61

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. :roll_eyes:

JWK

1 Like
62

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

63

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!

1 Like
64

image

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)

65

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.

66

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

67

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.

68

Safiel,

I see you have yet to respond to the “additional related ground” you requested to cover [the statement that “Wages are not income”], and which I took the time to accommodate you on HERE

It appeared to me you were adamant in your belief, and your belief was not grounded in the actual facts which I took the time to post for you. Have the documented facts changed your belief?

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)

.

69

True that.
#nationaldivorce

70

I have no idea what you mean by that, and why you posted a “#”.

JWK

Why have a written constitution, approved by the people, if those who it is meant to control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?

71

It’s a meme thing from Twitter etc. It indicates a tag to a common post topic, like “#letsgobrandon” or “#lockherup”.

1 Like
72

Gotcha! So, the poster wasn’t interested in the actual subject of the thread, but something different referred to after the #?

JWK

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And that is why the Democrat Party Leadership detests federalism . . . it is an obstacle to controlling and subjugating the people completely.

73

No. He was responding to the post he was responding to. The tag was probably just something thrown in to indicate the sort of agreement.

In the past I’ve compared threads in forums to after a big rah-rah meeting of staff and leadership at a company where the big boss is still there so nobody is leaving first before him and they are milling around having conversations that people literally wander in and out of as they move around the room. Randomness is expected. That doesn’t mean they aren’t interested in the conversation already in progress, it may be that something someone said reminds them of something else.

This happened with me yesterday when Samm said something about Portland turning empty Walmarts into homeless camps and I posted a snippet from the Architect skit where Cleese is showing some prospective clients his design for an upscale slaughterhouse only to learn that they just wanted apartments. Now, maybe Eric Idle’s part of the skit would have been more accurate to Samm’s thought of what those Walmarts could become (deathtraps awaiting a fire that homeless will set indoors), but I went with Cleese.

The post, which was harmless fun, was deleted. I liked to old casual attitude about tolerating non-abusive but random responding better. To paraphrase Yosemite Sam, there’s enough bandwidth and storage in this great country of ours for everyone to have their share.

3 Likes
74

Great post. And I am not being sarcastic.

75

Well, I’m still a bit confused as to why it was posted. It seems like a non sequitur with respect to the Temporary Victory Tax of 1943, and I was trying to understand exactly what was in the posters’ mind.
But as you describe above, it appears to have been an emotional remark en passant. But that’s ok. I kind of understand the post now.

In any event, it’s interesting to study how our government tricked and manipulated the minds of wage earners in 1942-3, into paying a "Temporary" federal direct tax [assertively to fund the war] which was not apportioned as our Constitution commands. And immediately went on to make it a permanent levy ___ although an unconstitutional tax upon the earned wages of working people ___ as soon as folks in government saw our nation’s working poor were willing to pay the tax. And to this very day, those who make their lives and labor available to others to earn the bread they eat, are robbed of the bread they earn by the sweat of their labor by some notoriously evil folks who use government force in violation of our Constitution’s commands.

JWK

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

76

There is an old claim made about one Senator pushing the income tax where he told a fellah that once they fooled the masses into letting them tax the rich they could expand the tax at will and, growing government, grow their power and prestige (as well as enhance pay to play).

Now, true or not, I will say allowing Congress and the government to have air conditioning was a huge mistake. DC without A/C used to basically close down in the summer … best thing it could ever be in the habit of doing.

We should remove their air conditioning and make it against the law to reinstall it. Also, prevent teleworking for elected officials.

Let official Washington “go green” and see how much they like it.

77

I’ve been at those meetings where with some big bosses you suspect you don’t even want to be seen leaving early to go to the bathroom if you can help it.

My boss never said anything what he felt about withholding. (a wink and nod for topic relevance)

1 Like
78

Now, back to the thread.

I think some of my observations from business about people in general may help to explain the inherent gradualism of growing government, first by claiming a tax is only for unearned income, then using it against wider and wider groups of people till at last you find an excuse to make everyone pay in that those responsible knew up front would never go away.

There are people who are “hungry”, who have vision and can make things happen.

There are people who are not hungry but are various shades of competent and conscientious.

But between these two there are people who “have elbows”, to borrow a page from Hacker in Yes, Minister.

Politics and government seems to attract people “with elbows”. Law too. They can have a sort of hunger fixated on themselves, their desires or an ideology that others have provided them, which were too often others merely “with elbows” too (Marxism is the ultimate elbows affair, sold with fairy stories about everyone having but in reality about the governing communist elite having even though they have few other competencies, giving rise to jokes about the Sahara running out of sand if run by socialists).

People “with elbows” push things along in stages, hewing out their turf in a business via office politics or their power in the public space. They relentlessly advance, and have to be beaten back or they never retreat, and may seem like unstoppable forces. But unlike the hungry who may have a vision, those “with elbows” alone can lope along without a vision, living within and taking advantage of the process with nary a concern for efficiency, economy or reality when they get as far gone as the federal government now is.

Don’t think this is to dig at Democrats, though they are obvious candidates.

Republicans who may occasionally try to resist new Democrat lawlessness but exceedingly rarely roll back anything that gets started are good examples of those operating on the basis of elbows rather than ideals. Promising to undo lawlessness is a way to get votes, nothing more, but those they imagine to be their friends have been shown time and again someone other than their base. Republicans are onboard with governance by elbows.

79

As I correctly pointed out above, “… those who make their lives and labor available to others to earn the bread they eat, are robbed of the bread they earn by the sweat of their labor by some notoriously evil folks who use government force in violation of our Constitution’s commands.”

Have you noticed how many of those who contend that “wages are income” with respect to today’s federal tax which steals the product of a poor working person’s labor, as asserted, e.g., HERE by Safiel, suspiciously vanish and avoid a sincere discussion, when challenged and presented with actual evidence which debunks their contention?

Indeed, our Congress critters have made themselves quite comfortable in their air-conditioned surroundings while they perform in front of tv cameras, pretending to advance the general welfare of the United States and her citizens, but in reality, use their office of public trust to plunder the wealth which America’s labor, businesses and industries have created.

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.

80

Rurudyne,

Your observation with reference to folks in government using elbows “… with nary a concern for efficiency, economy or reality …” is partly confirmed in 1909 when some in our Senate debated an alleged need to create and impose a tax on incomes.

SENATOR HEYBURN, during this debate, states the following:

“…where is the necessity of proposing these statutes providing for a tax upon the incomes of the people or a tax upon the gross earnings of corporations, or any other kind of a tax, in addition to those proposed in the bill, which already provides a sufficient fund for this Government?”

HEYBURN goes on to say:

“What occasion can there be, if the Government is provided with sufficient revenue under this law, of enacting some additional law that will provide a larger sum of money? What are we going to do with it? Has some one some covert idea of a new plan of government, by which we are going to branch out and spend more money than is required under the present system? If so, it should be disclosed.

What would you do with the revenue that was received from an income tax when you already have money enough in the Treasury to meet the Government’s necessities?”

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 16th, 1909 scroll to page 3347

Now, keep in mind the adoption of the Corporate Income Tax of 1909 was merely the first step which eventually led to the ultimate goal of taxing the bread which working people earn by the sweat of their labor ___ a goal of those with “elbows” which was eventually accomplished under the “TEMPORARY Victory Tax of 1943”, which I believe was never intended to be ‘TEMPOARY’, but a gimmick for Congress to eventually have a permanent and unconstitutional hand directly into the pockets of our nation’s poor working wage earners.

JWK

If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection [apportionment] 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) JUSTICE FULLER