The 16th does not say anything about direct taxes - but 'income' taxes which have always been indirect taxes. The Pollock case took a certain type of 'income' derived from capital (dividends) and made it direct - the 16th put it back into the category of indirect and any other income from whatever source derived to avoid further confusion. Read the historical development of the issues not some 1980's, 90's or 00's lower courts decisions which are ignorant or deceptive - most likely the latter.
If one reads the Brushaber case, the Supreme court said that a tax on property as such (which labor is) is a direct tax. there are many cases like the Pollock case which agree. An indirect tax is a tax on the doing of something. Another requirement for indirect taxes is that it must be something which is avoidable while a direct tax is on something because of its ownership. An indirect tax cannot be laid on a right either because the exercise of a right could be taxed out of existance. Labor is a right. the supreme court said so when the commissioner of Internal Revenue brought suit claiming it wasn't.
The 16th Amendment did not change the required rules of apportionment or uniformity regardless of what the textbooks say.
So the federal taxes are to be uniform too? Meaning there are not to be different tax brackets based on income/labor revenues? Which of course this latter, the tax on labor itself, is what has been stipulated as unConstitutional and in general against natural rights (due to the consequential event that erodes such rights of property/labor). So what I'm wondering is, is there another stage of action happening - not only now are incomes being taxed but is the non-uniformity a furthering of such arbitrariness? So the question is about uniformity.
"I used to see a mountain as a mountain.. Thereafter.. when I saw a mountain; lo! it was not a mountain.. yet now of final tranquillity: I see a mountain just as a mountain as I used to.." - Master Yuan; molon labe
All Fedral Taxes are supposed tobe uniform. Uniformity means geographical uniformity. In other words, whenever the tax is laid, everyone who does the thing being taxed, must pay the exact amount. For example, the tax on gas is exactly the same no matter where in the country you buy gas. The "Excess Profits tax" under Carter was declared invalid because Alaska was immune from the tax. The cigarette tax is exactly the same in all states and territories of the United States. The lack of Federal Tax on cigarettes on Indian reservations is because these are not US territories. I remember some case which declared that a tiered income tax is not unconstitutional for some reason, but I don't remember why at the moment.
Also, don't forget that in order to fill out the form and pay the tax, you must waive you 4th and 5th amendment rights not to witness against yourself. The Sullivan case tells you that you don't have to waive these rights. I recommend reading it. However in practice the IRS will go after you anyway. There are no rights when it comes to the Government.
Congress can tax income from any source without apportionment or enumeration. I cannot be more clear.
I don't know about the U.S., but in Canada the Income Tax Act doesn't say who you have to pay the tax to or that you have to submit any forms. Everyone is essentially just duped into reporting their own finances and paying money to the government.
scineram: Congress can tax income from any source without apportionment or enumeration. I cannot be more clear.
Very interesting. What is "Income"? What is "from any source"? Is it 'Congress' that lays the tax? Is it "Congress" that collects the tax?
Look I understand what your thinking - but you cannot be more confused.
'Income' is derived from wages, salaries, compensation, ect. not labor. Wages, salaries, ect. are derived from labor. The Pollock case took a dividend income, that derived from bonds, and made that unconstitutional because it treated the bonds as property and therefore it was in the category of a direct tax. Since the Constitution says that any direct tax must be apportioned they made the tax on the profit from the bonds unconstitutional because it was without apportionment. The 16th, wanting to avoid such confusions, once and for all took this type of income (the Pollock case) and any income from whatever source derived not subject to apportionment. It did not over turn the apportionment clause in the Constitution but put back the 'income' from bonds or any other source in its proper category - an indirect tax.
