The Temporary Victory Tax ghost of 1943 lives on

johnwk2 · 2023-02-27T18:51:49.870Z

Publius:

The question seems to boil down to whether income taxes are direct or not.

How do you arrive at that question when pertinent to the discussion is the Sixteenth Amendment which explicitly reads:

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.

The more logical and relevant question seems to be is, whether or not a particle federal tax levied which is calculated from “incomes” [as the term “incomes” was intended during the adoption of the amendment] takes the form of a direct tax and must therefore be apportioned.

P.S. One reason for my question is because a particular tax calculated from “incomes” was struck down as being direct and not apportioned. See Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920),

johnwk2 · 2023-02-27T21:10:07.261Z

Safiel:

All four unanimously upheld the carriage tax, emphatically agreeing that the tax was indirect.

So my view is substantiated by four Founding Fathers.

Your “view” as stated was: “There are only three types of Direct Tax that require apportionment under the Constitution. A capitation tax. A tax on wealth or the value of non-real property. A tax on the value of real property.”

While there was a unanimous opinion in Hylton that a federal tax on carriages for the conveyance of persons was upheld as being “indirect” and not requiring an apportionment [a conclusion I agree with], your opinion that “There are only three types of Direct Tax that require apportionment under the Constitution . . . etc.” was not the subject being decided by the court and was so emphasized in the opinion. So, in fact, the Hylton case does not confirm your “view”.

Also keep in mind Chief Justice ELLSWORTH who was sworn into office the morning of the Court’s decision in Hylton, did not take part in it. But his explanations, specifically with regard to the meaning of “direct taxes” captures the characteristics which separate and define direct taxes from those which are indirect.

”Direct taxation can go but little way towards raising a revenue. To raise money in this way, people must be provident; they must constantly be laying up money to answer the demands of the collector. But you cannot make people thus provident. If you would do any thing to the purpose, you must come in when they are spending, and take a part with them. This does not take away the tools of a man’s business, or the necessary utensils of his family: it only comes in when he is taking his pleasure, and feels generous; when he is laying out a shilling for superfluities, it takes twopence of it for public use, and the remainder will do him as much good as the whole.”

Ellsworth goes on to note:

“The experiments, which have been made in our own country, show the productive nature of indirect taxes. The imports into the United States amount to a very large sum. They never will be less, but will continue to increase for centuries to come. As the population of our country increases, the imports will necessarily increase. They will increase, because our citizens will choose to be farmers; living independently on their freeholds, rather than to be manufacturers, and work for a groat a day.”

”On the other hand, direct taxes are not voluntary, nor, in general, are they avoidable. And with respect to direct taxes, the anti-federalist minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania warned that direct taxation “…is a tax that, however oppressive in its nature, and unequal in its operation, is certain as to its produce and simple in its collection; it cannot be evaded like the objects of imposts or excise …” ___ See Connecticut ratification debates Elliot’s VOL II, page 191

So, a few characteristics of an indirect tax are, it is voluntarily paid during the taxpayer’s consumption, and safe because no man is obliged to consume more than he pleases, and such a tax are costs added by government to things which individuals are free to acquired or reject, while direct taxes are those which are assessed to the individual by government, are oppressive, and not avoidable.

Are we to pretend that the bread which working people earn by the sweat of their labor is not their property, and so protected by the rule of apportionment?

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)

johnwk2 · 2023-02-28T15:54:10.392Z

Rurudyne:

Early lawlessness from the Court that has no enumerated power to find novelties to the Law to be lawful.

And then there are those who, as exhibited in this very thread, who perpetuate the lawlessness and outright subjugation of the defined and limited powers delegated to our federal government.

JWK

The Biden Administration is betting the farm that American citizens will not raise one finger to defend their border against the Administration’s ongoing and planned invasion of the United States.

johnwk2 · 2023-03-01T14:33:04.487Z

Well, Safiel, is your silence conformation you were in error?

