Net income and activities of labor are on the same team.

[yebliker]

"employee wages" is correct. Those words each have very specific meanings, if a person reading them doesn't assume that they have the common street meaning, and the person reads the definition of each.

One only receives "wages" through "employment", and one is only "employed" if they work for a federally-connected payer. This certainly does not mean that all pay is income. It means that "wages" are income.

Read it for yourself in the code.

-Yebliker

Originally Posted by mertensv16

A tax on the income from common labor has never been viewed in this country as a poll or capitation tax.



Nonsense. Employee wages have been included as gross income ever since the first federal income tax (enacted in 1861).

[yebliker]

How about we not argue semantics, but define a capitation or poll tax? I thought that these were taxes on existence, meaning everyone pays the same amount regardless of the factors of his/her life. For example, an independently wealthy person might not have employment or perform labor, but would still be subject to a cap/poll tax.
Does this sound right?

-Yebliker

Originally Posted by mrg

How, precisely, "would" "[t]he statement 'The moon has never been viewed as made of green cheese'" "be incorrect" simply because, in your opinion (belief) "there are deluded idiots who think it is?

How, precisely, is it FACT that those "who think a tax on wages is a capitation or poll tax" are, indeed, as a matter of fact, "deluded idiots?"

Weak analogy?

Or:

Apologist propaganda?

[mrg]

Originally Posted by mrg

Depends upon who is doing the "viewing?"

Yes or no?

Reading comprehension problem?

Professional proclivity to obfuscate?

Or just can't bring yourself to do it?

Yes or no?

Really difficult task?

Yes or no?

[mrg]

Originally Posted by yebliker

How about we not argue semantics,
-Yebliker

I just asked questions I think.

Did I "argue?"

Do you not think, perhaps, that "semantics" might be a large part of the "issue?"

The definition of "income" is income?"

Is it a "wage tax," or an "income tax?"

[FreeFromContract]

All the readers should be well aware of mertensv16 biased misrepresentation of facts. This thread serves as another example:

Originally Posted by mertensv16

Fine.

Not fine.

The fact that mertensv16 refused to acknowledge the error nearly one month ago when I accused him/her of such errors (and in fact, he reposted the same info in multiple posts) only goes to illustrate he/she is either intentionally misrepresenting the truth or just don't understand the subject matter.

In fact, now that mertensv16 has shown he/she fully understood that the case was not standing upon the act of 1861, it's obvious he/she is intentionally misrepresenting the facts.

Originally Posted by mertensv16

The Springer case dealt with the income tax act of June 30, 1864, as amended by the act of March 3, 1865, which (just like the 1861 act) included employee wages in the tax base.

Again, more misrepresentation by mertensv16.

No, not "just like the 1861 act". If it was "just like the 1861 act" then there would have been no reason to repeal the 1861 act and write new legislation to begin with.

I suspect mertensv16 is well aware of the other errors, but since he/she is not acting in good faith he/she will not acknowledge them and only come up with excuses as he/she did in the Steward Machine Co. case.

Back to my lunch, as this is giving me indignation, I mean, indigestion.

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by FreeFromContract

The fact that mertensv16 refused to acknowledge the error nearly one month ago when I accused him/her of such errors (and in fact, he reposted the same info in multiple posts) only goes to illustrate he/she is either intentionally misrepresenting the truth or just don't understand the subject matter.

When I asked you to say what the alleged errors were, you refused because you wanted to play your juvenile game.

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/taxati...tml#post134886

No, not "just like the 1861 act". If it was "just like the 1861 act" then there would have been no reason to repeal the 1861 act and write new legislation to begin with.

I gave you the cites to the legislation. If you think there are any differences in the statutes that would have caused the Springer court to have reached a different result if the 1861 or 1862 acts had been involved, cite them. Otherwise, your posts are simply wastes of bandwidth.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

your posts are simply wastes of bandwidth.

Your presence here is even more so.

[indago]

mertensv16 wrote:

Hylton hasn't been overturned. If you think it has been, please give us a citation to the case that did so.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/048.pdf


Page 2388 — SUPREME COURT DECISIONS OVERRULED


Overruling Case: 28. Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. 158 U.S. 601 (1895)

Overruled Case: Hylton v. United States 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 171 (1796)

[mertensv16]

I disagree that Hylton was overruled, although you will find different opinions on this point. There is certainly no language in Pollock overruling Hylton, and the most that can be said is that Pollock didn’t accept the suggestion from two of the four justices in Hylton that the only direct taxes under the Constitution were capitation taxes and taxes on land.

I agree with the reconciliation of Hylton and Pollock as expressed in Union Electric Co. v. U.S., 363 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2004), available at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...d/035096.html:

The [Supreme] Court has never overruled Hylton. In fact, in the years since Hylton, the Supreme Court has repeatedly cited Hylton with approval in rejecting direct tax challenges. See, e.g., Fernandez v. Wiener, 326 U.S. 340, 353 (1945); Bromley v. McCaughn, 280 U.S. 124, 136 (1929); Thomas v. United States, 192 U.S. 363, 370 (1904); Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586, 599-601 (1881)…

The [Pollock] Court, however, was clear that not all unapportioned taxes on personal property constituted invalid direct taxes. Throughout the Pollock II opinion the Court was careful to describe the income tax at issue as a general tax on the whole of an individual's personal property. Id. at 622 (holding that a "tax on the whole income of a property" is a direct tax); id. at 625 (describing the tax at issue as a tax on "the whole income" from an individual's "whole property"); id. at 627 (explaining that a "general unapportioned tax" on the income of property is a direct tax just as would be a tax on the property itself); id. at 633 (framing the issue in the case as "whether a general unapportioned tax on the income of real and personal property can be sustained"); id. at 637 (describing the tax at issue as "a direct tax on all real estate and personal property, or the income thereof"). The Court made clear that its holding only extended to such general taxes. First, it did not overrule its earlier opinion in Hylton, which upheld an unapportioned tax on carriages. Id. at 626-27. Although the Court criticized Hylton as "badly reported," it quoted the opinion as good law, finding that the seriatim opinions in Hylton decided only "that a tax on carriages was an excise, and, therefore, an indirect tax" and that this holding did not foreclose the possibility that an income tax levied on all personal property was a direct tax that demanded apportionment. Id. The Court found "nothing in the Hylton case in conflict" with its understanding of a direct tax as a tax levied "upon one's whole income." Id. at 625-26.

[indago]

mertensv16 wrote:

I disagree that Hylton was overruled

And why am I not surprised, even in the face of the facts.

And weren't we warned about all this over a hundred years ago...

"It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon." — Mr. Justice Joseph Bradley

---------------------------------------------------------------------
"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance." — Declaration of Independence