‘It is to be noted that, by the language of the Act, it is not salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services that are to be included in ‘gross income.’ That which is to be included is gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services.’ Lower Court ruling – Lucas v Earl, 281 U.S. 111, 50 S. Ct. 241, 74 L. Ed. 731 (1930)
GoldenGoose: scineram: Congress can tax income from any source without apportionment or enumeration. I cannot be more clear. Look I understand what your thinking - but you cannot be more confused. 'Income' is derived from wages, salaries, compensation, ect. not labor. Wages, salaries, ect. are derived from labor. The Pollock case took a dividend income, that derived from bonds, and made that unconstitutional because it treated the bonds as property and therefore it was in the category of a direct tax. Since the Constitution says that any direct tax must be apportioned they made the tax on the profit from the bonds unconstitutional because it was without apportionment. The 16th, wanting to avoid such confusions, once and for all took this type of income (the Pollock case) and any income from whatever source derived not subject to apportionment. It did not over turn the apportionment clause in the Constitution but put back the 'income' from bonds or any other source in its proper category - an indirect tax. ‘It is to be noted that, by the language of the Act, it is not salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services that are to be included in ‘gross income.’ That which is to be included is gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services.’ Lower Court ruling – Lucas v Earl, 281 U.S. 111, 50 S. Ct. 241, 74 L. Ed. 731 (1930)
I am not confused at all, but you seem to be. The Pollack case was about a guy who complained that the congress inappropriatly taxed the rent he recieved from an building. The case was about taxing both the income and the return of capital which was included in the rent he recieved. He did not complain about the income but about that part which was return of capital. That part required apportionment whereas the income part was taxable using the rule of uniformity.
Another problem you seem to have is the work "from". This word is meant to separate the income from the other words "Wages, etc". This is required by the Constitution in Article 1 sec.1. A person can have income from rents, buildings, wages, or dogs. The income however is not the wages, rents, buildings or dogs. The income is only the profits from these things. The original capital must be subtracted from the gross proceeds to arrive at gross income. Wages are capital, not income. Income from wages means that if one takes wages and invests in something, income can be obtained (maybe). You are falling into the trap of assuming that the definition of "gross income" defines income, like most people do. Of course income can be derived from wages, salaries, etc, just like it can be abtained from buildings and camels. But a camel is not income.
In the case of Merchants' Loan & Trust V. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509 (1921) ,we read:
"In determining the definition of the word "income" thus arrived at, this Court has consistently refused to enter into the refinements of lexicographers or economists, and has approved, in the definitions quoted, what it believed to be the commonly understood meaning of the term which must have been in the minds of the people when they adopted the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U. S. 179, 247 U. S. 185; Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U. S. 189, 252 U. S. 206-207. Notwithstanding the full argument heard in this case and in the series of cases now under consideration, we continue entirely satisfied with that definition, and, since the fund here taxed was the amount realized from the sale of the stock in 1917, less the capital investment determined by the trustee as of March 1, 1913, it is palpable that it was a "gain or profit" "produced by" or "derived from" that investment, and that it "proceeded" and was "severed" or rendered severable from it by the sale for cash, and thereby became that "realized gain" which has been repeatedly declared to be taxable income within the meaning of the constitutional amendment and the acts of Congress. Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co. and Eisner v. Macomber, supra." (Underlining is mine) As you can see, the Income is not the principal. Income never was to be apportioned, it required uniformity. The 16th was intentionally written to be confusing. The income from any source never required apportionment. For the meaning of the 16th Amendment see: http://supreme.justia.com/us/255/509/case.html Which is the Brushaber case. This does not preclude the reality that all taxes are theft. I'm just relating what the law currently says. I never said that Congress could not tax income from any source without apportionment or enumeration.
"In determining the definition of the word "income" thus arrived at, this Court has consistently refused to enter into the refinements of lexicographers or economists, and has approved, in the definitions quoted, what it believed to be the commonly understood meaning of the term which must have been in the minds of the people when they adopted the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U. S. 179, 247 U. S. 185; Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U. S. 189, 252 U. S. 206-207. Notwithstanding the full argument heard in this case and in the series of cases now under consideration, we continue entirely satisfied with that definition, and, since the fund here taxed was the amount realized from the sale of the stock in 1917, less the capital investment determined by the trustee as of March 1, 1913, it is palpable that it was a "gain or profit" "produced by" or "derived from" that investment, and that it "proceeded" and was "severed" or rendered severable from it by the sale for cash, and thereby became that "realized gain" which has been repeatedly declared to be taxable income within the meaning of the constitutional amendment and the acts of Congress. Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co. and Eisner v. Macomber, supra." (Underlining is mine)
As you can see, the Income is not the principal. Income never was to be apportioned, it required uniformity. The 16th was intentionally written to be confusing. The income from any source never required apportionment. For the meaning of the 16th Amendment see: http://supreme.justia.com/us/255/509/case.html Which is the Brushaber case.
