old news.

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by FreeFromContract

We've gone over this before in another thread. Income was determined to be profit or gain from a privileged activity by the Supreme Court. It's clear you've provided your own slant (read:opinion) to the decisions.

Kee-rist, I get tired of repeating myself. Here's a Supreme Court Opinion. Read carefully.

“The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on income, ‘from whatever source derived’ without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had the power to tax all incomes. But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be ‘direct taxes’ within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. [cites omitted] The Amendment relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes ‘from whatever source derived.’”
Bowers, Collector v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170, 173-174 (1926).

"Congress already [prior to the 16th Amendment] had the power to tax all incomes."

"ALL INCOMES."

Is it sinking in yet? "All" means "all." There is no restriction to "incomes that derive from some privileged activity."

Your argument has been tried, and has lost every time. See, for example, Olson v. United States, 760 F.2d 1003(9th Cir. 1985)("This court has repeatedly rejected the argument that wages are not income as frivolous, [citations omitted] and has also rejected the idea that a person is liable for tax only if he benefits from a governmental privilege."); United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499 (7th Cir. 1991), cert. den. 112 S.Ct. 940 (1992)
("All individuals...must pay federal income tax on their wages, regardless of whether they have requested, obtained or exercised any privilege from the federal government.")

Next silly argument?

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

"Congress already [prior to the 16th Amendment] had the power to tax all incomes."

"ALL INCOMES."

Is it sinking in yet? "All" means "all." There is no restriction to "incomes that derive from some privileged activity."

Apparently you have great difficulty understanding the compendium of all Supreme Court decisions on the subject.

Read again what was said about income as defined by the court. Yes, all income is subject. But there is a very specific definition of what qualifies as being called INCOME!

Read the other thread concerning INCOME. All your crackpot brainwashed theories are exposed there (guess you forgot already - seeing how poorly you defended your position, I can understand why). The Supreme Court explained their decisions in detail.

Are you really that dense that YOU can't understand?

[mrg]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

It takes some serious chutzpah to call death no loss.

"Nothing personal, just bidness."

The life of other's is cheap to people of a paticular mindset.

Somebody's freudian slip is showing.

the ultimate of chutzpah is: "A boy, having just been convicted of murdering his parents, begs the judge for leniency because he is an orphan."

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Next silly argument?

Quatloos attorneys provide an invaluable service to the welfare of humanity.

[trooper2ls]

Originally Posted by mrg

Quatloos attorneys provide an invaluable service to the welfare of humanity.

Just curious why you give them the time of day and the valuable time out of your life in debate.

I'm a broken record on this.. ignore the ones that have nothing to offer and learn as much as you can from ones that do.

Have a great night everyone.

..J

[mrg]

Originally Posted by FreeFromContract

Are you really that dense that YOU can't understand?

Seriously, one of my main points of observation, and warning, is that these minions of
war financiers/investors/profiteers DO indeed understand precisely, and full well.

They are neither dense, nor stupid--they would have to be quite stupid indeed, in order not to understand.

Theirs is a very heightened, acute, and precisely attenuated form of highly advanced cunning.

Intellectual, in nature and form, though hardly intelligence, clinically.

Such cunning is more purely animal in nature than any form of moderated cunning manifest in domesticated, civil, humane mankind at-large.

Such advancement is stated plainly in the choice of name--DOG--as well as in the choice of professed practice.

This seemingly anomalous aberration is often held by the above-mentioned master practitioners of modern-day mass human blood sacrifice to their insatiable Golden Calf to be a very desirable character trait of a certain deformity of fancied Übermensch, and its victims/habituées are likely most useful (though, also likely, hardly valuable or overly valued), to those shadows who do actually practice an aspiration to transcend the limits of traditional morality and live purely by the will to power.

[trooper2ls]

Originally Posted by mrg

They are neither dense, nor stupid--they would have to be quite stupid indeed, in order not to understand.

Theirs is a very heightened, acute, and precisely attenuated form of highly advanced cunning.

