Capital Gains Tax Scam

[Travlyr]

Yes.

Them Bastards.

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

land should not be taxed if it's not being sold or bought. It's such a freakin' crime.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

That's what the 16th Amendment is for, direct tax on income without apportionment.

This^^ Thank the Wilson regime for that gem.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

land should not be taxed if it's not being sold or bought. It's such a freakin' crime.

Tell that to Roy L.

 

[Danke]

That's what the 16th Amendment is for, direct tax on income without apportionment.

Wrong.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Wrong.

He's correct.

"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." -Amendment XVI

 

[donnay]

The Capital Gains Tax is just another scam by our tax and cheat overlords. Here is how it seems like it works. Establish a value for capital. Example: Land. The base is determined by the purchase price. One hundred acres of land purchased in 1970 for $1000/acre = Cost Basis of $100,000. Sell in 2012 for $10,000/acre because the Fed inflated the dollar 10X = Sale price of $1,000,000. Capital gain of $900,000 taxed at 15% for a tax of $135,000. It is still 100 acres of land. That did not change. The value of the land did not change because the Fed inflated the money supply. Yet the tax and cheat fellows get their take. It is a double win for them. Inflate the money supply and then tax the inflation. Wow.

Allodial Title To Land For The Win!

Allodial Title
http://www.paperadvantage.org/allodial.html

 

[donnay]

Do You Own Your House?

 

[puppetmaster]

END THE FED!!

 

[donnay]

He's correct.

"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." -Amendment XVI

"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 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"
Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad 240 U.S. 1 (1916)

"... the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged."
Stanton v. Baltic Mining 240 U.S. 103 (1916)

"The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the amendment was adopted."
Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189 (1920)

In other words, the 16th Amendment did not give Congress any new authority whatsoever. The limited and plenary taxing power of Congress is noted in Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution and no where else. No Amendment can grant a power that is unconstitutional anyway.

As I said, jurisdiction is key here. If Congress has always been able to tax income... who exactly would be the target of such an imposition? Might it be those engaged in matters concerning the function of the federal government as a foreign agent to the states? If a foreign business wishes to do business in the U.S., they must utilize the services of the federal government and are thus subject to a tax upon the domestic income produced. If a U.S. citizen contracts with a foreign entity and generates foreign income while residing abroad, they are also subject to a tax upon that income.

So, regardless of all the ratification arguments, the 16th Amendment does not affect the vast majority of Americans at all. If you want to understand the 16th Amendment, read the Brushaber case online at FindLaw.com. Follow up with other significant cases such as Doyle, Eisner, and Merchant's Loan and Trust. However, never forget that the basic legal principles don't change.... jurisdiction is paramount.

The 16th Amendment and the income tax (as written) are 100% Constitutional. An individual's lack of knowledge does not make these out to be something they are not. However, ignorance has allowed the income tax to be applied incorrectly with proponents even using the 16th as justification... those proponents being equally ignorant.

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=218203.0

 

[Roy L]

land should not be taxed if it's not being sold or bought. It's such a freakin' crime.

Why do you oppose the recovery of publicly created value to pay for public services and infrastructure instead of giving it away to idle landowners in return for nothing? Why do you favor the forcible confiscation of value created by private producers to pay for public services and infrastructure whose value is then given to idle landowners in return for nothing?

When you oppose taxation of land, the above are automatically your views, as a matter of immutable economic law.

 

[donnay]

Why do you oppose the recovery of publicly created value to pay for public services and infrastructure instead of giving it away to idle landowners in return for nothing? Why do you favor the forcible confiscation of value created by private producers to pay for public services and infrastructure whose value is then given to idle landowners in return for nothing?

When you oppose taxation of land, the above are automatically your views, as a matter of immutable economic law.

Idle landowners? If I want to be a idle landowner that should be my business, not yours!

What you propose is collectivism--that's not liberty.

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are only injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." ~Thomas Jefferson

 

[Roy L]

Idle landowners? If I want to be a idle landowner that should be my business, not yours!

I see. And if you want to idly own the earth's atmosphere, and charge me rent for air to breathe, that should be your business and not mine...?

When you are stealing from me, as all landowners inherently steal from producers, that makes it my business.

What you propose is collectivism--that's not liberty.

What you are doing is lying about what I have plainly written. I am the defender of liberty here, not you. What you propose is that landowners should enjoy a privilege of removing others' rights to liberty without making just compensation.

THAT'S NOT LIBERTY.

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are only injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." ~Thomas Jefferson

When you claim to own what nature provided for all, forcibly removing my liberty to use it without making just compensation, you are picking my pocket.

 

[donnay]

I see. And if you want to idly own the earth's atmosphere, and charge me rent for air to breathe, that should be your business and not mine...?

When you are stealing from me, as all landowners inherently steal from producers, that makes it my business.

What you are doing is lying about what I have plainly written. I am the defender of liberty here, not you. What you propose is that landowners should enjoy a privilege of removing others' rights to liberty without making just compensation.

THAT'S NOT LIBERTY.

When you claim to own what nature provided for all, forcibly removing my liberty to use it without making just compensation, you are picking my pocket.

LOL! You are too much, you bring to the equation apples and bowling balls. One's property is his right. Government has no right to tell me or anyone else what they do with their property--it's just that plain and simple. I should not be forced at the barrel of a gun to pay for someone's property.

 

[Roy L]

LOL! You are too much, you bring to the equation apples and bowling balls.

No, I am identifying the self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality and their inescapable logical implications. You have merely realized that those facts prove your beliefs are false and evil, so you refuse to know them. Simple.

One's property is his right.

So when slaves were property, their owners had a right to whip them to make them work? If that is so, then on what basis was slavery ever abolished?

It is time for you to stop typing and start thinking.

Government has no right to tell me or anyone else what they do with their property--it's just that plain and simple.

So if government grants some greedy, evil, lying sack of $#!+ a title deed to the earth's atmosphere, you will acknowledge his right to his property, that he has a right to charge you rent for air to breathe, and you will meekly pay it and thank him for letting you live?? REALLY???

I should not be forced at the barrel of a gun to pay for someone's property.

You either pay for your own land by paying taxes on it, or you pay for others' land by paying taxes on other things. There is no third choice.

 

[mport1]

All taxes are a scam. Theft is theft.

 

[Roy L]

All taxes are a scam. Theft is theft.

But paying for what you take from society through a land value tax is a voluntary, market-based, beneficiary-pay, value-for-value transaction.