Income tax on wages unlawful?
Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
2012/09/26 18:05:46
|
|
|||||
|
22 votes
|
|
37% | ||
|
28 votes
|
|
47% | ||
|
9 votes
|
|
15% | ||
You see income tax protest cases all the time. Here's a new wrinkle, or somewhat new. A man tries to argue that wages, salaries, tips, and so on (employee compensation) are not income! They are a value you get for a value you give (your labor). In other words, working for pay is like barter.
Income, he says, is the increment of some asset you hold, like your land, or your house, or money in the bank. That theory would limit income to rents, interest, capital gains, and maybe dividends. (And let's not forget gambling winnings.)
This man has a certiorari petition to the US Supreme Court. The Court has at least agreed to discuss it in their Friday morning meeting. Thus far no lower court has cared to look at whatever evidence he says he has. But the bigger question is whether his argument would even hold on its merits.
What do you think?
Income, he says, is the increment of some asset you hold, like your land, or your house, or money in the bank. That theory would limit income to rents, interest, capital gains, and maybe dividends. (And let's not forget gambling winnings.)
This man has a certiorari petition to the US Supreme Court. The Court has at least agreed to discuss it in their Friday morning meeting. Thus far no lower court has cared to look at whatever evidence he says he has. But the bigger question is whether his argument would even hold on its merits.
What do you think?
Read More: http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/09/26...
Top Opinion
-
GINGERBREAD 2012/09/26 19:00:51A sound argument. Wages and salaries are a form of trade, and not income.
+6Ever since the 16th amendment to the constitution, the government can tax anything you have, and if necessary, can take it away from you. Now, you are beginning to understand what this government is doing to all of us. In 1914, the 16th amendment was passed, and get this, the tax was never to go any higher than 4%, after the first 100 thousand dollars. Once they opened the door to taxing income, they can do anything to us, and call it a tax. This was how the SS was passed. When they went to the Supreme Court, they called it a tax. This was how OBAMA CARE was passed. They told the Supreme Court that it was a "TAX".. It was all because they passed the 16th amendment to the constitution.
This is where history is on the peoples side.
First you have to remember that an Income Tax was tried and defeated by the courts prior to the 1913 tax that we are using now. Originally the Income Tax was passed in 1894, and only targeted the rich of the day. But in 1895 the Court in the case of Pollack v. Farmers Loan&Trust; that the tax was unfair or unconstitutional in that it did not impose the tax upon everyone equally.
This is why the Income Tax which was a flat tax based upon income was instituted, by the way they dropped Tariffs on some goods that benefited the rich industrial moguls to make up for it. These were mining goods, this way the moguls could get the ores cheaper from overseas, and start controlling the mining industry here through pricing. This wiped out the family owned mines in favor of the large corporate mines. But this tax back to the point was held to be constitutional because everyone paid over a certain level above poverty.
So now we could argue form the 1895 case that the current tax structure is one that is unequally enforced, and therefore unconstitutional. I hope that he gets...
This is where history is on the peoples side.
First you have to remember that an Income Tax was tried and defeated by the courts prior to the 1913 tax that we are using now. Originally the Income Tax was passed in 1894, and only targeted the rich of the day. But in 1895 the Court in the case of Pollack v. Farmers Loan&Trust; that the tax was unfair or unconstitutional in that it did not impose the tax upon everyone equally.
This is why the Income Tax which was a flat tax based upon income was instituted, by the way they dropped Tariffs on some goods that benefited the rich industrial moguls to make up for it. These were mining goods, this way the moguls could get the ores cheaper from overseas, and start controlling the mining industry here through pricing. This wiped out the family owned mines in favor of the large corporate mines. But this tax back to the point was held to be constitutional because everyone paid over a certain level above poverty.
So now we could argue form the 1895 case that the current tax structure is one that is unequally enforced, and therefore unconstitutional. I hope that he gets his day in court because the Justices will define Income, and this is where we will have them. Once they define Income as any money you receive, then guess what? We can now argue that it is unconstitutional because it does not make everyone pay the tax on their Income. Remember the Constitution is for equality of every Individual under the Law. Well if the lowest end of the spectrum is not made to pay any tax then it is an inequality to make anyone pay, if the upper end pays less than the other classes then it is unequal enforcement of the Law. This means the Law either has to be applied Equally for All, or for nobody. I do not care if you receive money from Welfare or Assistance, SSI, or other free hand out. IT IS INCOME, AND TAXABLE! That is equality under the law, and that is what the Constitution requires of all Laws.
Also as a side note. My one gripe with the states who took Obamacare to court was that they did not argue this point instead of their strategy. With all of the exemptions that were given to some states and not others. And to some corporations, groups, and then not others is a clear violation of unequal enforcement. So the court would have had to deal with that, and either ordered that the law be enforced the same across the board or struck down. All they did was waste out money and time with the way they argued it.
Look at it this way - you own stock in Apple, Apple makes a huge profit and you get a big dividend. Apple pays corporate income taxes on its profit, which you, as one of Apple's owners, have paid. Then you get your dividend and its taxed once again! And the OWS movement says the 1% don't pay their fair share!
When they (including Barack Obama) complain that the "rich" pay only 15% on capital gains, they fail to mention that the gain is usually on stock in corporations where a 35% corporate income tax has already been paid.
"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." --Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America
(a) General definition
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities;
(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.
USC is United States Code
Let’s say you perform a legal service and charge your customer a fee of $2,000. Your customer pays you the $2,000 fee for the services you provided.
Is the $2,000 you received gross income or gross receipts?
Is your labor (sweat, time and energy) which is part of that fee worth nothing?
The labor goes into the "earnings" which are income, which is taxed.
If the IRS is using gross income as the basis for calculating income tax then what they are telling you is, "your labor (your sweat, your time, your energy) didn't cost you. Its worth nothing." Even though, you did lose something. You gave up a part of your life to do that work.
I don't think they are applying the law correctly.
I so love your rants Temlakos... they make so much sense... ROFLMAO...
The Republicans in Congress were unhappy with this result and in 1909 introduced the 16th Amendment which made taxes on incomes of all sorts legal. During this period of the GOP, it faced little resistance and so the Amendment was ratified in 1913.
I would turn out tax system, and our government upside down.
It might even crash the whole system.
How can you eat if you don't labor (beyond growing your own food or receiving a handout)? It seems to me that both are rights, not privileges.
Individuals pay for the roads already through fuel tax.
Individuals for police already through property tax.
America, by it's original intended nature is automatically good to her people. It is the land of OPPORTUNITY. Every person has the chance to develop the pet rock, the automobile or do nothing dramatic at all. For every person who becomes what is commonly called a "success", they have already given back to the country.
Say you are an author who comes up with an idea that becomes well received. Yes, you earn money, but who else does? The publisher, the PR Dept, the book stores that sell your work, the delivery services that bring your book to dealers... And if you are really lucky and it becomes a movie? Toys, games, promotional releases, and the several hundred people needed to make just one film. One person's product or idea, when successful always generates cottage industries that employ people.
Think how many millions of jobs exist because of cars, computers, food and beverages? THAT is how you repay America for a successful life, the generating of employment.