Definition of Income

[ezrhythm]

You hit it right on with "idiot" X 2. ...more anti sui juris deception.


SO then again, INCOME is whatever YOU voluntarily claim.

...However, wages, salaries, commissions, and tips (sources) are considered to be "income" for an individual when he lists them as "income" on an IRS tax return form.

In other words, said the Supreme Court, in order for there to be "income", there MUST be profits or gains received in the exercise of a privilege granted by government.

...not be subject to an income (excise) tax unless one enters them as "income" on a tax return form.

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by ezrhythm

Iother words, said the Supreme Court, in order for there to be "income", there MUST be profits or gains received in the exercise of a privilege granted by government.

The Court has never said this. If you think they did, cite the case.

Btw, Irwin Schiff is in prison for the third time because he peddled this nonsense.

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

The Court has never said this. If you think they did, cite the case.

Btw, Irwin Schiff is in prison for the third time because he peddled this nonsense.

I thought Schiff is in prison b/c he keeps arguing the Constitutional angle (which, in general, doesn't fly).

[ezrhythm]

Site the case?!! For who?!! The anti sui juris?!!

HAHAHAHAHA!!!

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

in order for there to be "income", there MUST be profits or gains received in the exercise of a privilege granted by government.

But looking for this beforehand gets us nowhere fast.

The privilege is the opportunity to declare income in the first place, the right to pay taxes and "participate" in social security etc.

Its a religion so arguing with a true believer about his 'basis' is pointless- its very subjective. What people on any side need to see is that it's a matter of personal choice, not a mathematic, economic or otherwise physical and objective reality.

Which doesn't make it any less true for the participants.

Every application solicits a privilege, and creates an obligation.

[Ecclesiastes]

Originally Posted by ezrhythm

[b]In other words, said the Supreme Court, in order for there to be "income", there MUST be profits or gains received in the exercise of a privilege granted by government.[b]

The Supreme Court has never said any such thing. In fact, it has said the exact opposite:

“But natural rights, so called, are as much subject to taxation as rights of lesser importance. An excise is not limited to vocations or activities that may be prohibited altogether. It is not limited to those that are the outcome of a franchise. It extends to vocations or activities pursued as of common right.” Charles C. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 580-1 (1937) (footnote omitted).

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by Ecclesiastes

The Supreme Court has never said any such thing. In fact, it has said the exact opposite:

“But natural rights, so called, are as much subject to taxation as rights of lesser importance. An excise is not limited to vocations or activities that may be prohibited altogether. It is not limited to those that are the outcome of a franchise. It extends to vocations or activities pursued as of common right.” Charles C. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 580-1 (1937) (footnote omitted).

I'm going to pull a Shoonra retort here..

Your explanation is very nice. It's only lacking one word: income

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Ecclesiastes

The Supreme Court has never said any such thing. In fact, it has said the exact opposite:

“But natural rights, so called, are as much subject to taxation as rights of lesser importance. An excise is not limited to vocations or activities that may be prohibited altogether. It is not limited to those that are the outcome of a franchise. It extends to vocations or activities pursued as of common right.” Charles C. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 580-1 (1937) (footnote omitted).

Complete misrepresentation of the facts. Go back and read the entire case instead of blindly quoting a snippet
some money grabbing socialist posted.

Before you ask; yes, I have read the entire case and posted my analysis which exposes the misrepresentation.