Intellectual, in nature and form, though hardly intelligence, clinically.
.....

Nobility: [OF from L nobilis that can be or is known, well known, famous, highborn, noble, akin to L noscere to know] Possessing the power of transmitting by inheritance some acknowledged, pre-eminence founded on hereditary succession; of high birth or exalted rank or station, whether inherited or conferred; Quality of possessing characteristics or properties of a very high kind or order; superiority in excellence, value or the like.

Aristocracy: (I'll skip the derivations and roots here because of space. 1. government by the best individuals or by a small privileged class. 3 : a governing body or upper class usually made up an hereditary nobility. 4 : the aggregate of those believed to be superior.


The only way to sum up everything that is outside you body is to call it the industrial society, it is all public works, the system, government, commerce, both fiscal and calendar years, proprietors, corporations, trusts, banks, car dealers, license holders, Titles of Nobility, manufactures, the courts, mutual funds, your friends, nightclubs, and the like. It is all the industrial society.

Christ is the charge. The last thing Christ said on the cross is “It is finished” as the electrons left his body and he gave up the ghost. See the industrial society operates so that the public gives up the ghost (release of the charge) to discharge the account through execution of law because that is the only way for the stored up charges to discharge is to ground the body six feet under to pay the tax back to mother earth by charging back the charge.

There is more to life than meets the eye. The ancients have been trying to warn us, but we keep taking the bait.

There is no spoon.

..J

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Congress already [prior to the 16th Amendment] had the power to tax all incomes. Bowers, Collector v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170, 173-174 (1926).

Thats in 1926; yet 14 years later, the law was:

the 1939 Code, determined in accordance with the 1940 regulations, of which § 19.22(b)-1 provided:

"Sec. 19.22(b)-1. Exemptions—Exclusions from gross
income...are exempt from gross income...

(1) those items of income which are, under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government;

So "income" as used in the first quote must have had a restricted meaning, since the Court does mean what it says and the Treas Dept makes rules that conform with the current law.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by mrg

Seriously, one of my main points of observation, and warning, is that these minions of
war financiers/investors/profiteers DO indeed understand precisely, and full well.

I disagree. Some of them are just like any of the other of 10s of millions of brainwashed lemmings who have drunk the kool-aid provided through their public (and legal) education.

They have been taught to believe the government has the authority to seize, under threat and duress, up to 40% of the fruits of your labor under the guise of calling it income. This percentage is carefully calculated and has been slowly raised from it's inception of only a few percentage points to where it is today to prevent public outrage and revolt. In a word, it's nothing less than behavior manipulation.

Place consideration to the fact that there is no limit on the amount which could be imposed and the fraud is even more apparent (when applied to areas outside constitutional and statutory authority). If they could legally tax 40%, then what would stop them from taxing 60%...how about 80%?

Why not 90%?

Because a tax that high would amount to involuntary servitude/slavery? How? As I recall there are ruling which have identified those arguments as being "frivolous". If Congress has complete authority to tax (as some would claim), then why would there be a limit?

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by FreeFromContract

Place consideration to the fact that there is no limit on the amount which could be imposed and the fraud is even more apparent (when applied to areas outside constitutional and statutory authority).

None of the tax deniers on this site has ever identified any type of income that Congress can't constitutionally tax, much less offered a legal argument to back up such a claim.

If they could legally tax 40%, then what would stop them from taxing 60%...how about 80%?

Why not 90%?

There's a very practical reason:

It is admitted, that the power of taxing the people and their property, is essential to the very existence of government, and may be legitimately exercised on the objects to which it is applicable, to the utmost extent to which the government may choose to carry it. The only security against the abuse of this power, is found in the structure of the government itself. In imposing a tax, the legislature acts upon its constituents. This is, in general, a sufficient security against erroneous and oppressive taxation. McCullough v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819)

I realize this explanation probably won't satisfy the terminally paranoid, but I doubt if anything would.