Quantcast

Income tax on wages unlawful?

Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆ 2012/09/26 18:05:46
A sound argument. Wages and salaries are a form of trade, and not income.
Won't wash. Income is income, whatever the source.
I have another thought.
You!
Add Photos & Videos
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?

Read More: http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/09/26...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • GINGERBREAD 2012/09/26 19:00:51
    A sound argument. Wages and salaries are a form of trade, and not income.
    GINGERBREAD
    +6
    Ever 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.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • PrettieReptar 2012/12/05 07:04:09
    A sound argument. Wages and salaries are a form of trade, and not income.
    PrettieReptar
    +1
    My wages are not income for nothing.
  • Beccy 2012/09/27 23:51:13
    Won't wash. Income is income, whatever the source.
    Beccy
    +1
    Sounds good but the FED wants their drops of blood. Would help if we ended the FED>
  • William 2012/09/27 07:12:23
    A sound argument. Wages and salaries are a form of trade, and not income.
    William
  • Spizzzo BN-0 2012/09/27 06:24:51
    I have another thought.
    Spizzzo BN-0
    +1
    Not only will it not wash, it is literally the Marxist analysis of labor and capital; and that NEVER washes!
  • DDogbreath 2012/09/27 02:28:29
  • ConLibFraud 2012/09/27 02:24:43
    I have another thought.
    ConLibFraud
    +1
    Until the dumbed down American sheeple stop thinking that eating at the trough is freedom, America is doomed.

  • Joves the Instigator 2012/09/27 02:19:50
    A sound argument. Wages and salaries are a form of trade, and not income.
    Joves the Instigator
    +1
    I already know that the courts will say that since it is trade it can be taxed. Though I do agree with him, BUT I do have another idea in which the courts already ruled on.
    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...
    I already know that the courts will say that since it is trade it can be taxed. Though I do agree with him, BUT I do have another idea in which the courts already ruled on.
    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.
    (more)
  • Kaleokualoha 2012/09/27 00:34:54
    I have another thought.
    Kaleokualoha
    This argument has even less chance of success than Birther delusions.
  • Dan 2012/09/27 00:00:04
    A sound argument. Wages and salaries are a form of trade, and not income.
    Dan
    +2
    There is no law that taxes wages only income. I challenge anyone to point out a law that says wage tax.
  • Ken 2012/09/26 23:01:35
    I have another thought.
    Ken
    +3
    Nice try but no banana! The IRS will deem anything income, which is why they hate the "underground economy" where craftsmen and tradesmen trade their skills and products amongst themselves. The IRS would love to find a way to capture and tax those trades.

    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.
  • Prettie... Ken 2012/12/05 17:28:56
    PrettieReptar
    +1
    Can you find the law that makes a citizen liable for income tax?
  • Ken Prettie... 2012/12/05 19:02:48
    Ken
    +1
    The Sixteenth Amendment, passed during Woodrow Wilson's term in office, allows income of any form to be taxed:

    "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
  • Prettie... Ken 2012/12/05 19:12:13
    PrettieReptar
    Ok, so Congress has the power to tax, I don't dispute that. But does 16th amendment define income or do we find that somewhere else --say in Supreme Court rulings?
  • Ken Prettie... 2012/12/05 19:18:24 (edited)
    Ken
    +1
    26 USC § 61 - Gross income defined
    (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
  • Prettie... Ken 2012/12/05 19:45:13 (edited)
    PrettieReptar
    Thank you Ken.

    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?
  • Ken Prettie... 2012/12/05 20:30:21
    Ken
    +1
    It's both gross income and gross receipts, with the cost of doing business. including renting an office, office equipment, phone, power, secretary, etc., all deductible from it to arrive at net income.

    The labor goes into the "earnings" which are income, which is taxed.
  • Prettie... Ken 2012/12/05 20:42:35 (edited)
    PrettieReptar
    +1
    I thought gross income was revenue less cogs and gross receipts is what you took in.

