Economic: Taxes: There is no federal or state income tax on working wages by law in this country.

[Weston White]

It's strange that Mr. White would put so much trust in the Congressional Research Service, which stated the following regarding the taxation of the pay one receives for working:

Really, now a FAQ report written in 2005 by a single CRS attorney, so this is what is has come to for you, quoting the unsubstantiated opinions of one person, already clearly biased on the matter, quoting passages while providing no official reference? Clearly, the provided quotation is little else than pre-opinionated conjecture.

Goodness now, should anyone actually be so surprised at such a feeble act of desperation? Tell you what, be sure to give me a ring when there is actually something definitive on the matter (as you had quoted above), so as to be included within the Annotated Constitution.

The author’s sole argument, in constant reference to Pollock, fails on its face as for during that time-frame the federal income tax was never intended to be upon the whole of the populace but upon only a mere 3-8%, respectively. With consideration to the following quotation: “…and this would leave the burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vocations, and in that way what was intended as a tax on capital would remain in substance a tax on occupations and labor.”, which willfully the author has blissfully ignored many other prevailing and insightful passages included throughout the Pollock case. In any case the above passage fails to translate itself into just and proper indirect taxing of one’s capital, personalty, or livelihood, but only upon their professional and other such beneficial or enterprising engagements, e.g., occupation taxes, BATFE excises, professional licenses, gift and gambling taxes, etc.

Moreover, noticing that the federal income tax is at once “a tax on capital”, thus one must first acquire capital for whence it to be taxed upon its growth, while for the average individual they have no means of acquiring such capital until having first exchanged their personal exertion through their own ability in toiling; and even still upon such acquisitioning of capital, they must derive a realized increase, e.g., gain, thereto.

Also, the zero-basis (“pure gain”) in labor is further fallacy levied, waged, and piecemealed by proponents of tax strong-arming, for the cost basis in an individual’s laboring is as determined by their privately negotiated contract, be it by a measurement in relative time, effort exerted, or literal accomplishment.

 

[Wheeljack]

It's strange that Mr. White would put so much trust in the Congressional Research Service, which stated the following regarding the taxation of the pay one receives for working:


For example, if John Doe works 5 hours for $5.00 per hour, is the $25.00 he receives taxable income to him? As we have seen in the above analysis, we must determine if there has been a gain which is realized and recognized. To see if there was a gain we do not look only to the fair market value of the labor, but rather we determine the difference between what was received and the basis (cost) in the labor. Generally one has a zero basis in one’s own labor. Therefore, Doe’s gain is $25.00 minus 0, or $25.00. This gain is realized when Doe is paid or has right to receive payment.

The gain is recognized specifically in IRC § 61(a)(1) (compensation for services) and there is no non-recognition section which is generally applicable to wages. Therefore, John Doe has $25.00 of taxable income.

"Frequently Asked Questions Concerning the Federal Income Tax", CRS Report January 7, 2005
http://webpages.charter.net/bhowe932...utionality.pdf

Weston,
There is nothing wrong with what is said in this example. What assaults our knowledge of what is right is the assumptions we draw from how this is worded.

It says John Doe works, but not for whom. Here we assume that it is for an employer, possibly because they worded it as 5 "hours".

Can we find out who John is working for? Yes, from the wording "in one's own labor". This tells us that John is working for himself (self-employed).
John has sold a service to a customer at the rate of $5.00/hr for 5 hours. Thus the $25 falls under compensation for services and is taxable income.

.

 

[Weston White]

Well, certainly another great contextual perspective Wheeljack. I was primarily wanting to emphasize the utter lack of footnotes throughout the entirety of those couple of paragraphs, while the majority of all other arguments included within the report contain more than a few such footnotes.

Moreover, the argument alluded to within the report does not concatenate with the foundation set forth by the XVI Amendment. In quoting legislative draftsman for the Treasury Department, F. Morse Hubbard, (page 2580 of the March 27th, 1943, House Congressional Record) for Amendment XVI:

“… So the amendment made it possible to bring investment income within the scope of the general income tax law, but did not change the character of the tax. It is still fundamentally an excise or duty with respect to the privilege of carrying on any activity or owning any property which produces income.
The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax. …”

Also noting that the IRC claims its authority entirely from the XVI Amendment (by the by, a misquoted version of the Amendment), never does it at any point state that it had already possessed the requisite powers to withstand the scope of the XVI Amendment. Additionally, if such were in fact the case, then the repeal of the XVI Amendment would be inconsequential (for all Congress would need to do is amend the statute to make the aforementioned method of the tax its primary subject (thus throwing off the reins and harness of the high court), for according to tax proponents Congress has limitless powers of taxation, as it were).

 

[Sonny Tufts]

It says John Doe works, but not for whom. Here we assume that it is for an employer, possibly because they worded it as 5 "hours".

Can we find out who John is working for?

It's irrelevant from an income tax standpoint whether John is self-employed or working for someone else. In either case, his compensation is included in gross income.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Moreover, the argument alluded to within the report does not concatenate with the foundation set forth by the XVI Amendment. In quoting legislative draftsman for the Treasury Department, F. Morse Hubbard, (page 2580 of the March 27th, 1943, House Congressional Record) for Amendment XVI:

“… So the amendment made it possible to bring investment income within the scope of the general income tax law, but did not change the character of the tax. It is still fundamentally an excise or duty with respect to the privilege of carrying on any activity or owning any property which produces income.
The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax. …”

Mr. Hubbard was a former IRS attorney whose duties lay in the area of drafting regulations; there is no evidence he had any expertise in the theoretical foundations of the income tax. Moreover, he was flat wrong.

Hubbard’s opinion in 1943 (30 years after the ratification of the 16th Amendment and the enactment of the first income tax under that amendment) about the nature of the income tax is flatly contradicted by a statement in 1913 by one of original authors of the income tax:

“Under the proposed measure income is both the subject and the measure of the tax.”

Representative Cordell Hull, Cong. Rec. (8/5/1913) (reprinted in Foster’s Income Tax.)

Cordell Hull (1871-1955) was a recognized expert in tax, commercial, and fiscal policies, and would have known what he was talking about. He served in Congress from 1907 to 1931 and served on the House Ways and Means Committee for eighteen years, where he was one of the principal authors of the income tax provisions of the 1913 Tariff Act, along with the Revised Act of 1916, and the federal estate tax that was enacted in 1916. (He was also elected as a U.S. Senator in 1931, but resigned in 1933 when President Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed him to serve as Secretary of State, a position he held for 12 years, which is the longest term in U.S. History.)

That Hubbard was wrong in his 1943 opinion is clear from the following footnote to the paragraph quoted above:

“If the tax should be construed as a tax on income as a specific fund the disappearance of the fund before the date of assessment would prevent the collection of the tax. (See Foster and Abbott, op. cit., p. 85.)”

Memorandum, note 4.

Hubbard seems to have been laboring under the misconception that, if Congress imposed a tax “on” income, and if the taxpayer spent the income before Congress could collect the tax, then Congress would be unable to collect the tax at all. But that is nonsense. As noted elsewhere, it is perfectly clear that the taxpayer who earns the income is personally liable for the tax, and I.R.C. section 6321 even imposes a lien for the amount of any tax that is assessed and unpaid on all of the property of the taxpayer, not just the income itself. So Hubbard’s semantic hair-splitting was completely unnecessary.

Hubbard also clearly believed that a tax measured by income would be an “income tax,” stating (for example) that the Corporate Tax Act of 1909 “was really an income tax.” But the Supreme Court flatly disagreed:

“As repeatedly pointed out by this court, the corporation tax law of 1909 ... imposed an excise or privilege tax, and not in any sense a tax upon property or upon income merely as income.”

U.S. v. Whitridge, 231 U.S. 144, 147 (1913).

“As has been repeatedly remarked, the corporation tax act of 1909 was not intended to be and is not, in any proper sense, an income tax law.”

Stratton’s Independence Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 414 (1913).

“As has been repeatedly pointed out by this court in previous cases [citations omitted] the act of 1909 was not in any proper sense an income tax law, nor intended as such, but was an excise upon the conduct of business in a corporate capacity, the tax being measured by reference to the income in a manner prescribed by the act itself.”

Anderson v. Forty-Two Broadway Co., 239 U.S. 69, (1915).

So Hubbard was wrong about the Corporate Tax Act of 1909 being an “income tax.” What about the idea that the income taxes enacted following the ratification of the 16th Amendment are not taxes “on” income but taxes on “certain activities and privileges”? The Internal Revenue Code does not identify any “activity or privilege” being taxed other than the receipt of the income itself. And the Supreme Court has confirmed that it is the realization (or receipt) of income that creates a tax liability:

“From the beginning the revenue laws have been interpreted as defining ‘realization’ of income as the taxable event rather than the acquisition of the right to receive it.”

Helvering v. Horst, 311 U.S. 112, 115 (1940).

To summarize, Hubbard’s characterization of the income tax is based on a faulty premise, is contradicted by one of the authors of the first income tax, and is inconsistent with the opinions of the Supreme Court. There is no getting around the fact that Hubbard was simply wrong.

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#privileges

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Incidentally, for those reading this thread who are truly interested in learning about the legality of the income tax, I highly recommend Dan Evans's website, The Tax Protestor FAQ, in which he comprehensively refutes many of the frivolous arguments made by those who think they don't have to pay income tax.

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

I am not Mr. Evans, but I do admire the work he has done in creating his site. Not surprisingly, tax protestors despise it because it explodes many of their harebrained arguments, but none of them has ever been able to point out any inaccuracy in his discussion of the issues.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

If that was true imagine all the back taxes the government would owe the people.

I think we have a figure for that. It's in the trillions.

Also, it's a good thing to point out that we are not obligated to pay income tax, but try telling the IRS that. The law doesn't make any bit of difference anymore. They are taking your money regardless just because most people have accepted the system, and now they can do whatever the hell they want as long as it's not outside of the norm. Then, they slowly move the norm even further down the road, regardless of the law. This knowledge won't change a thing because the IRS is an organization of theft; pure, unadulterated theft.

 

[Weston White]

It's irrelevant from an income tax standpoint whether John is self-employed or working for someone else. In either case, his compensation is included in gross income.

No it is not, it is perfectly necessary in order to establish proper jurisdiction by the taxing statutes and to ensure proper application of the respective sections therein, e.g., foreign versus domestic, resident versus alien, liabilities as by Subtitle A or Subtitle C, exempt versus non-exempt, employee versus SB/SE, etc. Moreover, mere remuneration is neither “compensation” nor “incomes” as meant within the lawful breadth of the XVI Amendment nor 26 USC sec. 61. The federal income tax cannot constitutionally tax what is not constitutionally taxable as an indirect tax. Ergo, to tax one’s livelihood is to seek a personal tax as by capitation, thus requiring apportionment (as well that exigent events be present).

As for this is why the forms such as the SS-8 exist, see at: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fss8.pdf

 

[Wheeljack]

It's irrelevant from an income tax standpoint whether John is self-employed or working for someone else. In either case, his compensation is included in gross income.

Its completely relevant, Congress had a definition of wages which applied to employment as well as self-employment, already on the books, in Subtitle C, for Social Security. Tell us why, since you believe that the income tax applies to employment, the Congress did not use that definition for the Current Tax Payment Act, establishing withholding of tax at source, but found it necessary to create a new definition of wages based, not on employment itself, but on a circumstance of employment, services performed, by the employee, for the employer.


The Current Tax Payment Act was championed by Randolph E. Paul, General Counsel of the Treasury.

In an address to the Philadelphia Bar Association, on June 14,1943, Mr. Paul stated the following; (Copied from the text of his speech)

The duty to withhold an amount for income and victory taxes is net imposed on all persons making payments of compensation for personal services rendered. First, there must exist, as in the Social Security tax, the employer-employee relationship, as distinguished from the relationship of independent contractors. Then even where this relationship exists, wage payments in certain enumerated types of occupations, are excepted from the withholding requirement. The three main peacetime groups to which this exception applies are (1) agricultural laborers, (2) domestic servants in private homes, college clubs or fraternities, and (3) casual laborers not engaged in the course of the employer's trade or business.


As General Counsel of the Treasury and the Architect of the Current Tax Payment Act, I believe Mr. Paul to have been more than qualified to tell me how my paycheck is affected by the IRC.

 

[Weston White]

Incidentally, for those reading this thread who are truly interested in learning about the legality of the income tax, I highly recommend Dan Evans's website, The Tax Protestor FAQ, in which he comprehensively refutes many of the frivolous arguments made by those who think they don't have to pay income tax.

Actually, for those reading this thread, who are truly interested in learning about the legality of the federal income tax, so far as such a means of taxation applies to the current topic of discussion that Webpage never before bothered to address such matters until a couple of years ago, when, during a related debate lasting several weeks, I had kept calling Mr. Evans (Quatlost! Forum member “LPC”-I shall leave it to your own imagination as to what that actually stands for…) on his avoidance of addressing the topic within his own “FAQ”, to which he then broke down and (finally) included a small update, mind you, all within about a very hasty 48-hour timeframe, thereafter displaying his very limited (and clearly preconceived) response to such matters of concern. Wherein, his then new addition, he merely cherry picked from a few sources, where he very conveniently quotes a small controlled paragraph, while omitting contextual portions that entirely conflict with the points-in-falsehood that he is trying to wrangle in an utmost fashion of stupidity and desperation. However, in reading his points and references with consideration to the arguments he is making, it becomes rather apparent that he neither understands the fundamental concepts to be applied to the various modes or methods of taxation nor does he hold reverence to his ethical considerations as a practicing ABA attorney. Moreover, he is not any such expert on tax law, but only upon the perpetuation of its presently misapplied status quo methodology.

While, much of this so-called “Tax Protestor FAQ” (noticing that even the title is as oxymoronic as it is unoriginal) is merely a case of Mr. Evans pontificating safely from his virtual rostrum that which has already been made apparent to the nth or is otherwise entirely obvious, being commonly known and well-understood. Clearly, he holds nothing but reproach and contempt to those daring to research public laws for themselves and opting to proactively seek respectful redress and protest against governmental abuses; to which he generically mislabels them as being paranoid, illogical, delusional, or otherwise as lunatic “tax protesters”.

Mr. Evans is a scamming huckster, who far exceeds being ridiculously dishonest in every respect. That Webpage representing an astronomical sum of words -over 250,000 to be more precise- and more than 10-years of updating, needless to say, it goes far beyond being a desperate work of complete overkill. Luckily for us all the most honest statement within the entirety of that exaggerated debacle is located within one of the first few sentences, stating: “Not all citations and quotations have been confirmed, and there are additional cases and arguments that may be added in the future.” However, should you, the reader, desire to continue being misled on such matters then by all means please enjoy the above link to the “FAQ”, though I highly doubt that it will find many willing readers.

Personally, how anybody can take anything or anybody from that awful, awful sham of a Website (“Quatloos!”) seriously is a miracle far beyond my own comprehension.

 

[Weston White]

Mr. Hubbard was a former IRS attorney whose duties lay in the area of drafting regulations; there is no evidence he had any expertise in the theoretical foundations of the income tax. Moreover, he was flat wrong.

1. Your above quote is merely the paraphrasing of Mr. Evans’ own biased interpretations within his grossly misguided “Tax Protester FAQ”, clearly you had attempted to pass that entire quote off as if it were from some official legal resource, or other such public record (regardless as to the link at the bottom of the quote), or was the reflective quoting of Mr. Hull himself. Nobody ought to be surprised I assure you.
2a. Evidence you say, well, how about Mr. Hubbard’s official job position and title for one, how about his submitted Congressional testimony for two; moreover, is there any evidence to the contrary?
2b. From page 2579 of the same record: “A most informative statement in regard to the early history of the income-tax law was recently written by Mr. F. Morse Hubbard, formerly of the legislative drafting research fund of Columbia University, and a former legislative draftsman in the Treasury Department. This compilation of the information concerning our income-tax law is so well written that I am making it a part of my statement and the record: 1. THE INCOME TAX IS AN EXCISE TAX, AND IN-COME IS MERELY THE BASIS FOR DETERMINING ITS AMOUNT …”
3. Of course Sonny Jim misses the entire point of the testimony of Mr. Hubbard, which exists as legislative history (i.e., Congressional Record), making it admissible evidence for proper consideration by the court and that respective tax legislation had been affected and decided on based upon testimony such as by Mr. Hubbard.
4. Speaking of which, it would seem that Mr. Hull worked to devise the atrocious and overreaching United Nations; thus, clearly he was a trite progressive working from within the authority of our national government to procure his own covert agenda against core American fundaments and patrimony.
5. Your reference to a footnote of an entirely unrelated aspect disproves nothing as to the crux of the discussion, to quote (which itself appears to be making reference to a separate source “Foster and Abbott”): “If the tax should be construed as a tax on income as a specific fund the disappearance of the fund before the date of assessment would prevent the collection of the tax. (See Foster and Abbott, op. cit., p. 85.)”
6. Your provided quote incorrectly asserts mention of the 1909 Corporation Tax Act throughout so as to taint the testimony of Mr. Hubbard, for he was not addressing that Act of 1909, but he was addressing the XVI Amendment in discussion; thus your repetitive squabbling over the 1909 Act is wholly irrelevant.
7. Your reliance on the work of Mr. Evans fails, just as Mr. Evans’ work itself fails, for he argued only against a small closing portion of the entire testimony rendered by Mr. Hubbard.
8. Conveniently you omit reference to cases such as those included within fn. 3 and many others: Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U. S. 1, 17-22 (1916); Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U. S. 103, 112-114 (1916); Peck & Co v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165, 172 (1918); Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 202, 205-208 (1920); et al.
9. President Taft was himself well-versed on matters of taxation, though on the same note that you discount Mr. Hubbard to favor somebody else expressing your own points of view -presumably anyways as we cannot really know one way or the other what Mr. Hull had stated or had intended to state, as all we have is a single sentence excerpt from a record that nobody has ready access to, at any rate that singular sentence is most certainly out of context when presented by itself- you as well discount President Taft’s proposal for the XVI Amendment, which is not supportive to your dubious notions on federal income taxation; and moreover you discount the great works of others such as Albert Gallatin all the same, who himself was an economics genius on par with the analytical likes of Turgot, Smith, J. Adams, and Jefferson.
10. Most undoubtedly, there really is just no getting around it, Mr. Evans as by his accustomed discourse took no actual time in researching what he was writing about and instead blindly threw every single piece of moistened spaghetti against the wall that he could reach his grubby little fingers around.
11. Now, if you are not Mr. Evans, than who are you really? As we know that you cannot be Famspear/Jay Adkisson, being that he has unfortunately become mentally ill and no longer capable of writing even a simple sentence without displaying his varied form of Internet Tourette’s in volatile fashion (I suppose all those years of anonymously editing Wikipedia articles about rainbow parties, double penetration, bukakke, etc., etc., has finally caught up with him).

The Internal Revenue Code does not identify any “activity or privilege” being taxed other than the receipt of the income itself.

“From the beginning the revenue laws have been interpreted as defining ‘realization’ of income as the taxable event rather than the acquisition of the right to receive it.”

Helvering v. Horst, 311 U.S. 112, 115 (1940).

Most absolutely it does, for it is the realization of ‘gross income’ to ‘taxable income’, and not generalized ‘income’ that is representative of that very activity; as the “activity” clearly sets forth that very realization, while the “privilege” is whatever has been explicitly defined by statute to be so, be it any of a domestic or foreign individual, trust, estate, partnership, association, company, or corporation, etc., while taking on the privileged benefits of a “realized” ‘gain’ or ‘profit’ equating ‘gross income’. Whatever is not constitutionally taxable as ‘net income’ is auto-exempt from federal income taxation, withstanding the ratified breadth of the federal income tax.

 

[Weston White]

“(3) casual laborers not engaged in the course of the employer's trade or business.”

So that would effectively mean not the employers subordinate employees, but those working in a sort of arranged partnership, or as an associate, or on a consultant basis, correct?

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Congress had a definition of wages which applied to employment as well as self-employment, already on the books, in Subtitle C, for Social Security. Tell us why, since you believe that the income tax applies to employment, the Congress did not use that definition for the Current Tax Payment Act, establishing withholding of tax at source, but found it necessary to create a new definition of wages based, not on employment itself, but on a circumstance of employment, services performed, by the employee, for the employer.

For the simple reason that gross income includes many types of payments that aren't within the definition of "wages" for either Social Security or income tax withholding purposes. For example, money paid by a corporation to a person for serving on its board of directors isn't "wages" for Social Security or withholding purposes because a director isn't an "employee". But the payment is clearly includable in gross income under Section 61.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Mr. Evans is a scamming huckster, who far exceeds being ridiculously dishonest in every respect.

This is typical of tax deniers who, unable to point out with specificity any inaccuracy in Mr. Evans's analysis, resort to ad hominem insults.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

the “privilege” is whatever has been explicitly defined by statute to be so, be it any of a domestic or foreign individual, trust, estate, partnership, association, company, or corporation, etc., while taking on the privileged benefits of a “realized” ‘gain’ or ‘profit’ equating ‘gross income’. Whatever is not constitutionally taxable as ‘net income’ is auto-exempt from federal income taxation, withstanding the ratified breadth of the federal income tax.

The point is that a privilege is not a necessary precondition for the taxation of income. In addition, as far as income earned by an individual or any non-governmental entity is concerned there is no constitutional exemption. All you have to do is read the Constitution -- if you do, you'll find that it lists exports as the only thing Congress can't tax.

 

[Wheeljack]

For the simple reason that gross income includes many types of payments that aren't within the definition of "wages" for either Social Security or income tax withholding purposes. For example, money paid by a corporation to a person for serving on its board of directors isn't "wages" for Social Security or withholding purposes because a director isn't an "employee". But the payment is clearly includable in gross income under Section 61.

Of course a director's salary is includable in section 61. He is clearly being paid for his services. As you pointed out, he is not an employee because the corporation does not exercise control and direction over his actions, as he is the director.

Your going to have to do much better than that.

I've had my dealings with Ogden, and when I dropped my basis in law on them, they suddenly have nothing to say. I even had the Andover office (chief examinations) ask me for a copy of a return I had sent in three years earlier because they had no record of it. I gladly sent it to them. They accepted it, no questions.

 

[Wheeljack]

“(3) casual laborers not engaged in the course of the employer's trade or business.”

So that would effectively mean not the employers subordinate employees, but those working in a sort of arranged partnership, or as an associate, or on a consultant basis, correct?

How do businesses make money. Sales and Service.


Examples of casual laborers engaged in the employer's trade or business would be:
Salesmen - paid commissions on the amount of the sales they create for their employer.
Service techs- example; cable tv installation cable company charges installation fee and may pay all or part of it to technician, faster tech works more fees he can attain.

Waiters and waitresses - paid tips by customers based on their performance, most times based on percentage of sales created for the employer.

 

[Weston White]

This is typical of tax deniers who, unable to point out with specificity any inaccuracy in Mr. Evans's analysis, resort to ad hominem insults.

This is perhaps the funniest statement ever made by a “Quatloser!” At any rate, see my many prior posts within this thread, which, by the way, as your type usually do, have to date largely avoided responding to. Additionally, see:

Over 100-posts that I had very recently responded to within a Judge Napolitano “Freedom Watch” social Website: http://www.iwarrior.defendindependence.us/viewtopic.php?p=758#p758

The CFT: http://www.iwarrior.defendindependence.us/download/file.php?id=91

Supporting points to the CFT: http://www.iwarrior.defendindependence.us/download/file.php?id=94

As well, over the course of the last several years I have made (using my current username) over 500-posts debating against your type at your very own Quatloos! Forum.

Mr. Evans’ “analysis” on the matter presently held in debate is itself a fallacy fulfillment of inaccuracy. His “Tax Protester FAQ” is a contrivance of warped reckoning.

The fact remains, the mounts of readily available evidence is simply not supportive to the sum of your (“Quatloser!”) few and far between weakly devised arguments.

1. The federal income tax is not properly a tax on the acquisition of capital, but on its growth.
2. The federal government has no legal prudence in unyieldingly seizing $2.3-trillion in taxes from the general population, regardless of whatever classed guise the income tax is imposed upon, i.e., individual income, FICA, SSI, PPACA, etc.
3. The federal government is grossly and negligently abusing its powers of taxation through the enforcement of the federal income tax, for its constitutional empowerment for waging public taxation is only intended to pay its own debts in incurred in the process of providing for the nation’s general welfare or common defence, (taxing to upstart private companies such as Solyndra, or to ensure the continued growth of Boeing, Haliburton, Monsanto, General Electric, Google, Facebook, Planned Parenthood, Acorn, etc., or to protect the Legislature’s own Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac retirement fund, or to dole out one multi-billion Dollar bailout after another to protected corporations, or to pass about foreign aid money like candy for kids, while using its own military to police the activities of those and surrounding nations and spread about democracy onto their lands, etc., etc., etc. is entirely outside the purview of our national powers of taxation).
4. Presuming that the federal income tax was intended to tax the source as well as its growth, then it is still an unconstitutional method of taxation, as even though apportionment be not required, the requirement for exigent circumstances is withstanding under such a direct form of taxation upon such sources, aside from the indirect taxing of the source’s growth.

 

[Weston White]

The point is that a privilege is not a necessary precondition for the taxation of income. In addition, as far as income earned by an individual or any non-governmental entity is concerned there is no constitutional exemption. All you have to do is read the Constitution -- if you do, you'll find that it lists exports as the only thing Congress can't tax.

1. The privilege in which you refer is written into the context of the taxation statute; you simply lack the analytics to comprehend this, e.g., direct versus indirect taxation.
2. The federal income tax statute is not taxing ‘income’, but ‘net income’, now amended to ‘gross income’.
3. The debate is not about outright constitutional blanket protection from all means of national taxation, it is about the requirement for apportionment upon the source being sought for taxation by the taxing powers, whatever configuration of ‘direct taxation’ that happens be; to which the proper application of the federal income tax was as a matter of fact appropriately crafted to consider, while the methodology brought about by the status quo seeks only to convolute that proper application.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

1. The privilege in which you refer is written into the context of the taxation statute; you simply lack the analytics to comprehend this, e.g., direct versus indirect taxation.

What you mean is that you read into the statute whatever language is necessary to support your preconceived anti-tax position.

2. The federal income tax statute is not taxing ‘income’, but ‘net income’, now amended to ‘gross income’.

You are incorrect. The tax base is called "taxable income".

3. The debate is not about outright constitutional blanket protection from all means of national taxation, it is about the requirement for apportionment upon the source being sought for taxation by the taxing powers, whatever configuration of ‘direct taxation’ that happens be; to which the proper application of the federal income tax was as a matter of fact appropriately crafted to consider, while the methodology brought about by the status quo seeks only to convolute that proper application.

Income taxes are not direct taxes; they are excises. The only case that has ever held that an income tax was a direct tax was the 1895 Pollock case, and even there the Supreme Court limited its holding to investment income. Taxes on wages and personal earnings have never been held to be direct taxes. In any event the 16th Amendment did away with the apportionment requirement for all income taxes.