Socialist Gov. Murphy turns NJ citizens into tax slaves to benefit illegal entrants


#144

Try not paying your mortgage to your other master and see what happens.


#145

Perhaps in your mind.


#146

If you think taxation is slavery then you do.


#147

Let us not forget when slavery was openly imposed on Blacks in America, its very object was to take possession of the property every slave hand in their labor.

Slavery comes in many forms, including the confiscation of property every wage earner has in their own labor. And that is why RINOs, socialists, communists and progressives love the Marxist income tax and the many forms it takes, including the confiscation of wages from hard working wage earners living in our nation’s inner cities which is used to keep them dependent upon government and on the slave plantation.

JWK

“The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands; and to hinder him from employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property.” ___ Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1884)


#148

I have no problem with our Constitution’s original tax plan being used to fund the constitutionally authorized functions of our federal government, i.e., imposts, duties and excise taxes [indirect taxes], and, an apportioned direct tax if the above mentioned taxes are found insufficient to meet our federal government’s expenditures during the course of a fiscal year.

What do you have against our Constitution’s original tax plan?

JWK

The liberty to fail or succeed at one’s own hand is a PROGRESSIVE`S nightmare and not the American Dream


#149

Slavery is forced labor. You have called for illegal immigrants to be compelled to build a border wall, but you have denied that it is slavery. The irony in that fact is even greater than the laughability of your legal thesis. The only thing greater than the irony is the ■■■■■■■ hypocrisy in your position.

But, by all means, continue to poop all over the internet. It is entertaining.


#150

Things change.


#151

CC[quote=“johnwk2, post:148, topic:672, full:true”]

I have no problem with our Constitution’s original tax plan being used to fund the constitutionally authorized functions of our federal government, i.e., imposts, duties and excise taxes [indirect taxes], and, an apportioned direct tax if the above mentioned taxes are found insufficient to meet our federal government’s expenditures during the course of a fiscal year.

What do you have against our Constitution’s original tax plan?

JWK

The liberty to fail or succeed at one’s own hand is a PROGRESSIVE`S nightmare and not the American Dream
[/quote]
The original tax plan is no more. It was amended, in accordance with Article V, by the 16th amendment, as the founders intended. The Constitution’s tax plan now includes taxes on incomes, however derived, without apportionment.

You DO support the Constitution, right?


#152

Correction: No rational definition of the term “slavery” includes taxation.


#155

Not even irrationality admits of a definition of “slavery” that includes taxation.


#156

Calling oneself a slave because one pays taxes is a self-defeating argument. It is just one of those silly things that people, over time, talk themselves into believing.

Paying taxes doesn’t bunch me up like that. I use the infrastructure that the government provides and pay my part for it.


#157

The 16th has been his blind spot for years if not decades.


#158

It has long been established by the courts that the Income Tax is not a direct tax and is lawful and constitutional.

The federal income tax is unconstitutional because it is a “direct tax” that must be apportioned among the states in accordance with the census.
False. It is true that there is an apportionment requirement in the Constitution for “direct taxes,” but the 16th Amendment clearly eliminates the apportionment requirement for all taxes on incomes.

Before the adoption of the 16th Amendment, the constitutionality of an income tax was determined under Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 of the Constitution, which states that:

“No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”

The reference to the “Census or Enumeration” was a reference to Article I, Section 2, of the Constitution, which directs that:

“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”

(“All other Persons” meant slaves.)

Whether or not an income tax should have been considered to be a “direct tax” that must be apportioned will be discussed below, but the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1913, removed all doubt about apportionment because it clearly states that:

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

And so, following the ratification of the 16th Amendment, Congress enacted an unapportioned income tax, and the constitutionality of that tax was challenged, but the Supreme Court held unanimously that the income tax was constitutional because “in express terms the Amendment provides that income taxes, from whatever source the income may be derived, shall not be subject to the regulation of apportionment.” Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916).

The arguments that tax protesters make about the validity and meaning of the 16th Amendment will be dealt with in other sections of this FAQ. (See “Related Topics,” below.)

But because tax protesters continue to insist that a tax on incomes was a “direct tax” both before the ratification of the 16th Amendment and even afterwards, a brief history of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of “direct tax” is appropriate.

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#direct


#159

Slaves! And the scars to prove it.

:tired_face:


#160

The fact remains, direct taxes are still, to this day, required to be apportioned, regardless of the 16th Amendment.

As to whether or not a tax calculate from “incomes” is unconstitutional, that would depend on whether or not it is in harmony with the definition of “income” as it was understood during the time the amendment was adopted, and likewise depend on whether or not the tax takes the form of a direct tax, in which case it would require and apportionment among the states.

For example, the definition of income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment is a profit or gain after deducting all necessary expenses and outlays from gross receipts.

And, as to the meaning of a direct tax as understood by our founders, I have researched and carefully studied historical documentation during the time period our Constitution was adopted to identify the distinctions between direct and indirect taxation. One thing I am certain of, there is a consistency among the founders comments and tax legislation of the time that direct taxes are those assessed to the individual by government, while indirect taxes are costs added by government to things which individuals are free to acquired or reject.

An example of an indirect tax calculated from income and upheld by the Court is found in Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, (1911), which explains why the tax there is indirect, while an example of an income tax held to be direct and required to be apportioned is found in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)

JWK


”If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property.”
__ POLLOCK v. FARMERS’ LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 [1895]


#161

And once again, you’re in the wrong century where the income tax wasn’t even the subject of discussion.

The fact is, you have no argument to make, the SCOTUS has held up the 16th every time it has been challenged and they have specifically upheld the federal income tax every time it has been challenged since it’s passage.


#162

Did you miss what I stated in THIS POST?

In Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920) the court struck the income tax down as being direct, in addition to not fitting the definition of income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment.

The Court concluded in Eisner:

“Thus, from every point of view we are brought irresistibly to the conclusion that neither under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder. The Revenue Act of 1916, in so far as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment.”

JWK


#163

Why???


#164

May I assume that you are personally not paying income tax to show your strong conviction? I keep asking and not getting an answer


#165

You could drive a truck through that blind spot.