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records ___ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text ___ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Safiel · 2023-03-02T01:39:46.156Z

johnwk2:

Well, Safiel, is your silence conformation you were in error?

(snipped)

Hardly. I continue to stand fully by my previous posts.

Rurudyne:

Yep. Wages are not income.

But lets cover some additional related ground, since Rurudyne brought it up and you agreed with his position.

The bolded statement is straight out of the Sovereign Citizen/Tax Protester playbook. Not one single court has ever bought this ridiculous notion.

Wages are income. When Joe Sixpack goes to work operating a steam shovel for his employer, he is selling his time and labor to his employer for money. That is an exchange and thus a transaction that may rightfully be taxed. Even if you look on labor as property, Joe Sixpack is essentially selling that property to his employer for money, still an exchange, still a transaction, still taxable.

No court in the land has ever bought this ridiculous proposition that wages aren’t income and none ever will. Indeed, only Sovereign Citizens and Tax Protesters try to push this argument and fail every time.

johnwk2 · 2023-03-02T13:53:59.672Z

Safiel:

johnwk2:

Well, Safiel, is your silence conformation you were in error?

(snipped)

Hardly. I continue to stand fully by my previous posts.

Yes, Safiel, you do stand by your previous posts. But in those posts, you offer unsubstantiated opinion with regard to the Hylton case and the meaning of direct vs indirect taxes, and your opinion seems to be in conflict with the documented facts I posted HERE and especially HERE.

Since you do stand by your previous posts which contain “opinion” unsupported by documented facts, perhaps you would share with me, and those interested, the evidence which encouraged you to arrive at your opinions. It certainly would be productive to establish the meaning of “direct tax”, within the meaning of our Constitution since our Constitution emphatically commands:

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States . . . "

and

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

JWK

The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

Nemesis · 2023-03-02T14:26:15.557Z

Sovereign Citizens are all nutcases but I love to watch them on Youtube. UK has a similar movement called Freeman of the Land.

johnwk2 · 2023-03-02T16:30:35.671Z

Nemesis:

Sovereign Citizens are all nutcases but I love to watch them on Youtube. UK has a similar movement called Freeman of the Land.

Well, isn’t this special? Instead of engaging in a productive discussion concerning the statement made by Rurudyne, that “Wages are not income”, you, and Safiel to a degree, find it necessary to engage in name calling.

JWK

When Federal Reserve Notes were made a legal tender in violation of our Constitution, and a direct un-apportioned tax was imposed upon the people without their consent, America’s free enterprise, free market system was subjugated, and the tools of oppression and thievery were made available to some very immoral and nefariously evil people.

Nemesis · 2023-03-02T17:12:13.257Z

No one is name calling. Why would you feel that? I just made a comment. I have said before I do not know enough about this topic. Though I do not agree with your definition that wages are not income.

johnwk2 · 2023-03-02T17:16:44.605Z

Yes. You did make a “comment”. You indicated people who don’t agree with you are “nutcases”.

Nemesis · 2023-03-02T17:25:58.028Z

johnwk2:

Yes. You did make a “comment”. You indicated people who don’t agree with you are “nutcases”.

No I said Sovereign Citizens are nutcases. Massive difference.

They use pseudo legal babble to try and justify their ridiculous notions. But I will stop there as I dont want to be accused of deflecting. Could be a good topic for another thread.

johnwk2 · 2023-03-02T17:33:32.639Z

You didn’t call “Sovereign Citizens”, whomever they are and who you apparently disagree with, “nutcases”?

Nemesis · 2023-03-02T17:42:39.324Z

Stop splitting hairs. You know exactly what I meant. my post was clear. Yes Sovereign Citizens are nutters and no not everyone who disagree with me is a nutter.

Pretty much all the posters on this forum who I have some fundamental differences of opinion I respect and most probably would like in real life.

