old news.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

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.

Wrong. But don't let your lack of understanding the Supreme Court which define income burst your bubble.

I can only suggest reviewing those rulings. Since it's apparent you couldn't follow what was presented in the Income thread.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

There's a very practical reason:

That's the best you can do? Relying on a transparent non-answer comment to back your position is a very weak argument. Tell me, how would you prevent the congress from passing a tax "to the utmost extent to which the government may choose to carry it."

How would you prove a claim of there being an abuse of power?

I am guessing I would be asking to much from you to acknowledge that the corruption of politics has changed the governmental landscape as it exists today which was being referenced in 1819. I'm also guessing that you fail to see the comment your provided which supposedly backs you up actually does the opposite (hint: what part of that statement is based upon law and what part of that is based upon a vague reference to the theory of the operation of government)

Hope you're getting your money's worth of benefits as a constituent (presuming you are one).

[mertensv16]

Like I said... no legal arguments, just amazingly ignorant paranoia.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

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)

Another noteworthy case cite! Actually these court decisions are informative, and these confirm exactly the major premise here- nexus required to create taxation.

notice- "exercised on the objects to which it is applicable"...thats an excise!!! and it is limited in applicablity!!!

"imposing a tax...on constituents": thats residency, and participants.

And notice- constituents of the government, the people who constitute ("make up") the system. Just as it always has been , the King taxes the nobles, the nobles tax the servants, the servants tax the users of the system...

If you partner with the system , thats the nexus.

But we all already knew this.

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

Another noteworthy case cite! Actually these court decisions are informative, and these confirm exactly the major premise here- nexus required to create taxation.

notice- "exercised on the objects to which it is applicable"...thats an excise!!! and it is limited in applicablity!!!

"imposing a tax...on constituents": thats residency, and participants.

And notice- constituents of the government, the people who constitute ("make up") the system. Just as it always has been , the King taxes the nobles, the nobles tax the servants, the servants tax the users of the system...

If you partner with the system , thats the nexus.

But we all already knew this.

As mertensv16 said, amazingly ignorant.

There's so much wrong here, I hardly know where to start. So I won't bother.

Some folks are hopeless. To quote yet another movie (Cool Hand Luke), "Some men you just can't reach."

[mertensv16]

The movie quote that best describes most of the tax denier postings is from Walter Huston's character in The Treasure of the Sierra Madre:

"You're so dumb there's nothing to compare you with."

[mrg]

Today, 01:55 PM
Remove user from ignore list
Lawdog
This message is hidden because Lawdog is on your ignore list.

View Post Old Today, 02:32 PM
Remove user from ignore list
mertensv16
This message is hidden because mertensv16 is on your ignore list.

Let me guess.

A quatloos BAR tag team ad hominem attack "to the person?"

Let me guess.

They called someone "stupid," because they cannot professionally afford to be responsive?

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

Like I said... no legal arguments, just amazingly ignorant paranoia.

The paranoia is more than justified.

The people ruling this world (including those behind the corporatocracy and the income tax) are incredibly, incredibly evil creatures.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

Like I said... no legal arguments, just amazingly ignorant paranoia.

You provided a comment from an opinion with no legal foundation and I pointed that out. So of course there is no legal argument and none was provided in return.

This has me asking what qualifications or training you may have that has provided you the foundation for analyzing any of the cases you've provided to date? I have my doubt that you actually have any first hand subject matter understanding and are only parroting what someone has spoon fed you. Are you studying law or employed in any legal field or area related to the same?

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by FreeFromContract

This has me asking what qualifications or training you may have that has provided you the foundation for analyzing any of the cases you've provided to date? I have my doubt that you actually have any first hand subject matter understanding and are only parroting what someone has spoon fed you. Are you studying law or employed in any legal field or area related to the same?

This is one of those "Heads you lose, tails you lose" questions. If I say I'm an attorney who's been practicing tax law for many years, it automatically follows that I'm a jack-booted lackey of the IRS who is only parroting the Official Government Line because to do otherwise would jeopardize my career. I'm furthermore part of the Great Tax Conspiracy, encompassing every attorney, CPA, law professor, judge, and Congressman in the country, which meets on alternate Tuesdays at a Subway sandwich shop in the basement of the IRS headquarters in Washington (it gets really crowded) to find new ways to hide the real law from the public.

Oh yeah, it'd also mean I'm a member of the B.A.R. and have an autographed picture of the Queen to which I pay homage thrice daily while kneeling on a copy of the London Times and reciting the Magna Charta backwards. (Seriously, people, this business about the B.A.R. is the most asinine, looney-tune, brain-dead piece of paranoid crackpottery that I've come across since I started visiting this site, even surpassing the complete lunacy of the gold-fringed flag stuff.)

On the other hand, if I say I'm not a lawyer then I obviously have no qualifications to discuss the cases I cite, which means that anything I say can be automatically dismissed. Of course, being unqualified hasn't stopped the uneducated and uninformed tax deniers from pontificating about the law as if they had the faintest clue about it.

Since most of you seem to be anarchists at heart and don't accept the concept of authority to begin with, what does it matter what my qualifications are? Either way, you'll find something to complain about, won't you?