will lead you to debate # 3

(3) and was the 16th ammendment legally ratified.

AND EVEN IF YOU WANT TO BELIEVE THE 16th AMMENDMENT WAS LEGALLY RATIFED the U.S. SUPREME COURT RULED in the case of Stanton v. Blatic Mining "The provisions of the 16th ammendmnt confered no new power of taxation."

so if taxes we not legal beforethe 16th ammendment they still were not leagl after it.

I am not making this up people. I did not say that the Supreme Court said it.

I know it is hard to believe but the fact is direct taxes on labor wages are unconstitutional.


i apologize TrespassersW. Sad
what were the points again? i thought i had addressed your question with the above post and a far back previous link.

if you want to understand each element of the issue you can see it in the exchanges between exton and i.
Back to top
thelast007
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 525

PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 4:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
thelast007 wrote:
exton wrote:
thelast007 wrote:

In the United States, Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution requires that direct taxes imposed by the national government be apportioned among the states on the basis of population. After the 1895 Pollock ruling (essentially, that taxes on income from property should be treated as direct taxes) this provision made it difficult for Congress to impose a national income tax that applied to all forms of income until the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913. After the Sixteenth Amendment, no Federal income taxes are required to be apportioned, regardless of whether they are direct taxes (taxes on income from property) or indirect taxes (all other income taxes). "


the underlined and highligted is the only thing the 16th ammendment did.

the 16th ammendment granted no rights imposed any new taxes.


If that text comes from an actual court case, i can't find it.

The supreme court, on the other hand, is abundantly clear on the matter.

Quote:

Like is said...if it was not taxable before it was not taxable afterwards.


And like i said, the supreme court believes income was taxable beforehand. That's the reason that they wrote that it creates 'no new power to tax'.

This isn't something that's in dispute. It's written down.

Quote:

now we go in a circle back to #1 of the full issue

what is the definition of income inthe U.S. Constitution?

eisner v. montgomery


I can't find an eisner v. montgomery.
I CAN find an Eisner v. Macomber, though.

And that one says about income tax:

'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,' provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/.....;invol=189

Quote:

doyle v. mitchell
income: gains or increase arising from corprorate activity.


That's actually not what it says. Did you even read it?

It says the same thing as the eisner case:

'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined.'

http://www.oscn.net/applicatio.....eid=419275

After examining dictionaries in common use (Bouv. L. D.; Standard Dict.; Webster's Internat. Dict.; Century Dict.), we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 (Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 , 34 S. Sup. Ct. 136, 140 [58 L. Ed. 285]; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 [62 L. Ed. 1054]), 'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,' provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle Case, 247 U.S. 183, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 (62 L. Ed. 1054).



provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets

You just proved my point exactly.

You can't leave out the second part which refers to coporate activity.

Doyle V. mitchell 1918 (first income precedent? i'll try to find out)
-------------------------
the 1st part
-wage income taxes were not collected before the 16th. the 16th changed the apportionment law but since income was still the same by definition it made no difference.

Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 6:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
thelast007 wrote:

provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets

You just proved my point exactly.


'Include', in this context, does not mean 'involve'. It means 'include'. That is to say - the definition includes profits from corporate activities as being taxable income.
Back to top
TrespassersW
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 988
Location: North Carolina, USA

PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 9:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
thelast007 wrote:
AND EVEN IF YOU WANT TO BELIEVE THE 16th AMMENDMENT WAS LEGALLY RATIFED the U.S. SUPREME COURT RULED in the case of Stanton v. Blatic Mining "The provisions of the 16th ammendmnt confered no new power of taxation."

so if taxes we not legal beforethe 16th ammendment they still were not leagl after it.

Bollocks. The power to levy taxes preexisted the 16th--it didn't need to be created anew. All that was needed was a qualification to state that income taxes did not need to meet the apportionment test. Once the 16th accomplished that, the existing power to levy taxes was unfettered for the purposes of taxing income.

(Mind you, I'm not fan of income tax; I just find your arguments flawed.)
Back to top
thelast007
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 525

PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
exton wrote:
thelast007 wrote:

provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets

You just proved my point exactly.


'Include', in this context, does not mean 'involve'. It means 'include'. That is to say - the definition includes profits from corporate activities as being taxable income.


oooooh pleeeeeeease exton. it clearly reads "PROVIDED". We both know the truth of the statement.
------------------------------------PROVIDED
((((((((((Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
pro·vid·ed /prəˈvaɪdɪd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pruh-vahy-did] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–conjunction on the condition or understanding (that); providing: I'll go provided that the others go, too.

—Synonyms in case, granted. See if.
—Antonyms lest.
—Usage note The conjunctions provided and providing are interchangeable. Both mean “on the condition or understanding that,” with that sometimes expressed: Provided (or Providing) no further objections are raised, we will consider the matter settled.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006. ))))))))))
---------------------------------------PROVIDED

However because i seek the truth and not just idol argument to say i'm right if i am not,

drum roll please Shocked ....

I will show the exact thing i found that proves your point on the definition of income.

"The very process of mining is, in a sense, equivalent in its results to a manufacturing process. And, however the operation shall be described, the transaction is indubitably 'business' within the fair meaning of the act of 1909; and the gains derived from it are properly and strictly the income from that business; for 'income' may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, and here we have combined operations of capital and labor. As to the alleged inequality of operation between mining corporations and others, it is of course true that the revenues derived from the working of mines result to some extent in the exhaustion of the capital. But the same is true of the earnings of the human brain and hand when unaided by capital, yet such earnings are commonly dealt with in legislation as income."

I found the underlined in Stratton v. Howbert which was decided in 1913. So this would seem to be the earliest precedent for income.

It proves your point about income. Cool

Also this leans towards your point as well:

i thought about another question. What is labor and how is that defined constitutionally? Question

It seems from all the cases i read that labor is defined within the terms of being personal property.
In light of that fact it would clearly make personal labor taxable as a direct tax.

for some reason i have not found the argument of how labor should be defined anywhere.

unless i am flawed in my new information i would have to agree that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1913 that income is also clearly defined as labor of the hands and brain.

the court said it. so it is.

there is a couple offering 600k in real estate to anyone that can show them the law that says income tax on private labor is line with our constitution. the offer is in writing too.(hope the real estate is in a good market. Cool) we can share exton. Very Happy

I am going to present this to see what rebuttals will come.

I will know on Tuesday. Smile


Last edited by thelast007 on Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:27 pm; edited 7 times in total
Back to top
thelast007
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 525

PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
TrespassersW wrote:
thelast007 wrote:
AND EVEN IF YOU WANT TO BELIEVE THE 16th AMMENDMENT WAS LEGALLY RATIFED the U.S. SUPREME COURT RULED in the case of Stanton v. Blatic Mining "The provisions of the 16th ammendmnt confered no new power of taxation."

so if taxes we not legal beforethe 16th ammendment they still were not leagl after it.

Bollocks. The power to levy taxes preexisted the 16th--it didn't need to be created anew. All that was needed was a qualification to state that income taxes did not need to meet the apportionment test. Once the 16th accomplished that, the existing power to levy taxes was unfettered for the purposes of taxing income.

(Mind you, I'm not fan of income tax; I just find your arguments flawed.)


i see what you are saying but we are past that already. i wrote a few post back that was clearly what the 16th amendment did.

you are in the view point of taxes as a whole however what is being debated is the specific legality of a specific tax on a specific type of income derived in a specific way.

(if you believe one way about the definition of income before or after the 16th the arguments don't change.)

read the post to come current and see where we have arrived in the argument.

we are now on the income definiton argument. the specific semantics of what it says in relation to taxes (direct & indirect) on income from labor wages.

"bollocks" that's a new one for me Laughing
Back to top
TrespassersW
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 988
Location: North Carolina, USA

PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 5:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Simply put, a federal income tax appears legal and supported by the constitution as far as I can see, and no one has offered me anything that seems to dispute that, which was what I was seeking. So, for now I think I've satisfied myself that what I thought was true is true. (At least until someone shows me otherwise.) Wink
Back to top
thelast007
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 525

PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 2:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
TrespassersW wrote:
Simply put, a federal income tax appears legal and supported by the constitution as far as I can see, and no one has offered me anything that seems to dispute that, which was what I was seeking. So, for now I think I've satisfied myself that what I thought was true is true. (At least until someone shows me otherwise.) Wink


read the post between exton and i. you're behind in the debate exchange.
Back to top
TrespassersW
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 988
Location: North Carolina, USA

PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 5:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
thelast007 wrote:
TrespassersW wrote:
Simply put, a federal income tax appears legal and supported by the constitution as far as I can see, and no one has offered me anything that seems to dispute that, which was what I was seeking. So, for now I think I've satisfied myself that what I thought was true is true. (At least until someone shows me otherwise.) Wink

read the post between exton and i. you're behind in the debate exchange.

No, I don't think I'm behind anything. It just seems that you're debating minutia that don't interest me--and that's cool... I don't mean that as a negative at all, but I'm not interested in the definition of labor or profit or whatever, unless you think that they prove my conclusion above wrong. (But if you do, I don't see how.)
Back to top


Post new topic   Reply to topic   Quick Reply    LVC Home // Government Watch All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 6 of 8

 

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

Add to My Yahoo! Add to Google

Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites Politics Blogs Politics
Politics blogs Politics blogs Article Directory Political Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory Top Blog Sites