This does not preclude the reality that all taxes are theft. I'm just relating what the law currently says. I never said that Congress could not tax income from any source without apportionment or enumeration.
Donald,
I was not refering to you but to 'scineram' - that should have been clear in that I quoted him.
As to the Pollock case yes I agree but there were bonds in question in the case if I am not mistaken - which I might be - anyway my point still stands regarding income.
As to income I agree with you - I am not sure what the problem is here. I did not mean to confuse gross income with income. The quote I posted says that 'income' is included in gross income. I was not trying to equate the two.
'That which is to be included [in gross income] is gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services.'
I never said that income had to apportioned.
I never said that you said Congress canot tax income from whatever source without apportionment or enumeration - that was scineram.
I think you might be confusing me with scineram as well as arguing some points that I made??? I am not sure.
GoldenGoose: ..confusing me with scineram...
..confusing me with scineram...
scineram has a way of distorting discussions without providing any pursuit of truth and knowledge out of his/her (scineram's) own dialogical making and effort. it's a trend that i'd overlook so please continue on with this excellent pursuit of clarity.
I apologise for misunderstanding. I reread your letter after I wrote the answer and realized that I had answered the wrong comment. I'm just rying to be accurate in relating the law as I see it. Many people assume that income from wages isthe same as income.
Donald Lingerfelt: I apologise for misunderstanding. I reread your letter after I wrote the answer and realized that I had answered the wrong comment. I'm just rying to be accurate in relating the law as I see it. Many people assume that income from wages isthe same as income.
No problem, I think your right on and much more informative than I am. That issue did confuse me, as I am sure that is the way it is meant to be with some of these regulations. It is amazing how clear they can be when they want to be in other parts of the code.
wilderness: GoldenGoose: ..confusing me with scineram... scineram has a way of distorting discussions without providing any pursuit of truth and knowledge out of his/her (scineram's) own dialogical making and effort. it's a trend that i'd overlook so please continue on with this excellent pursuit of clarity.
Maybe you can enlighten me what their point is. That income tax is unconstitutional? Or what?
Based on my research, I think it is Constitutional. It didn't change much anyway, only caused enough confusion that most people think it gave the government the right to lay an income tax on anything. Currently there are no rules by which the government taxes us, except the ones that they themselves write. They don't have to have rules any more though if they do not want to. They think we ought to be grateful that they don't take it all.
I personally know people who never file and nothing happens to them. The IRS seems to only harass people who become activists. It's the Gestapo by any other name.
Through a series of misunderstandings with a tax guy that I used the IRS never got a return from me. Only about 3 years later did I start to hear from them. They have a 'priority' list according to the amount presumably owed. If you presumptively owe for example $1,500 as oppossed to $75,000 the person with the largest amount will be dealt with first. They may send out a letter of notice or something like that at first but as far as seeking to get the payment by actually spending some energy it will usually come later.
Also, it really depends on if the 'employer' sends in an information return (W-2, ect.). If the IRS does not have the info on someones pay they don't bother with you unless your very noticable or involved in suspcious activities. If you signed the W-4 and W-9 you are subjecting yourself (voluntarily) to liability of the tax. You are saying that you are a 'taxpayer' 'employed' by an 'employer' (and therefore an 'employee') earning 'wages' within the juristiction of the 'United States' according to the IRC and are therefor subject to the income tax. Those documents are considered prima facie evidence in a court of law. You are obligated to file a tax return form. I hope your friends did not fill those forms out or that their employer did not send in the info return about their work-pay scenerio.
All the Bold words are legally defined in the IRC. Most Americans do not fall under those definitions.
Nm. Don't want to leave clues.
Watch this instroduction to your rights. Very long, but worth it. It's Canadian, but it's virtually the same in the U.S. I can't find the U.S version- there is one somewhere.
Most americans are employed by an employer, and therefore an employee, earning wages under Unired States jurisdiction.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap