The Temporary Victory Tax ghost of 1943 lives on.

[Snowball]

I’m wondering why you posted that opinion piece considering it does not deal with what makes a tax on incomes a direct tax, as contrasted from a tax on incomes which is indirect.


JWK

It's not an "opinion piece". It's from the federal government website. Just for the historical information. I still don't get your point. Both the Federal government and the State government, and thirdly, your municipal government, have the right to tax your income if that's what they legistlate. Direct or Indirect doesn't matter.

 

[johnwk]

It's not an "opinion piece". It's from the federal government website. Just for the historical information. I still don't get your point. Both the Federal government and the State government, and thirdly, your municipal government, have the right to tax your income if that's what they legistlate. Direct or Indirect doesn't matter.

The piece most certainly voices opinions. Aside from that, I’m still wondering why you posted it considering it does not deal with or provide any insight as to what makes a tax calculated from incomes a direct tax, as contrasted from a tax calculated from incomes which is indirect and has been the "point" under discussion.

What are the characteristics which distinguishes an indirect tax on incomes and requires no apportionment, from a direct tax on incomes and would require adherence to the rule of apportionment?

.

BTW as per what you wrote: Both the Federal government and the State government, and thirdly, your municipal government, have the right to tax your income if that's what they legistlate. Direct or Indirect doesn't matter. That is utter nonsense. Whether a tax on incomes is allowed under state authority depends on the state's constitution. Here in Florida, we have no income tax.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Indeed. You ought to actually read the Eisner case which confirms direct taxation, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment, requires an apportionment of the tax

It did just the opposite. I'll quote from Eisner again:

As repeatedly held, this [the 16th Amendment] did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income. Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U. S. 1, 240 U. S. 17-19; Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U. S. 103, 240 U. S. 112 et seq.; Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 U. S. 165, 247 U. S. 172-173.

A proper regard for its genesis, as well as its very clear language, requires also that this amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes upon property, real and personal.

It seems you have difficulty in reading and understanding these passages. To suggest that if a tax on a certain type of income is a direct tax then it has to be apportioned is to be deaf, dumb, and blind. It is to ignore not only what the plain language of the 16th Amendment says (i.e., Congress can tax incomes from whatever source without apportionment) but also to ignore the language from other cases.

"This is the text of the Amendment:

"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."

It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense -- an authority already possessed and never questioned -- or to limit and distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another, but that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived." Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co, 240 U.S. 1, 16-18 (1916) (emphasis added)

"The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on income, ‘from whatever source derived’ without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had the power to tax all incomes. But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be ‘direct taxes’ within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. [cites omitted] The Amendment relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes ‘from whatever source derived.’” Bowers, Collector v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170, 173-174 (1926) (emphasis added)

So keep wallowing in your ignorant fantasyland where an income tax has to be apportioned. In connection with pay-for-work in particular, such nonsense never has been and is not now the law.

 

[johnwk]

It seems you have difficulty in reading and understanding these passages.

What the court stated in its written opinion is crystal clear, does not require your personal interpretations, and confirms our Constitution's provisions, article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, which require “direct” taxes to be apportioned, are still the law of the land “. . . notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment."


“The Revenue Act of 1916, in so far as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment." ___ Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)



BTW, I noticed you relied upon dicta stated in Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170 (1926), and that dicta is irrelevant in answering whether or not the 16th Amendment repealed the provisions of article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution as applied to taxing incomes.

In Bowers the only question before the court was “. . . whether the difference between the value of marks measured by dollars at the time of payment to the Custodian and the value when the loans were made was income.” The court was not deciding if a tax levied upon incomes which takes the form of a direct tax, must then be apportioned.

So, once again you fail.

 

[Snowball]

The piece most certainly voices opinions. Aside from that, I’m still wondering why you posted it considering it does not deal with or provide any insight as to what makes a tax calculated from incomes a direct tax, as contrasted from a tax calculated from incomes which is indirect and has been the "point" under discussion.

What are the characteristics which distinguishes an indirect tax on incomes and requires no apportionment, from a direct tax on incomes and would require adherence to the rule of apportionment?

.

BTW as per what you wrote: Both the Federal government and the State government, and thirdly, your municipal government, have the right to tax your income if that's what they legistlate. Direct or Indirect doesn't matter. That is utter nonsense. Whether a tax on incomes is allowed under state authority depends on the state's constitution. Here in Florida, we have no income tax.

I didn't say they must levy income taxes, I said they "have the right" to. Florida has the right to tax your income.
If you don't believe that, go read the Florida Constitution. Section VII, Article I retains the right. Section VII, Article 5 even expresses its maximums.

Florida could enact a State Income Tax tomorrow without touching one single word of its Constitution. Regarding munis and counties, about a third of states allow local munis and counties to impose their own income taxes: https://www.thebalancemoney.com/cities-that-levy-income-taxes-3193246

CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Constitution#A7

Also, read these. Income Tax is settled law. Has been for over a century. NO APPORTIONMENT.
The first article describes why a targeted "wealth tax" would, potentially, have a problem without apportionment, but a wealth tax is not an income tax.
Moreover, your thread title is a red herring, because the Victory Tax was nothing more than a new implementation of existing law.

An Unapportioned Wealth Tax Has Constitutional Problems
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/...counterpoint-jensen-unapportioned-wealth-tax/

Apportionment of Direct Taxes: the Foul-up in The Core of The Constitution
https://law.utexas.edu/faculty/calvinjohnson/directtax.pdf

 

[johnwk]

I didn't say they must levy income taxes, I said they "have the right" to. Florida has the right to tax your income.
If you don't believe that, go read the Florida Constitution. Section VII, Article I retains the right. Section VII, Article 5 even expresses its maximums.

Florida could enact a State Income Tax tomorrow without touching one single word of its Constitution.

No. The Florida Legislature does not have the authority to tax my "income". See: Florida’s Tax Structure


"Florida’s constitution prohibits lawmakers from implementing a personal income tax. "

In regard to the rest of your post, Congress is still required to apportion any "direct" tax and has authority to levy a direct tax.

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

 

[Snowball]

No. The Florida Legislature does not have the authority to tax my "income". See: Florida’s Tax Structure


"Florida’s constitution prohibits lawmakers from implementing a personal income tax. "

In regard to the rest of your post, Congress is still required to apportion any "direct" tax and has authority to levy a direct tax.

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

Just. Plain. Wrong.

The article you linked, written anonymously by someone for the Mercatus Center at George Mason University in 2015, is plainly incorrect. Whomever wrote it was so biased in their predispositions that they didn't even bother to consult or reference the actual Florida Constitution. I provided you the Section and Articles that clearly spell out the legal retention Florida has that makes income tax possible, if it is legislated to occur:

SECTION 1. Taxation; appropriations; state expenses; state revenue limitation.—
(a) No tax shall be levied except in pursuance of law. No state ad valorem taxes shall be levied upon real estate or tangible personal property. All other forms of taxation shall be preempted to the state except as provided by general law.

SECTION 5. Estate, inheritance and income taxes.—
(a) NATURAL PERSONS. No tax upon estates or inheritances or upon the income of natural persons who are residents or citizens of the state shall be levied by the state, or under its authority, in excess of the aggregate of amounts which may be allowed to be credited upon or deducted from any similar tax levied by the United States or any state.
(b) OTHERS. No tax upon the income of residents and citizens other than natural persons shall be levied by the state, or under its authority, in excess of 5% of net income, as defined by law, or at such greater rate as is authorized by a three-fifths (3/5) vote of the membership of each house of the legislature or as will provide for the state the maximum amount which may be allowed to be credited against income taxes levied by the United States and other states. There shall be exempt from taxation not less than five thousand dollars ($5,000) of the excess of net income subject to tax over the maximum amount allowed to be credited against income taxes levied by the United States and other states.
(c) EFFECTIVE DATE. This section shall become effective immediately upon approval by the electors of Florida.
History.—Am. H.J.R. 7-B, 1971; adopted 1971.


If you still believe Florida cannot implement an income tax without modification of its constitution, then please provide the prohibition.
Your secondary comment was addressed in both the links I provided, neither of which did you consult. Good Day.

 

[johnwk]

Just. Plain. Wrong.

.

Yup, you are wrong. Stop the gaslighting. There is no personal income tax in Florida, and, it would take a constitutional amendment to allow a personal income tax in Florida. There have been attempts to adopt a personal income tax, but they have all failed.

Stop the gaslighting

 

[Snowball]

Yup, you are wrong. Stop the gaslighting. There is no personal income tax in Florida, and, it would take a constitutional amendment to allow a personal income tax in Florida. There have been attempts to adopt a personal income tax, but they have all failed.

Stop the gaslighting

Proving you wrong is not gaslighting. Which I did.

Goodbye.

 

[johnwk]

Proving you wrong is not gaslighting. Which I did.

Goodbye.

According to you.

 

[unknown]

Stop quoting the Supreme Fucking Fraud.

These shit bags don't even have the power of judicial review.

Unless we're going to suspend all rational thought and agree that we can give ourselves the authority to do whatever we want

 

[unknown]

Alexander Hamilton was a sellout piece of shit.

Who said one thing prior to ratification and something else once the states were duped.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

What the court stated in its written opinion is crystal clear, does not require your personal interpretations, and confirms our Constitution's provisions, article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, which require “direct” taxes to be apportioned, are still the law of the land “. . . notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment."

Since English does not appear to be your native language, let me spell it out.

"As repeatedly held, this [the 16th Amendment] did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income."

This means that the Amendment got rid of any apportionment requirement for taxes on incomes. "removed" = eliminated; got rid of; dispensed with, etc.

"It is clear on the face of this text [the 16th Amendment] that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense -- an authority already possessed and never questioned -- or to limit and distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another, but that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived."

This means that regarding apportionment there is to be no distinction between types of income taxes. ALL income taxes were relieved from apportionment, and it would be incorrect to subject some income taxes to apportionment by looking at where the income came from.

Here's another quotes from the Brushaber case: "...recall that, in the Pollock case, insofar 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" -- 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...in express terms, the Amendment provides that income taxes, from whatever source the income may be derived, shall not be subject to the regulation of apportionment."

In other words, Pollock recognized that a tax on pay-for-work was an excise and not a direct tax, echoing what had been previously decided in Springer. And income taxes are not subject to apportionment regardless of the income's source.

You seem to be hung up on the fact that the 16th Amendment doesn't contain express language repealing the Direct Tax Clauses with respect to income taxes. So what? There doesn't have to be express repealing language. For example, the 12th Amendment didn't expressly repeal the third paragraph of Article II relating to the election of the President. So are you under the delusion that Donald Trump is the legal Vice President (under the original provision, the runner up became VP)?

I'm done with you.

 

[johnwk]

Quote Originally Posted by johnwk

What the court stated in its written opinion is crystal clear, does not require your personal interpretations, and confirms our Constitution's provisions, article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, which require “direct” taxes to be apportioned, are still the law of the land “. . . notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment."

Since English does not appear to be your native language, let me spell it out.

Na. I prefer the Court spelling it out for you:



“The Revenue Act of 1916, in so far as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment." ___ Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)

The Eisner case confirms the constitutional requirement that “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” is still in effect, "notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment".

JWK

Is it not a self-evident fact our government educational system has produced a staggering number of manipulated and brainwashed, useful idiots?

 

[johnwk]

Alexander Hamilton was a sellout piece of $#@!.

Who said one thing prior to ratification and something else once the states were duped.

Yup. You are absolutely correct on that.

In his report on Manufactures, Hamilton writes with reference to the meaning of the phrase “general welfare” and Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1:


“…the power to raise money is plenary and indefinite, and the objects to which it may be appropriated, are providing for the common defense and general welfare. The terms “general welfare” were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which preceded: otherwise, numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union to appropriate its revenues should have been restricted within narrower limits than the “general welfare;” and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.” See Page 136:



But those words are in direct conflict with what Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 83, which was written to explain the meaning of the Constitution and refers to a “specification of particulars” [those items found beneath Art. 1, Sec. 8, Cl.1] which Hamilton goes on to say “evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority“.

JWK

Is it not a self-evident fact our government educational system has produced a staggering number of manipulated and brainwashed, useful idiots?

 

[Snowball]

Na. I prefer the Court spelling it out for you:



“The Revenue Act of 1916, in so far as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment." ___ Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)

The Eisner case confirms the constitutional requirement that “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” is still in effect, "notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment".

JWK

Is it not a self-evident fact our government educational system has produced a staggering number of manipulated and brainwashed, useful idiots?

Guy.

Please. Try to understand. Take a deep breath.

They are NOT talking about income tax in the Eisner Case. They are talking about investments, rents, and property profits. The quote you provided is about stock dividends. Try to follow the language: "imposed by reason of ownership, and that Congress could not impose such taxes without apportioning them..."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/252/189/

 

[Sonny Tufts]

They are NOT talking about income tax in the Eisner Case. They are talking about investments, rents, and property profits. The quote you provided is about stock dividends. Try to follow the language: "imposed by reason of ownership, and that Congress could not impose such taxes without apportioning them..."

The majority held that the stock dividend Mrs. Macomber received wasn't income so that a tax on it wasn't a "tax on incomes" authorized by the 16th Amendment. Accordingly, the case is inapplicable to a situation in which someone receives income, such as pay-for-work.

In addition, his claim "The Eisner case confirms the constitutional requirement that “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” is still in effect, "notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment" is misleading. The actual quote from the opinion is "The Revenue Act of 1916, insofar as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of Article I, § 2, cl. 3, and Article I, § 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment."

 

[johnwk]

Guy.

Please. Try to understand. Take a deep breath.

They are NOT talking about income tax in the Eisner Case.

Mr. Justice PITNEY delivered the opinion of the Court.

"This case presents the question whether, by virtue of the Sixteenth Amendment, Congress has the power to tax, as income of the stockholder and without apportionment, a stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith against profits accumulated by the corporation since March 1, 1913."


In concluding, the Justice Pitney states:
“The Revenue Act of 1916, in so far as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment." ___ Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)

The Eisner case confirms the constitutional requirement that “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” is still in effect, "notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment".

JWK

 

[johnwk]

Taxing under the Sixteenth Amendment while preserving the protection of apportionment.

. . . his claim "The Eisner case confirms the constitutional requirement that “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” is still in effect, "notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment" is misleading. The actual quote from the opinion is "The Revenue Act of 1916, insofar as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of Article I, § 2, cl. 3, and Article I, § 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment."

No. It is not "misleading" when one reviews the debates during which time the Sixteenth Amendment was framed and debated. I certainly have, and could not find a shred of evidence to indicate the object of the Sixteenth Amendment was to grant power to Congress to lay and collect a direct, un-apportioned tax, on a working person’s earned wages. Quite the contrary is true as I have previously documented. The object was to allow for an un-apportioned tax on un-earned incomes.

Aside from that, the irrefutable fact is, the Sixteenth Amendment reads as follows:

”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.”

The Sixteenth Amendment does not read:

”The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

Keep in mind that on June 17th, 1909, Senator Brown offered the following Joint Resolution (S. J. R. 39) to amend the Constitution relative to TAXES ON INCOMES:

”Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of both Houses concurring), That the following section be submitted to the legislatures of the several States, which, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the States, shall be valid and binding as a part of the Constitution of the United States:

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes without apportionment among the several States according to population." CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ___ SENATE, June 17, 1909, Page 3377


But the wording "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes without apportionment", etc., never made it into the final version of the Sixteenth Amendment, nor is there any wording in the Constitution repealing the command that “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken”

With the above in mind it is important to note that under the rules which govern constitutional construction, in situations where there appears to be constitutional provisions that are inconsistent with each other, as is the current case in which there is no repeal of the constitutional requirement that "direct" taxes must be apportioned, while Congress is granted power to lay and collect a taxes on incomes without apportionment, the two provisions must be interpreted to harmonize them in such a manner that effect should be given to each.

In the instant case, harmonizing is to be found in a tax on incomes laid by Congress so long as it does not take the form of a direct tax, which then would require an apportionment.

And how do we carry out the legislative intent of the Sixteenth Amendment and have those with un-earned income contribute a share to the funding of our federal government while likewise preserving the rule that any direct tax must be apportioned?

One way is by laying and collecting a tax on incomes realized under a privilege of doing business as an artificial entity created by government ___ a corporation with the advantages which inhere in the corporate capacity which are not enjoyed by private firms or individuals’ ___ and calculating the tax from profits and gains realized under the privilege.

Taxing “incomes” in this manner, those which are realized under a privilege granted by government and calculated from profits and or gains therefrom, makes the tax indirect and not requiring an apportionment, and thus satisfies the Sixteenth Amendment’s granted power to tax “incomes” without apportionment, while also preserving the constitutional protection requiring any “direct” tax must be apportioned.

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)

 

[Snowball]

The majority held that the stock dividend Mrs. Macomber received wasn't income so that a tax on it wasn't a "tax on incomes" authorized by the 16th Amendment. Accordingly, the case is inapplicable to a situation in which someone receives income, such as pay-for-work.

In addition, his claim "The Eisner case confirms the constitutional requirement that “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” is still in effect, "notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment" is misleading. The actual quote from the opinion is "The Revenue Act of 1916, insofar as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of Article I, § 2, cl. 3, and Article I, § 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment."

I know, but johnwk isn't going to grasp...
no reason to bump anymore.