Weston White: Wrap-up

A collection of old posts from all forums. No new threads or new posts in old threads allowed. For archive use only.
Weston White

Re: Weston White: Wrap-up

Post by Weston White »

Isn't WW admitting the truth of what I was saying, that wages in the traditional, ordinary, historical, Adam-Smith sense of the word, really are income?
Wonderful, see you do have trouble reading after all! What I was saying it that Dr. Adam Smith wrote this hundreds of years prior to the crafting of the IRC, which therein gave the word “wages” a special meaning, thereby creating a legal ‘term’, so when you say “wages” when discussing 26 USC, you are not saying revenue or payment or remuneration, or whatever… though what you are saying is what has been defined within the term “wages”.

Now sure 3402(p)(3)(B) permits ones remuneration in the general sense to be treated as if it were “wages” for the purposes of withholding only, but not for the purposes of establishing a taxable liability; which this clause itself, only serves to further substantiate the methodology of CtC... otherwise things being as you believe, there would be no reason to even have it, as it would never apply, because your pay would already qualify under the already established withholding provisions, with exception to qualifying exemptions and the like, though this section never actually makes a direct reference to such types of payments, while 'remuneration' specifically is and never is 'wages' mentioned therein.
And, if compensation for labor, paid in the form of wages, is income, why can't it be taxed under the 16th Amendment, and why hasn't Congress taxed it as part of gross income as defined by section 61, if for no other reason than because the wages are "income."
Even though 3402(p)(3)(B) permits the person or the taxpayer to prepare for any presumed end of year tax liabilities, having your non-taxable revenue withhold does not in itself create such a liability in itself. If you are entitled to a refund, you are entitled to a refund, period. So it has been written, so it has been said.
Weston White

Re: Weston White: Wrap-up

Post by Weston White »

Gregg wrote:
Weston White wrote:BTW "Gregg", exactly just who is it that you think you are fooling when you post your rhetoric? Could it be Mutter or the supposedly 4+ CtCers that are wanting to correct the "errors" of their ways?
My friends call me Gregg, to you, it's Dr. Evans, please.
No SCOTUS has not said so, therefore you are not legally recognized as a "Dr.", you are only a "Dr." in the way that Dr. Evil is a "Dr." or Dr. Jay is a "Dr.".
Weston White

Re: Weston White: Wrap-up

Post by Weston White »

Duke2Earl wrote:Mr. White, you just keep on believing that. I hope your beliefs keep you warm in jail. Maybe you can share a cell with Mr. Hendrickson. Because that is certainly the result you are going to get. What you seem not to realize is that it simply does not matter what you think at all. It only matters what the courts think. Maybe that's unfair but it is the truth.

Are you saying that you do not believe in established principles? Are you saying the U.S. Constitution matters not? Is this what you are saying? Are you like President Bush Jr.?
“I don’t give a goddamn, …
I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief.
Do it my way. …
Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”
- President George W. Bush, (November 2005, during a Congressional meeting at the Oval Office concerning the renewal of the US Patriot Act)
Newsflash genius:
“Oh, how I hate the phrase we have a “living document”. We now have a Constitution that means whatever we want it to mean. The Constitution is not a living organism, for Pete’s sake.”

“I don’t have to prove that the Constitution is perfect; I just have to prove that it’s better than anything else.”

“We can take away rights just as we can grant new ones. Don’t think that it’s a one-way street.”
– United States Supreme Court, Justice Antonin Scalia
“When legislating for the states of the Union, under the authority of a power granted to the federal government in the Constitution, Congress must stay strictly within the bounds of the power thus granted and limited. However, when legislating for places where the US is the sovereign, Congress may do anything not expressly prohibited by the Constitution.”
Downes v. Bidwel, 182 US 244 (1901), and Hooven and Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 US 674 (1945);
"The idea prevails with some, indeed it has found expression in arguments at the bar, that we have in this country substantially two national governments; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all of its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independent of that instrument, by exercising such power as other nations of the earth are accustomed to… I take leave to say that, if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty, guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism… IT WILL BE AN EVIL DAY FOR AMERICAN LIBERTY IF THE THEORY OF A GOVERNMENT OUTSIDE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND FINDS LODGEMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL JURISPRUDENCE. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violations of the principles of the Constitution." [emphasis in original]
Downes v. Bidwel, 182 US 244 (1901);
jg
Fed Chairman of the Quatloosian Reserve
Posts: 614
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:25 am

Re: Weston White: Wrap-up

Post by jg »

The reason I post it over and over is so that no unsuspecting reader will believe your horse hockey that it has not been addressed.
jg wrote:Weston, please know that the Supreme Court ruled in 1880 that an income tax is not a capitation.

In SPRINGER v. U S, 102 U.S. 586 (1880) which is available at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/g ... &invol=586
MR. JUSTICE SWAYNE wrote:
Hamilton left behind him a series of legal briefs,... <snip for brevity> ...
He suggests that the boundary line between direct and indirect taxes be settled by 'a species of arbitration,' and that direct taxes be held to be only 'capitation or poll taxes, and taxes on lands and buildings, and general assessments, whether on the whole property of individuals or on their whole real or personal estate. All else must, of necessity, be considered as indirect taxes.'

The tax here in question falls within neither of these categories. It is not a tax on the 'whole . . . personal estate' of the individual, but only on his income, gains, and profits during a year, which may have been but a small part of his personal estate, and in most cases would have been so. This classification lends no support to the argument of the plaintiff in error.
See where the court said the tax falls within neither "capitation or poll taxes, and taxes on lands and buildings, and general assessments, whether on the whole property of individuals or on their whole real or personal estate."?

"..direct taxes be held to be only 'capitation or poll taxes, and taxes on lands and buildings, and general assessments, whether on the whole property of individuals or on their whole real or personal estate...The tax here in question falls within neither of these categories."

Your inability or refusal to read and understand what was ruled does not change that an income tax is not a capitation or poll tax and is not a direct tax according to the Supreme Court.
“Where there is an income tax, the just man will pay more and the unjust less on the same amount of income.” — Plato
Lambkin
Warder of the Quatloosian Gibbet
Posts: 1206
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 8:43 pm

Re: Weston White: Wrap-up

Post by Lambkin »

Weston White wrote:Though in your defense I seriously doubt you numbers are correct, I see the same ~4+ persons making the same silly posts over and over and over.
Weston, you are apparently mistaking Quatloos for the battlefield. It is more like the peanut gallery. For people like you, the battlefield is the three branches of your government which don't agree with your opinions about the legality of the income tax. Your ideas are not faring well in the judicial system, nor in the legislature, and clearly not in the executive. No matter what you dredge up from Adam Smith, to the people governing the country, your opinion on taxation is worthless and that has nothing to do with what people say on quatloos.com. I would suggest a revolution to correct the situation, but you don't have the popular support to do that either, so I'm afraid you are just going to keep on losing until you decide to give it up and try something different. I have some hopes you may come to your senses but it will probably require a painful experience for you.
Weston White

Re: Weston White: Wrap-up

Post by Weston White »

mutter wrote:
Weston White wrote:BTW "Gregg", exactly just who is it that you think you are fooling when you post your rhetoric? Could it be Mutter or the supposedly 4+ CtCers that are wanting to correct the "errors" of their ways?
good God Weston. Notice I have pretty much stayed out of this until now

You just dont get it W. youre arguments are frivilous, as in no bases in law. More over youre arguments have been totally defeated with superiour knowledge.
Yet still you blunder on like a monkey in heat refusing to even attempt to grasp an opposing view.
Simply put YOU ARE WRONG!
Wow how are your classes going? You really should watch your spelling there lil' buddy. Yea, perhaps you are right though, that is why nobody here is able or willing to address the capitation tax quandary.

Seriously, you have not noticed how not a single person here has been able to refute my assertions regarding that monumental aspect? You have not notices how they either ignore such posts or turn to name calling and belittling instead? I think it would be worth your time to look into that, forget about the IRC for a moment and focus on the taxation itself. You will be amazed at what you discover.

Oh and BTW, my arguments are not frivolous, nobody has even been able to provide one single court case pertaining directly in opposition to my arguments, nor are they able to provide any official lists from the IRS confirming such a claim. Now this is definitely something that has to makes you go... hmmm! :D


CONSTITUTIONAL TAX CLASS FLOWCHART

DIRECT TAXATION

Capitation Taxes - Tax in consideration of ones labor or business.

Poll-taxes - Taxes upon a class or rank of people without consideration to their labor or business, e.g. free persons, non-free persons, males, females, age groups, etc..

Direct Taxes - Taxes upon realty, buildings and other items tied to the land, e.g. slaves, and the 'income' deriving therefrom, i.e. profits and gains from rents, investments, etc..
NOTICE: Along come POLLOCK in 1894-1895 and the XVI Amendment in 1913, thereafter extricating the reference of 'income' from within 'Direct Taxes' and placing it within the category of INDIRECT TAXATION in the form of an pseudo Excise Tax as (an 'internal tax' upon consumption, privilege, expenditure, commerce, etc.). The question of Capitation Taxes and Poll-taxes was never in the equation, the equation was solely in consideration of just what was actually intended by our Forefathers by use of the phrase other 'Direct Taxes'?

You should realize the absolute distinction of what is Direct Taxation vs. what is Indirect Taxation.

Direct Taxation is a tax directly upon the person, their labor, their rank or class, or their property.

Indirect Taxation is a tax upon engagements or activities using their revenue, stock, capital, or property as the basis for engaging in such activities; such as importing, business, commerce, expenditure, purchasing, etc..

Otherwise what Congress has essentially achieved is to tax living as they deem suitable, they can tax your labor at 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%; hell they could even tax it at 125% if they wanted to! You would be working indebted to them, sort of those that are forced to live on credit cards, just to buy gas and food, while living at home with their immediate family! Such a decision ultimately lies with approximately 600 men and woman. They get to control you standards of living, your sustenance... I ask you is that being "free"? Is that the correct application of a Republican form of government? I think not!

No taxing the act of laboring is to be through apportionment, this ensures that all the people truly do pay their "fair share"... because as it exists in the statute quo mantra, such a tax is anything but!
Last edited by Weston White on Fri Apr 03, 2009 11:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Weston White

Re: Weston White: Wrap-up

Post by Weston White »

See where the court said the tax falls within neither "capitation or poll taxes, and taxes on lands and buildings, and general assessments, whether on the whole property of individuals or on their whole real or personal estate."?

"..direct taxes be held to be only 'capitation or poll taxes, and taxes on lands and buildings, and general assessments, whether on the whole property of individuals or on their whole real or personal estate...The tax here in question falls within neither of these categories."

Your inability or refusal to read and understand what was ruled does not change that an income tax is not a capitation or poll tax and is not a direct tax according to the Supreme Court.
And your inability or refusal to understand that I am not arguing that 'income' is a 'capitation tax' is getting really, really annoying.


CONSTITUTIONAL TAX CLASS FLOWCHART

DIRECT TAXATION

Capitation Taxes - Tax in consideration of ones labor or business.

Poll-taxes - Taxes upon a class or rank of people without consideration to their labor or business, e.g. free persons, non-free persons, males, females, age groups, etc..

Direct Taxes - Taxes upon realty, buildings and other items tied to the land, e.g. slaves, and the 'income' deriving therefrom, i.e. profits and gains from rents, investments, etc..
NOTICE: Along come POLLOCK in 1894-1895 and the XVI Amendment in 1913, thereafter extricating the reference of 'income' from within 'Direct Taxes' and placing it within the category of INDIRECT TAXATION in the form of an pseudo Excise Tax as (an 'internal tax' upon consumption, privilege, expenditure, commerce, etc.). The question of Capitation Taxes and Poll-taxes was never in the equation, the equation was solely in consideration of just what was actually intended by our Forefathers by use of the phrase other 'Direct Taxes'?

You should realize the absolute distinction of what is Direct Taxation vs. what is Indirect Taxation.

Direct Taxation is a tax directly upon the person, their labor, their rank or class, or their property.

Indirect Taxation is a tax upon engagements or activities using their revenue, stock, capital, or property as the basis for engaging in such activities; such as importing, business, commerce, expenditure, purchasing, etc..

Otherwise what Congress has essentially achieved is to tax living as they deem suitable, they can tax your labor at 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%; hell they could even tax it at 125% if they wanted to! You would be working indebted to them, sort of those that are forced to live on credit cards, just to buy gas and food, while living at home with their immediate family! Such a decision ultimately lies with approximately 600 men and woman. They get to control you standards of living, your sustenance... I ask you is that being "free"? Is that the correct application of a Republican form of government? I think not!