    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.
  • Ken Prettie... 2012/12/05 22:51:24 (edited)
    Ken
    +1
    Gross income is all the money you got paid for whatever you did. net income is what is left after you pay withholdings, mortgage interest, business expense, etc., all of which is deductible in calculating your net income which is subject to taxes. The end of the first page has an entry for "AGI", or adjusted gross income. That is gross income for tax purposes, but not your actual gross income. If you are in business you have to submit a schedule C (Profit or Loss from a Business). On the schedule C you list all of your income (gross) and all of the costs of doing business (rent, utilities, phone, employee salaries, etc.) to arrive at the business income (net) which you enter on the 1040A. It is confusing because the IRS does call it Adjusted Gross Income, but it is "gross income" only in the sense that you haven't yet taken your personal deductions, such as home mortgage interest, charitable donations, etc. Once you calculate and deduct those (or take the standard deduction) you arrive at what the IRS calls Taxable Income.
  • Theresa 2012/09/26 22:54:39
    A sound argument. Wages and salaries are a form of trade, and not income.
    Theresa
    +3
    If you read the statues creating the IRS it is only designed for Income and the Constitution says income is not wages! Only you can voluntarily pay on wages. However, if you once accepted this burden you can not stop it.
  • jeepster4 2012/09/26 22:51:08
    Won't wash. Income is income, whatever the source.
    jeepster4
    +2
    Sounds like a variation of the argument that has been made regularly since the income tax was added in 1862 to finance the civil war. That argument and all of its variations has been lost ever since.
  • Jiorgia 2012/09/26 22:48:50
    I have another thought.
    Jiorgia
    +1
    The way I see it, you either have an wages tax or a goods and services tax (I happen to have both) but I am all for a flat tax.
  • lynn 2012/09/26 22:10:32
    A sound argument. Wages and salaries are a form of trade, and not income.
    lynn
    +4
    My understanding is that he's absolutely right. At one time, wages were not counted as income, and income was just as is outlined in his claims-- additional revenue from capital gains. I don't even think ones' house was included, since that's a basic necessity, only additional property such as rental units. I read this several years ago. If memory serves, I believe it was only after the US joined WWII that the demands of the war were used as an excuse to start taxing wages, and then it was with the promise that such a practise would end when the war was over. Obviously, it didn't. Either way, I definitely agree that a persons' basic wages should not be taxed at all. We pay more than enough in all the other taxes, and in reality far too much.
  • Contarded Guru Chickenhawk 2012/09/26 21:56:11
  • Catch224u 2012/09/26 21:42:07
    A sound argument. Wages and salaries are a form of trade, and not income.
    Catch224u
    +1
    The fair tax would be a consumer tax, wouldn't it . But then, there would be no need for the IRS and all the Tax accountants.
  • Ken 2012/09/26 21:27:49
    Won't wash. Income is income, whatever the source.
    Ken
    +2
    The US Constitution as originally ratified stated ".... direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States ...., according to their respective Numbers,..." and "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken." In Pollock vs. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co, the Supreme Court ruled that income taxes on rents, interest, and dividends violated these provisions of the US Constitution.

    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.
  • Professor Wizard 2012/09/26 21:20:27
    A sound argument. Wages and salaries are a form of trade, and not income.
    Professor Wizard
    +2
    I think it would ROCK the WORLD if he wins!

    I would turn out tax system, and our government upside down.

    It might even crash the whole system.
  • TheTailor 2012/09/26 21:11:17
    I have another thought.
    TheTailor
    +2
    Barter is considered income.
  • Prettie... TheTailor 2012/12/05 07:15:12
    PrettieReptar
    No trade.
  • TheTailor Prettie... 2012/12/05 11:23:07
    TheTailor
    +1
    I think you are technically right, but they think wages for labor is trade, somehow.
  • Prettie... TheTailor 2012/12/05 17:59:14
    PrettieReptar
    So when you labor for food (trade) the government wants a piece of that. Does that seem right to you?

    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.
  • TheTailor Prettie... 2012/12/08 06:50:05
    TheTailor
    +2
    Of course it's not right, but the congress won't give the people an amendment reversing the 16th amendment. So there you have it, legal raping of the wage earner.
  • nbarton2 2012/09/26 20:58:58
    Won't wash. Income is income, whatever the source.
    nbarton2
    these stupid arguments come out against taxes yet these will be the same people bitching about roads and lack of law enforcement and other things for which your taxes pay.
  • Prettie... nbarton2 2012/12/05 07:16:02
    PrettieReptar
    We pay for the roads at the fuel pumps. The tax is included in the cost per gallon.
  • nbarton2 Prettie... 2012/12/05 07:39:57
    nbarton2
    Well under Obama the gas tax will go up again as well. Just pay your taxes
  • Prettie... nbarton2 2012/12/05 07:44:13
    PrettieReptar
    Your original argument, about people not wanting to pay for tax while receiving something doesn't hold water.

    Individuals pay for the roads already through fuel tax.
    Individuals for police already through property tax.
  • nbarton2 Prettie... 2012/12/05 19:19:44
    nbarton2
    +1
    I meant taxes in general and this thread is like 4 months old; I'm beyond caring about income tax when in general everything is going to hell in a hand basket.
  • Prettie... nbarton2 2012/12/05 19:52:11
    PrettieReptar
    Ok, I understand. Thanks for your time.
  • seadog6608PWCM 2012/09/26 20:47:51
  • hayesml47 2012/09/26 19:09:04
    Won't wash. Income is income, whatever the source.
    hayesml47
    +2
    I think that we should tax on overall wealth! That way you would be paying your real fair share! If America has been really good to you then you would have a chance to pay her back!
  • ThickAz... hayesml47 2012/09/26 20:21:56
    ThickAzABrick
    +6
    "If America has been really good to you..."? What a scary line of thinking, for me at least.

    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.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/31 22:18:53

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals