Printable View
The only income taxes affected by the suit were those that the supreme court deemed to be Duties, Imposts, or Excises. That is limited to interest, dividends, and rents (income from property). Taxes on income from payroll was not part of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
No, but the modern income tax IS a direct tax *unlike Social Security, which is indirect* and there is no way to implement an apportioned direct tax on wages. The modern federal income tax would not be constitutional without the 16th amendment.
Not true.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Income tax based on professions, trades, employment, and vocations have never been considered direct taxes and therefore were not affected in any way by the amendment.
See Loki's link.Quote:
The Court in Brushaber also noted that before Pollock, taxes on income from professions, trades, employments or vocations were excises, they were indirect in both form and substance and thereby had never been apportioned; so they were entitled to be so enforced afterwards. By contrast, with respect to taxes on income from property, the Pollock decision had disregarded form and considered substance alone.
Loki's link is to Wikipedia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
You didn't provide any links.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Quote:
"As construed by the Supreme Court in the Brushaber case, the power of Congress to tax income derives from Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, of the original Constitution rather than from the Sixteenth Amendment; the latter simply eliminated the requirement that an income tax, to the extent that it is a direct tax, must be apportioned among the states." Boris I. Bittker, Martin J. McMahon, Jr. & Lawrence A. Zelenak, Federal Income Taxation of Individuals, ch. 1, paragr. 1.01[1][a], Research Institute of America (2d ed. 2005), as retrieved from 2002 WL 1454829 (W. G. & L.).
And this provesQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Obama is proposing borrowing every close to the amount of money that the Republicans borrowed in a single year .. but Obama is proposing borrowing that sum EVERY SINGLE MONTH throughout his term of office and beyond.
?
Show me.
Isn't the 16th amendment more about how the income tax is dispensed rather than how it is levied?Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Your article directly contradicts what you said earlier. Neither Loki nor I are talking about income taxes in general or as a concept, but the specific program run by the IRS today. That program taxes gross income from all sources, is consequently a direct tax in US Constitutional terms to an extent, and would hence run afoul of the provision from Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 if not for the 16th amendment, since it is not apportioned among the states.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
Ah, I see you didn't do any further study of the Brushaber case. And I still don't see anything from you other than your own opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
I haven't posted a link. I pointed out Wikipedia was being used as the source. What do I always say about Wikipedia *or any encylopedia* as a source?
And what does further study of Brushaber have to do with it? The particular point I'm making was never raised as a justiciable question in Brushaber, and the Revenue Act of 1913 is not the present US income tax program.
The Brushaber ruling consolidated and clarified rulings from several other cases in order to reach its conclusion. Here is part of the ruling that clarifies that only income taxes based on ownership of property is released from apportionment through the 16th amendment.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
You'll find it in the 7th paragraph, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...ol=240&invol=1Quote:
That the authority conferred upon Congress by 8 of article 1 'to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises' is exhaustive and embraces every conceivable power of taxation has never been questioned, or, if it has, has been so often authoritatively declared as to render it necessary only to state the doctrine. And it has also never [240 U.S. 1, 13] been questioned from the foundation, without stopping presently to determine under which of the separate headings the power was properly to be classed, that there was authority given, as the part was included in the whole, to lay and collect income taxes. Again, it has never moreover been questioned that the conceded complete and all-embracing taxing power was subject, so far as they were respectively applicable, to limitations resulting from the requirements of art. 1, 8, cl. 1, that 'all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States,' and to the limitations of art I., 2, cl. 3, that 'direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states,' and of art 1, 9, cl. 4, that 'no capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken.' In fact, the two great subdivisions embracing the complete and perfect delegation of the power to tax and the two correlated limitations as to such power were thus aptly stated by Mr. Chief Justice Fuller in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 157 U. S. supra, at page 557: 'In the matter of taxation, the Constitution recognizes the two great classes of direct and indirect taxes, and lays down two rules by which their imposition must be governed, namely: The rule of apportionment as to direct taxes, and the rule of uniformity as to duties, imposts, and excises.' It is to be observed, however, as long ago pointed out in Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533, 541, 19 L. ed. 482, 485, that the requirements of apportionment as to one of the great classes and of uniformity as to the other class were not so much a limitation upon the complete and all-embracing authority to tax, but in their essence were simply regulations concerning the mode in which the plenary power was to be exerted. In the whole history of the government down to the time of the adoption of the 16th Amendment, leaving aside some conjectures expressed of the possibility of a tax lying intermediate between the two great classes and embraced [240 U.S. 1, 14] by neither, no question has been anywhere made as to the correctness of these propositions. At the very beginning, however, there arose differences of opinion concerning the criteria to be applied in determining in which of the two great subdivisions a tax would fall. Without pausing to state at length the basis of these differences and the consequences which arose from them, as the whole subject was elaborately reviewed in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 157 U.S. 429 , 39 L. ed. 759, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 673, 158 U.S. 601 , 39 L. ed. 1108, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 912, we make a condensed statement which is in substance taken from what was said in that case. Early the differences were manifested in pressing on the one hand and opposing on the other, the passage of an act levying a tax without apportionment on carriages 'for the conveyance of persons,' and when such a tax was enacted the question of its repugnancy to the Constitution soon came to this court for determination. Hylton v. United States, 3 Dall. 171, 1 L. ed. 556. It was held that the tax came within the class of excises, duties, and imposts, and therefore did not require apportionment, and while this conclusion was agreed to by all the members of the court who took part in the decision of the case, there was not an exact coincidence in the reasoning by which the conclusion was sustained. Without stating the minor differences, it may be said with substantial accuracy that the divergent reasoning was this: On the one hand, that the tax was not in the class of direct taxes requiring apportionment, because it was not levied directly on property because of its ownership, but rather on its use, and was therefore an excise, duty, or impost; and on the other, that in any event the class of direct taxes included only taxes directly levied on real estate because of its ownership. Putting out of view the difference of reasoning which led to the concurrent conclusion in the Hylton Case, it is undoubted that it came to pass in legislative practice that the line of demarcation between the two great classes of direct taxes on the one hand and excises, duties, and [240 U.S. 1, 15] imposts on the other, which was exemplified by the ruling in that case, was accepted and acted upon. In the first place this is shown by the fact that wherever (and there were a number of cases of that kind) a tax was levied directly on real estate or slaves because of ownership, it was treated as coming within the direct class and apportionment was provided for, while no instance of apportionment as to any other kind of tax is afforded. Again the situation is aptly illustrated by the various acts taxing incomes derived from property of every kind and nature which were enacted beginning in 1861, and lasting during what may be termed the Civil War period. It is not disputable that these latter taxing laws were classed under the head of excises, duties, and imposts because it was assumed that they were of that character inasmuch as, although putting a tax burden on income of every kind, including that derived from property real or personal, they were not taxes directly on property because of its ownership. And this practical construction came in theory to be the accepted one, since it was adopted without dissent by the most eminent of the text writers. 1 Kent, Com. 254, 256; 1 Story, Const. 955; Cooley, Const. Lim. 5th ed. *480; Miller, Constitution, 237; Pom. Const. Law, 281; 1 Hare, Const. Law, 249, 250; Burroughs, Taxn. 502; Ordronaux, Constitutional Legislation, 225
And in the 8th paragraph,
Quote:
Moreover, in addition, the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class [240 U.S. 1, 17] of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone, and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it. Nothing could serve to make this clearer than to recall that in the Pollock Case, in so far as the law taxed incomes from other classes of property than real estate and invested personal property, that is, income from 'professions, trades, employments, or vocations' ( 158 U.S. 637 ), its validity was recognized; indeed, it was expressly declared that no dispute was made upon that subject, and attention was called to the fact that taxes on such income had been sustained as excise taxes in the past. Id. p. 635. The whole law was, however, declared unconstitutional on the ground that to permit it to thus operate would relieve real estate and invested personal property from taxation and 'would leave the burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vacations; and in that way what was intended as a tax on capital would remain, in substance, a tax on occupations and labor' ( id. p. 637),-a result which, it was held, could not have been contemplated by Congress.
Can I call that a 'knee-jerk' response?Quote:
Originally Posted by ']['ear
Are you trying to start up another one Tear?
Jesus...Is there an ignore function on this board?
How about this...let's talk about if the Fed should come anywhere NEAR our personal retirement funds as even hinted at by Boortz paranoid scenario. And if you think they should, defend it.
Also please note you are the only one complaining on the piece.
Veldan, I'm not seeing how this is some effort to "seize" peoples' retirement funds. They're talking about fixed income annuities, which are sold by private firms and insurance companies.
The suggestion is for employer's to have opt-in as the default if they offer annuities to retirees; you can always opt-out.
Annuities aren't the safest bet, the SEC has strong warning language for consumers. But they're just another investment product.
Have I missed something? :confused:
#1. Laying aside the absurdly broad stroke that most bureaucrats are incompetent, #2. Wouldn't you consider using your official position to perform malicious acts against the public you serve a form of incompetence?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
That is what I was hoping Loki or someone like him would debunk.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
I associate the word incompetence with failing due to lack of ability or effort.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Ok, I'll agree with that. I think someone that's charged to safeguard the public, like a police officer for a simple example, that instead shakes down the public for bribes is failing do to lack of effort or ability. They are incompetant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I think that distorts the term "incompetence" beyond recognition. It makes it more "does things differently than I envision" rather than lacking in ability. There's a perfectly good term for the misuse of power/use of public authority in a fashion that is unjustified or illegal, malfeasance.
this is so not worth the words we're wasting on itQuote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
You know, according to your definition, a bureaucrat that was excellent in stealing money would be considered incompetent. :bored:
If money is unaccounted for, doesn't that imply somebody was incompetent?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
That's a personally subjective qualitative assessment :p It's also something smelly in Denmark. What you mean is that you'd really rather not continue to debate this with Loki and I. Because you're yellow. And because you don't appreciate how bored I am right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
So, who's foolish enough to base his retirement on a plan that involves big business and/or the government?
What, honesty and obeying the law's not part of the job description? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
You'd think. But according to Loki if the guy can hide his embezzlement crime, he's competant at his job. :bored:Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
Well, the last part is right. I'm not appreciative of your boredome. And for that I apologize for my insensitvity. In any case, I don't know how you can do your job competently if you're a thief who steals from your customers. But whatever, maybe it's got something to do with Markets.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
You guys really need to invest in a dictionary. Criminal behavior is not incompetence - it's intentional. And do you really have to triple post within a 6-minute period?
Someone's a bitch tonight. :oQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki
It's not criminal until you get caught and getting caught is most certainly incompetent. :oQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Crime doesn't cease to be crime simply because nobody is caught.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
If I stab someone to death and nobody ever finds out, doesn't make it legal...
I have the funniest feeling i made this exact same post in the old place too...