Now get back to getting your arse kicked by @Safiel - Thats a joke not an insult or a real physical threat.

johnwk2 · 2023-03-02T18:05:38.017Z

Nemesis:

Now get back to getting your arse kicked by @Safiel - Thats a joke not an insult or a real physical threat.

Now that assertion by you, my ass getting kicked by Safiel, is amusing since Safiel offers a host of unsubstantiated opinions, and has yet to respond to what I posted HERE, and which challenges his unsubstantiated opinions. Seems to me in your world, unsubstantiated opinions trump documented facts.

JWK

johnwk2 · 2023-03-02T19:47:56.046Z

Safiel:

But lets cover some additional related ground, since Rurudyne brought it up and you agreed with his position.

The bolded statement is straight out of the Sovereign Citizen/Tax Protester playbook. Not one single court has ever bought this ridiculous notion.

Wages are income. When Joe Sixpack goes to work operating a steam shovel for his employer, he is selling his time and labor to his employer for money. That is an exchange and thus a transaction that may rightfully be taxed. Even if you look on labor as property, Joe Sixpack is essentially selling that property to his employer for money, still an exchange, still a transaction, still taxable.

No court in the land has ever bought this ridiculous proposition that wages aren’t income and none ever will. Indeed, only Sovereign Citizens and Tax Protesters try to push this argument and fail every time.

OK, Safiel, let’s cover some additional related ground, since Rurudyne brought it up and you request it be covered.

Unlike you, I must acknowledge the statement, “Wages are not income”, does raise a very interesting subject for discussion, and especially so if we study a number of court opinions, including one handed down by our very own Supreme Court.

In EISNER v. MACOMBER , 252 U.S. 189 (1920) the Court, in striking down a federal tax on “income”, set forth the characteristics defining “incomes” within the meaning of the 16th Amendment as follows:

“After examining dictionaries in common use (Bouv. L. D.; Standard Dict.; Webster’s Internat. Dict.; Century Dict.), we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 (Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 , 34 S. Sup. Ct. 136, 140 [58 L. Ed. 285]; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 [62 L. Ed. 1054]), ‘Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,’ provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle Case, 247 U.S. 183, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 (62 L. Ed. 1054).

Brief as it is, it indicates the characteristic and distinguishing attribute of income essential for a correct solution of the present controversy. The government, although basing its argument upon the definition as quoted, placed chief emphasis upon the word ‘gain,’ which was extended to include a variety of meanings; while the significance of the next three words was either overlooked or misconceived. ‘Derived-from- capital’; ‘the gain-derived-from-capital,’ etc. Here we have the essential matter: not a gain accruing to capital; not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value, proceeding from the property, severed from the capital, however invested or employed, and coming in, being ‘derived’-that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal- that is income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description.”

A critical passage in the court’s opinion is “. . . but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value, proceeding from the property, severed from the capital, however invested or employed, and coming in . . . “

So, Safiel, according to our Supreme Court all money that comes in is not “income” within the meaning of the 16th Amendment. Income is the gain or profit “severed from the capital, however invested or employed, and coming in.”

Now, let us keep in mind a working person, unlike those who invest money as their “capital”, the working person invests the capital, or property, each has in their own labor, i.e., eight hours of their life which they surrender daily to their employer, the actual sweat and labor provided during working hours, their skills and education are all part of the “investment” made by our laboring class, and according to the Court, it would appear the value of such “capital” or property invested must be severed from money coming in, in order to arrive at the calculated profit and or gain which may then be taxed.

It should also be noted that the income from a business which is wholly illegal was held subject to income tax in United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259. Nevertheless, it was necessary to determine what that income was, and the cost of an illegal purchase of liquor was subtracted from proceeds of the illegal sale of the liquor in order to arrive at the gain from the illegal transaction which were subjected to income tax in that case.

And, in Sullenger vs. Commissioner, the Court allowed the business owner [who made illegal purchases of meat] to deduct the cost of meat purchased at a higher price then set by the Office of Price Administration, a World War II price control agency, which he then resold for profit. The “income” from those sales was being taxed which was at issue in the case. The Court went on to cite Sullivan and concluded: “No authority has been cited for denying to this taxpayer the cost of goods sold in computing his profit, which profit alone is gross income for income tax purposes.”

The point being, even crooks engaged in illegal and criminal activities are to deduct their outlays and expenses in computing a “profit” which may then be taxed.

So, with regard to the comment, “Wages are not income”, and taking into account what our courts have emphatically stated regarding how profit and or gain is calculated in order to arrive at taxable income, one thing seems to be irrefutable . . . all money coming in to a wage earner when investing the property each has in their own labor cannot be reasonably said to be income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment.

Are we not to apply the same rules to a wage earner in calculating an alleged profit and or gain from their “investment”, as we do with those who invest money as their capital in order to realize a gain or profit which is then asserted to be subject to federal taxation?

And let us not forget the very intention of those who promoted the 16th Amendment was . . . “An income tax seeks to reach the unearned wealth of the country and to make it pay its share.” Congressional Record, July 12th, 1909, page 4420, Mr. HEFLIN

Are we to ignore the intended distinction between earned wages and un-earned “incomes” within the meaning of the 16th Amendment?

The bottom line is, the comment that “Wages are not income” ___ assuming it was made in respect of the 16th Amendment and calculating a federal tax ___ seems to have significant merit in my opinion as the “capital” or property invested must be severed from money coming in, in order to arrive at a calculated profit and or gain which may then be taxed. And that is according to the Court.

So, the question seems to present itself . . . what portion of a working person’s earned wage, if any, is considered a profit and or gain within the meaning of “incomes” as the word appears in the 16th amendment?

Additionally, if a federal tax on a working person’s earned wage is a direct tax within the meaning of our Constitution, and it is levied without being apportioned, would it not then violate our Constitution’s protective rule that:

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

JWK

“If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?”___ Justice Story

Rurudyne · 2023-03-02T20:07:46.029Z

I sometimes just point out that time is not fungible. We may exchange some of our time, and indeed chunks of our lives, for money but we cannot exchange our money for more time.

The exchange therefore is entirely distinct from exchanging goods, acquired for money or manufactured through activity of others, for more money, realizing a profit. And it is even farther removed from exchanging money, as capital, for part or whole ownership of a legal entity in hopes of realizing profit that is (entities not being subject to death) detached from our own time.

To receive a wage is not a total loss as would be the case of someone who truly has nothing to show for his or her time but it certainly is not a gain. It is more akin to treading water.

Only in Christ can men trade their time for wealth that exist where thieves do not break in, or rust or moth destroy … and we may be all assured that if the IRS could tax THAT they would!

johnwk2 · 2023-03-03T13:16:32.337Z

Rurudyne:

I sometimes just point out that time is not fungible. We may exchange some of our time, and indeed chunks of our lives, for money but we cannot exchange our money for more time.

The exchange therefore is entirely distinct from exchanging goods, acquired for money or manufactured through activity of others, for more money, realizing a profit. And it is even farther removed from exchanging money, as capital, for part or whole ownership of a legal entity in hopes of realizing profit that is (entities not being subject to death) detached from our own time.

You are spot on, Rurudyne!

Time is part of what a poor working person invests to acquire a medium of exchange from their employer, which is then used to purchase the necessities of life needed by the employee to sustain life itself, which then makes their labor available to their employer on another day.

To pretend, as some do, that a working class person does not “invest” their labor as a capitalist invests their “money”, and is therefore not equally entitled as the capitalist is to sever the investment made from money coming in to arrive at a supposed taxable profit or gain, is contemptable toward our nation’s working class people whose station in life burdens them to surrender life itself to obtain the necessities of life.

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)

Rurudyne · 2023-03-03T14:56:25.740Z

I would go further, for even the proverbial man being actually paid a million an hour for his time, though his wages be truly astonishing, is still not receiving something he can exchange for more days than the Lord has allotted him. It may be the case that men die early from out of their potential time on this earth, but no one dies late.

I would also point out the abominable fiction of our present system of taxation, the lie that the income is paying the tax (so progressive taxation is okay) rather than the person whose income it is. You may note that it was explicitly said in Corfield v Coryell that among our P&I, and therefore other rights retained oer the 9th Amendment, is that persons should not be taxed differently, which would mean that if the tax be a fee then all should pay the same fee or if an assessment then all should pay the percentage. A man’s income is first to last dollar his own, there is no difference and first dollar or last dollar should be taxed the same and not on a sliding scale.

johnwk2 · 2023-03-03T20:51:18.699Z

Safiel,

You did request to " . . . cover some additional related ground since Rurudyne brought it up . . . ", and I accomodated your request HERE, which addresses your assertions about “wages are income”.

In my response to your request, I took the time to provide sufficient documentation that indeed, a working person’s earned wages may not be considered taxable income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment, and that the evidence seems to confirm that “Wages are not income” appears to have significant merit.

I was looking forward to your response to my post, in view of the documented evidence I presented, and eager for you to comment on the question raised, which was: . what portion of a working person’s earned wage, if any, is considered a profit and or gain within the meaning of “incomes” as the word appears in the 16th Amendment?

JWK

johnwk2 · 2023-03-04T21:36:29.163Z

Rurudyne:

I would also point out the abominable fiction of our present system of taxation, the lie that the income is paying the tax (so progressive taxation is okay) rather than the person whose income it is. You may note that it was explicitly said in Corfield v Coryell that among our P&I, and therefore other rights retained oer the 9th Amendment, is that persons should not be taxed differently,

Rurudyne,

You are absolutely correct in that our federal Constitution commands by the rule of apportionment . . . if Congress decides to tax the people directly within the various States, it is restricted by the terms of our constitution to impose an equal tax on each and every taxpayer across the United States.

The terms of our Constitution requiring this are:

“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States . . . “

and . . .

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

Neither of these protective provisions regarding “direct” taxation have been repealed! And those two commands require our federal government, if it should decide to lay a direct tax on ordinary working people ___ any kind of levy which falls within the meaning of a direct tax, e.g. Capitation, Poll, Head, tax upon property, etc. ___ it must first determine each State’s apportioned share of a total sum being raised under the tax, and then each taxpayer across the United States may only be required to pay the exact same dollar amount, which turns out to be an equal per capita tax and which is in harmony with . . . one man, one vote, and, one vote, one dollar . . . a just principle commanding Representation with an equal financial obligation!

And, just what is the reasoning for the rule of apportionment as stated by our Founders?

Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment says:

“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.” 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6

And then see:

“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”3 Elliot’s, 243,“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244 ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.

Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public."3 Elliot, 255

And if there is any confusion or doubt about the rule of apportionment intentionally being designed to ensure that the people of each state are to be taxed proportionately equal to their representation in Congress if and when a direct tax is levied by Congress, Mr. PENDLETON says:

“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41

The unfortunate truth is, members of Congress, regardless of their political party affiliation, have joined together in a rebellion against adhering to the rule of apportioning direct taxes, and it appears there is a logical, but nefarious reason, for not abiding by the rule. If followed, it would literally put an end to Congress redistributing wealth created by America’s labor and industries and the political benefits derived by members of Congress who do so, and likewise put an end to Congress’s love affair with unequal direct taxation which divides the people and instigates a never-ending war between the rich and poor, while members of Congress enjoy the political benefits created by dividing the people.

JWK

When Federal Reserve Notes were made a legal tender in violation of our Constitution, and a direct un-apportioned tax was imposed upon the people without their consent, America’s free enterprise, free market system was subjugated, and the tools of oppression and thievery were made available to some very immoral and nefariously evil people.