Today's Federal tax on earned wages may violate our Constitution.

[ClaytonB]

You really are terminally ignorant, with a gob of stupidity to boot. No, the Constitution doesn't prohibit unapportioned taxes.

Wow, you just excoriated my intelligence, then you make a big old reading-comprehension floparoo... right in your first sentence! It prohibits UNAPPORTIONED ... DIRECT ... TAXES. Read those three words -- or better yet, write them out on a chalkboard -- 100 times until you comprehend! NO UNAPPORTIONED DIRECT TAX. Just read it!

Imposts, excises, and duties don't have to be apportioned;

Those, being gathered at the border of the nation, are not direct taxes on We The People. Duh.

they only have to be geographically uniform.

Wow, I just confirmed that ol' "Brickhead" Tufts is ChatGPT... behold:

Huh, OK, GPT-4 is way smarter than I am, so surely it must be in the US Constitution... let's check that with good ol' Ctl+F:

Wow! Looks like GPT-4 has still got some basic logic issues... that happen to precisely correlate with the logic issues that Tufts has...

PS: The screenshot is real, not a joke.

In addition, the 16th Amendment

Is completely out-of-scope to a discussion about the pre-16th amendment meaning of the US Constitution.

Only direct taxes (other than a tax on income, if you still adhere to the moronic view that an income tax is a direct tax) have to be apportioned.

Let's see, a Federal income tax is collected ... DIRECTLY ... from We The People, bypassing the State government ... so... uh... yes, it's a DIRECT tax. In every case.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Let's see, a Federal income tax is collected ... DIRECTLY ... from We The People, bypassing the State government ... so... uh... yes, it's a DIRECT tax. In every case.

Instead of displaying your abysmal ignorance for all to see, why don't you learn a little history. The Carriage Tax was collected directly from Mr. Hylton, but that didn't make it a direct tax as that term is used in the Constitution. The gift tax is collected directly from the donor, but it's clear (except to ignoramuses like you) that it's an excise, not a direct tax. The estate tax is collected directly from the decedent's estate, but it's an excise, not a direct tax. The income tax was collected from Mr. Springer,, but SCOTUS said it wasn't a direct tax but was in the nature of a duty or excise.

Incidentally, excises and duties aren't necessarily gathered at the border. Where did you come up with that bit of drivel?

As far as your anal-retentive objection to the term "geographical uniformity" is concerned, take it up with SCOTUS:

On the one side, the proposition is that the command that duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States relates to the inherent and intrinsic character of the tax; that it contemplates the operation of the tax upon the property of the individual taxpayer, and exacts that when an impost, duty, or excise is levied, it shall operate precisely in the same manner upon all individuals -- that is to say, the proposition is that "uniform throughout the United States" commands that excises, duties, and imposts, when levied, shall be equal and uniform in their operation upon persons and property in the sense of the meaning of the words equal and uniform, as now found in the constitutions of most of the states of the Union. The contrary construction is this: that the words "uniform throughout the United States" do not relate to the inherent character of the tax as respects its operation on individuals, but simply requires that whatever plan or method Congress adopts for laying the tax in question, the same plan and the same method must be made operative throughout the United States -- that is to say that wherever a subject is taxed anywhere, the same must be taxed everywhere throughout the United States, and at the same rate. The two contentions then may be summarized by saying that the one asserts that the Constitution prohibits the levy of any duty, impost, or excise which is not intrinsically equal and uniform in its operations upon individuals, and the other that the power of Congress in levying the taxes in question is, by the terms of the Constitution, restrained only by the requirement that such taxes be geographically uniform.
Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41, 84-85 (1900)

 

[ClaytonB]

SCOTUS ... SCOTUS...

... works for We The People and was created by the Constitution which We The People signed. Therefore, We The People can take SCOTUS back out of existence (by Amendment, if decided) and SCOTUS is not "the final word" on the meaning of the Constitution. In fact, the Constitution was written and designed to be read and understood by Everyman, precisely for this reason. If SCOTUS is "the final word" on the meaning of the Constitution, then SCOTUS is the Constitution. But SCOTUS is not the Constitution, the Constitution is the Constitution. So, no, I don't give a damn about SCOTUS's opinions on existential questions of Constitutional law.

While taxation is (should be) simply "business-as-usual", well within the purview of SCOTUS, the problem with the 16th Amendment is that there was manifestly foul-play involved in its passage (there was no popular outcry, and income taxation is always unpopular in the absence of a crisis). The 16th Amendment overthrows a core tenet of American values in governance (no taxation without representation), but there is no suitably extraordinary rationale behind that Amendment. There was no revolution in American values in 1911-1913, whereby Americans all stopped believing that taxation without representation is tantamount to tyranny. It's like if the proposed Corwin Amendment were passed in 1861, and modern pro-slavers working under the umbrella of that amendment were arguing, "Yeah, maybe it's bad, but it's the law." Well, too bad that it's "the law" -- "One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." (attributed to Thomas Jefferson) "The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable." (Frederic Bastiat) The 16th Amendment was passed through some kind of subterfuge and it is deeply opposed to American values in governance. It is the lynchpin that has made the central bank feasible, which has led to a century of total war and economic destruction on a truly unimaginable scale. This is a discussion that needs to happen in an Amendment proposal or Con-con, not in SCOTUS, but a cancer-treatment has to begin with the diagnosis... acknowledging the reality that something is wrong.

 

[Snowball]

... works for We The People and was created by the Constitution which We The People signed. Therefore, We The People can take SCOTUS back out of existence (by Amendment, if decided) and SCOTUS is not "the final word" on the meaning of the Constitution. In fact, the Constitution was written and designed to be read and understood by Everyman, precisely for this reason. If SCOTUS is "the final word" on the meaning of the Constitution, then SCOTUS is the Constitution. But SCOTUS is not the Constitution, the Constitution is the Constitution. So, no, I don't give a damn about SCOTUS's opinions on existential questions of Constitutional law.

While taxation is (should be) simply "business-as-usual", well within the purview of SCOTUS, the problem with the 16th Amendment is that there was manifestly foul-play involved in its passage (there was no popular outcry, and income taxation is always unpopular in the absence of a crisis). The 16th Amendment overthrows a core tenet of American values in governance (no taxation without representation), but there is no suitably extraordinary rationale behind that Amendment. There was no revolution in American values in 1911-1913, whereby Americans all stopped believing that taxation without representation is tantamount to tyranny. It's like if the proposed Corwin Amendment were passed in 1861, and modern pro-slavers working under the umbrella of that amendment were arguing, "Yeah, maybe it's bad, but it's the law." Well, too bad that it's "the law" -- "One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." (attributed to Thomas Jefferson) "The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable." (Frederic Bastiat) The 16th Amendment was passed through some kind of subterfuge and it is deeply opposed to American values in governance. It is the lynchpin that has made the central bank feasible, which has led to a century of total war and economic destruction on a truly unimaginable scale. This is a discussion that needs to happen in an Amendment proposal or Con-con, not in SCOTUS, but a cancer-treatment has to begin with the diagnosis... acknowledging the reality that something is wrong.

It was only the Republicans that were against income taxes. They thought the 16th would fail but it didn't fail or even come close to failing.
In the 1890's there was a large, popular social reform movement. That's why the Anti-Trust Laws and Labor Laws began introducing democratic restraints against unfettered Gilded Age excesses and abuses. That trend continued and should be seen in the light of progressive needs for communities, not far off from the beginnings of public education, roads and sewerage, electric transportation, etc.

There is no reason to make such a big deal about perceived subterfuge. American history is chock-full of that. For example, Rhode Island was bullied into even signing the Constitution. Subterfuge and involuntary cooperation with power extends back to the War of Independence. You are correct to say, however, that SCOTUS is not the final word - not when the representatives are at supra-majority odds with the Judicial Branch. But, it wasn't SCOTUS that brought us the income tax.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Apparently you are.

you wish, shill

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I don't agree -- us old diehards need to occasionally stoop down and do a few rounds in the ring with the paid-propagandists for the benefit of new folks who are just onboarding to the movement. Freshly-minted 19-year-old LPMC members with a summer at Mises U under their belt will have been exposed to a broad palette of Leftist talking-points, but there is a veritable ocean of such talking-points, and so a big part of equipping them to take on the Left is just showing them the ropes, getting out there and showing them how to sail over stormy seas...

What new folks? lol

The thing paid trolls hate is when they are called out. I'm on liberal forum dot net. It's run by a conservative. He pasted a scarlett letter on many lib accounts at my recommendation. See the link below and look at the members. Some are branded with "child groomer; sexual predator" in their profile.

When that happened, they had a fit. Many left. This is what these scum respond to. This is what works, not retarded high school "debate."

https://liberalforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=74893

 

[ClaytonB]

What new folks? lol

The thing paid trolls hate is when they are called out. I'm on liberal forum dot net. It's run by a conservative. He pasted a scarlett letter on many lib accounts at my recommendation. See the link below and look at the members. Some are branded with "child groomer; sexual predator" in their profile.

When that happened, they had a fit. Many left. This is what these scum respond to. This is what works, not retarded high school "debate."

https://liberalforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=74893

I'm less concerned about getting bad people to leave a forum, and more interested in getting good people to join it (and learn from it). The Internet is too big, and too septic, to be filtered. All you can do is set up supply of fresh, clean water and try to direct people's attention to it. Especially the up-and-coming LPMC/MisesU crowd who are new to liberty. They have the fire. They are the future. Ron Paul understands this, which is why he is the most successful libertarian movement leader ever.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I'm less concerned about getting bad people to leave a forum, and more interested in getting good people to join it (and learn from it). The Internet is too big, and too septic, to be filtered. All you can do is set up supply of fresh, clean water and try to direct people's attention to it. Especially the up-and-coming LPMC/MisesU crowd who are new to liberty. They have the fire. They are the future.

I get the sentiment, but forums aren't the way to go. Forums are waning. And the people who frequent them are not interested in learning anything. They're know-it-alls and are using forums as a catharsis.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Scumbags need to be branded for the scum that they are.



Check out this dirtbag groomer. He even pretends to be libertartian. lmao

ScottMon

Child Groomer, Sexual Predator
https://liberalforum.net/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=2054&sid=85375b8f903bdd3e0b199d5222e1730a

 

[ClaytonB]

I get the sentiment, but forums aren't the way to go. Forums are waning. And the people who frequent them are not interested in learning anything. They're know-it-alls and are using forums as a catharsis.

The death of the forum has been predicted a thousand times, and it's false every time. Sure, the click-rate and bandwidth of forums like this isn't even a drop in the ocean of the twitterverse. But so what. I'm not interested in talking to people who can only think in 160-character chunks. I get it, brevity is the soul of wit, etc. but that's not what Twitter's character-limit was really about. It was about attenuating speech, because the most persuasive arguments in a short-format populist forum will always be left-wing sloganeering. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" is a pithy quip, but it will never be popular. (2017) BI: The 10 most-liked tweets of all time are dominated by Obama. That is why Twitter was created (among other things).

So yes, we need a space where people who want to think thoughts longer than 160-characters have a space where they can learn how that's actually done. Practice makes perfect. There are no shortcuts. You can't read your way into learning how to think... the only way to learn to think is to, you know, actually think.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

The death of the forum has been predicted a thousand times, and it's false every time. Sure, the click-rate and bandwidth of forums like this isn't even a drop in the ocean of the twitterverse. But so what. I'm not interested in talking to people who can only think in 160-character chunks. I get it, brevity is the soul of wit, etc. but that's not what Twitter's character-limit was really about. It was about attenuating speech, because the most persuasive arguments in a short-format populist forum will always be left-wing sloganeering. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" is a pithy quip, but it will never be popular. (2017) BI: The 10 most-liked tweets of all time are dominated by Obama. That is why Twitter was created (among other things).

So yes, we need a space where people who want to think thoughts longer than 160-characters have a space where they can learn how that's actually done. Practice makes perfect. There are no shortcuts. You can't read your way into learning how to think... the only way to learn to think is to, you know, actually think.

Hmm, I think it's the opposite. Libs are the pseudo-intellectuals who blather like girls. They try to twist everything with their "grey areas" and subjective reality.

I was on a forum where libs would blather blather blah blah blah. I would only respond to them with homemade memes. It drove them crazy. I actually got banned by the marxist mod for doing that.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Remember that Maine school counselor who gave the 13 year old girl student a chest binder? The counselors name is Sam Roy. Roy gave it to the student because that is the first step for girls to transition to weirdosexualism.

We was discussing this on liberal forum dot net. It turns out one scum bag user named Ike Bana on liberal forum dot net was a 25 year retired school counseler who supported counseler Roy and the weirdosexualism.

Ike Bana got branded as a groomer. The POS left the forum.


Here is Bana's profile: https://liberalforum.net/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=2740

Ike Bana

3581 posts
Child Groomer, Sexual Predator

 

[ClaytonB]

Hmm, I think it's the opposite. Libs are the pseudo-intellectuals who blather like girls. They try to twist everything with their "grey areas" and subjective reality.

I was on a forum where libs would blather blather blah blah blah. I would only respond to them with homemade memes. It drove them crazy. I actually got banned by the marxist mod for doing that.

Yes, the useless multiplication of words is a trademark of pseudo-intellectual ideologues (both left and right). Nevertheless, these are just front-rankers, ideological bullet-stoppers, useful idiots. The academic Marxists wouldn't be such a threat if they really were so stupid. They're not stupid. And their arguments, left unchallenged, are extremely dangerous. Look at the 100's of millions of innocents slaughtered in the name of "They Did It Wrong Last Time, It Will Work This Time." Answering, debunking and silencing the semantic content of the ideological Marxists is job #1 of those who choose to join the ranks of the "opinion-forming class", as the Austrians call it. And when the truth is on your side, numbers don't matter. 2+2=4 no matter how many people say otherwise. Gravity exists, no matter how many people say otherwise. Printing money causes or contributes to inflation no matter how many people say otherwise.

These arguments don't make themselves. Some of us have to take on the task of deep-diving into the madness of Marxism and wiring up their bunkum ideology with demolition charges and imploding it from within. While my primary focus is not on Marxism itself (I primarily focus on the spiritual aspect behind Marxism), this is the kind of thing that I do. The whole framework needs to be torn down, top-to-bottom, so we need young folks out there learning the ropes, learning the logical fallacies, the economic fallacies, the civics fallacies, the constitutional fallacies, the historical fallacies, and ready to enter that "high-school debate" and flatten any and all who step up. There is no easy way to do it, but what's cool about the Mises and aligned movements is that we win no matter what. Want to be on the winning side? Join us, because truth wins, 2+2=4 wins. It is a force more powerful than any army, than any nuclear bomb -- indeed, the Truth is omnipotent.

 

[ClaytonB]

There is no reason to make such a big deal about perceived subterfuge. American history is chock-full of that.

Sure, most of it is Slick-Willy-style business-as-usual. But the 16th Amendment is a big deal because it is the only reason that the Fed is able to exist at all. End the anti-American and unconstitutional practice of DIRECT UNAPPORTIONED tax, (aka taxation-without-representation), and you implode the entire bond market without having to overturn the Federal Reserve Act. From whom is the Fed going to collect the "interest" on all those bonds? The US government? Them and what army? And if the US government has to collect taxes constitutionally -- meaning, by representative apportionment -- no way in hell are they going to be able to maintain the kind of colossal budget they are running right now. Everything will have to be cut and the first thing to go would be the damn interest payments. Let the banksters figure out what to do with all those worthless bonds.

 

[Weston White]

FACT #1: Wages were taxable before the 16th Amendment because SCOTUS held in 1881 that a tax on wages was not a direct tax.

OMG, just stop with that old tired nonsense! Springer was an attorney and bondholder who reported $50,798 in income back then.

The issue in Springer was again "income, gains, and profits" during the year 1865. $50,798 with factoring in today's inflation is over $1.5 million. Ergo, Springer was not a laborer, craftsman, or farmer, or such anything.

Pollock modified the findings of Springer; and the (since overruled) Hilton case was nothing other than a silly ass argument over taxes being levied upon horse buggies without apportionment--it has no bearing in modern society, period.

The Revenue Act of 1864 unequivocally stated: "Section 116 of the Act imposed the tax on "the gains, profits, and income of every person residing in the United States, or of any citizen of the United States residing abroad, whether derived from any kind of property, rents, interest, dividends, or salaries, or from any profession, trade, employment, or vocation, carried on in the United States or elsewhere, or from any other source whatever" and raised its tax rates from the 1862 Act that started out at 3% over $800 (which is now the equivalent of more than $24,000) to 5% above $600 (which is over $18,000 in today's dollars.)

* Notice the similarities between the above and the 16th Amend., i.e., "gains, profits, and income ... derived from any kind" and "from any other source whatever" versus "the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived," hence, properly as an indirect tax it's not being 'directly' imposed upon whatever the source might be, but 'indirectly' upon only the 'gains or profits' as "incomes," being derived from whatever the sources may be. The distinction here is whether or not a positive financial severing had occurred throughout a given tax-year.

The 16th Amend., was always, clearly, and only intended to impose an indirect tax upon realized wealth and gain, i.e., a tax upon the wealthy and privileged, it was never thought of as a workers tax or super-tax until after the 'stoppage at the source' withholding scheme began in 1943 and the socialist government bureaucrats of the time realized that they could get not only away with keeping the money being voluntarily contributed by the national workforce (being supportive to war efforts), but they could in addition impose all sorts of machinations to tax this, to exempt that, to deduct the other, or to cunningly convolute, subjugate, erode, and obfuscate the U.S. Constitution.

Being compensated for one's labor or personal ability is an equally contracted (quid pro quo) exchange and falls within both an individual's freedom of association and their right to freely contract outside of governmental interference and molestation (e.g., 14th Amend., Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905).) Viz., working 80-hours in exchange for $4,000 in a skilled occupation is not comparable to one paying their employees $4,000 bi-weekly while maintaining a realistic expectation of grossing $25,000 during that same period of time.

In Pollock, the point had been made unarguably and succinctly clear that the imposition of any indirect taxes upon associative objects, while still relational to its source must be treated as if its a 'direct tax' upon that source else face voidness under unconstitutionality. So, hence, even though you may teach a cat to bark, it's however, still a cat.

It's so nice that y'all never lend consideration to the pointedly stated "or other direct, tax" within A.I,S.9.,C.4: "No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken." The Court was either purposefully or negligently incorrect on their assertions with respect to direct taxes as there are others, e.g., personalty taxes. Regardless, this point was exhaustively debated throughout the Federalist Papers and was well within the minds of the Legislature during Congressional testimony for the ratification of the 16th. Amendment.

 

[Snowball]

Sure, most of it is Slick-Willy-style business-as-usual. But the 16th Amendment is a big deal because it is the only reason that the Fed is able to exist at all. End the anti-American and unconstitutional practice of DIRECT UNAPPORTIONED tax, (aka taxation-without-representation), and you implode the entire bond market without having to overturn the Federal Reserve Act. From whom is the Fed going to collect the "interest" on all those bonds? The US government? Them and what army? And if the US government has to collect taxes constitutionally -- meaning, by representative apportionment -- no way in hell are they going to be able to maintain the kind of colossal budget they are running right now. Everything will have to be cut and the first thing to go would be the damn interest payments. Let the banksters figure out what to do with all those worthless bonds.

There is no connection between the Federal Reserve Act and the Sixteenth Amendment, other than they are both bad, and both were implemented by representatives.

It was a long time before the Fed became such a bad actor operationally, and also a long time before personal income tax grew to current levels. All of the progressions were instituted BY representatives, duly elected ones, and elections have been conducted over and over again, and these monsters only grow longer in the tooth.

I oppose representation. I support law and permanent moral leadership. Then, we can get about helping this motley crue called humanity lift up and progress as a species, rather than retard ourselves by the machinations of division, greed, laziness, immorality and relativism. Enough is Enough, or we will collapse. The American political experiment was a mistake. I do not believe in its tenets anymore.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Yes, the useless multiplication of words is a trademark of pseudo-intellectual ideologues (both left and right). Nevertheless, these are just front-rankers, ideological bullet-stoppers, useful idiots. The academic Marxists wouldn't be such a threat if they really were so stupid. They're not stupid. And their arguments, left unchallenged, are extremely dangerous. Look at the 100's of millions of innocents slaughtered in the name of "They Did It Wrong Last Time, It Will Work This Time." Answering, debunking and silencing the semantic content of the ideological Marxists is job #1 of those who choose to join the ranks of the "opinion-forming class", as the Austrians call it. And when the truth is on your side, numbers don't matter. 2+2=4 no matter how many people say otherwise. Gravity exists, no matter how many people say otherwise. Printing money causes or contributes to inflation no matter how many people say otherwise.

These arguments don't make themselves. Some of us have to take on the task of deep-diving into the madness of Marxism and wiring up their bunkum ideology with demolition charges and imploding it from within. While my primary focus is not on Marxism itself (I primarily focus on the spiritual aspect behind Marxism), this is the kind of thing that I do. The whole framework needs to be torn down, top-to-bottom, so we need young folks out there learning the ropes, learning the logical fallacies, the economic fallacies, the civics fallacies, the constitutional fallacies, the historical fallacies, and ready to enter that "high-school debate" and flatten any and all who step up. There is no easy way to do it, but what's cool about the Mises and aligned movements is that we win no matter what. Want to be on the winning side? Join us, because truth wins, 2+2=4 wins. It is a force more powerful than any army, than any nuclear bomb -- indeed, the Truth is omnipotent.

Okay, so? How do you initially get someone's attention for all this? You have three seconds to do it.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

btw, I just checked the Guest sub-forum. I was the last one to post there, and that was over three years ago. No one new is coming here. Change that. You have three seconds.

 

[ClaytonB]

There is no connection between the Federal Reserve Act and the Sixteenth Amendment,

Why did the first and second banks of America fail, but the Fed did not?

It was a long time before the Fed became such a bad actor operationally,

False. The Fed directly caused the Depression. This is standard textbook history, so nothing revisionist about it.

I oppose representation.

Then you oppose the Constitution.

The American political experiment was a mistake. I do not believe in its tenets anymore.

Then the only solution is the Kingdom of God on earth. If American government cannot work, then no government can work. Every ingredient for success was provided. This is a Moses-and-the-golden-calf moment in history. We either make it work, or God will directly intervene. Global anarchy / hell-on-earth is not an allowable option. That is a victory-condition for Satan.

 

[ClaytonB]

Okay, so? How do you initially get someone's attention for all this? You have three seconds to do it.

The people who can only muster their attention for 3 seconds at a time are natural-born followers. They don't think, really. They just need someone to be pointed at, to follow. So, the real issue is producing good leaders with right thinking, true beliefs and moral courage. That's what Mises U and similar programs are about.