No taxing the act of laboring is to be through apportionment, this ensures that all the people truly do pay their "fair share"... because as it exists in the statute quo mantra, such a tax is anything but!

BTW, what is the tax in question, I see you conveniently left that information out. :x
Last edited by Weston White on Fri Apr 03, 2009 11:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Duke2Earl
Eighth Operator of the Delusional Mooloo
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri May 16, 2003 10:09 pm
Location: Neverland

Re: Weston White: Wrap-up

Post by Duke2Earl »

Weston White wrote:
Duke2Earl wrote:Mr. White, you just keep on believing that. I hope your beliefs keep you warm in jail. Maybe you can share a cell with Mr. Hendrickson. Because that is certainly the result you are going to get. What you seem not to realize is that it simply does not matter what you think at all. It only matters what the courts think. Maybe that's unfair but it is the truth.

Are you saying that you do not believe in established principles? Are you saying the U.S. Constitution matters not? Is this what you are saying? Are you like President Bush Jr.?

No, what I am saying is that the courts all the way up to and including the Supreme Court have held repeatedly that the income tax is constitutional and enforcable, I am saying that the courts have held over and over and over again that wages are included in taxable income subject to the income tax. I am saying that your horse crap smells so bad nobody with a brain can stay in the same room with it. I am saying that your arguments are a dead loser and if you insist on pursuing them you will be a loser too. I am saying that just because you say something and even believe it doesn't make it so. I am saying that the "established principle" that matters here is that the courts have the power and ability to interpret the law and they have done so with respect to the income tax. I am saying that Justice Scalia is entitled to his opinion but that opinion has nothing whatsoever to do with the income tax issue presented and that other members of the Supreme Court do not agree with him. I am saying that there is no "capitation tax quandary" except perhaps in what passes for your mind.

And I am saying that you are totally and unequivocally wrong.

Is that clear enough?
My choice early in life was to either be a piano player in a whorehouse or a politican. And to tell the truth there's hardly any difference.

Harry S Truman
Weston White

Re: Weston White: Wrap-up

Post by Weston White »

Lambkin wrote:
Weston White wrote:Though in your defense I seriously doubt you numbers are correct, I see the same ~4+ persons making the same silly posts over and over and over.
Weston, you are apparently mistaking Quatloos for the battlefield. It is more like the peanut gallery. For people like you, the battlefield is the three branches of your government which don't agree with your opinions about the legality of the income tax. Your ideas are not faring well in the judicial system, nor in the legislature, and clearly not in the executive. No matter what you dredge up from Adam Smith, to the people governing the country, your opinion on taxation is worthless and that has nothing to do with what people say on quatloos.com. I would suggest a revolution to correct the situation, but you don't have the popular support to do that either, so I'm afraid you are just going to keep on losing until you decide to give it up and try something different. I have some hopes you may come to your senses but it will probably require a painful experience for you.
Say, would you like to go in on a revolution with me? We could split the profits say 40-60, my favor?
Weston White

Re: Weston White: Wrap-up

Post by Weston White »

Duke2Earl wrote:
Weston White wrote:
Duke2Earl wrote:Mr. White, you just keep on believing that. I hope your beliefs keep you warm in jail. Maybe you can share a cell with Mr. Hendrickson. Because that is certainly the result you are going to get. What you seem not to realize is that it simply does not matter what you think at all. It only matters what the courts think. Maybe that's unfair but it is the truth.

Are you saying that you do not believe in established principles? Are you saying the U.S. Constitution matters not? Is this what you are saying? Are you like President Bush Jr.?

No, what I am saying is that the courts all the way up to and including the Supreme Court have held repeatedly that the income tax is constitutional and enforcable, I am saying that the courts have held over and over and over again that wages are included in taxable income subject to the income tax. I am saying that your horse crap smells so bad nobody with a brain can stay in the same room with it. I am saying that your arguments are a dead loser and if you insist on pursuing them you will be a loser too. I am saying that just because you say something and even believe it doesn't make it so. I am saying that the "established principle" that matters here is that the courts have the power and ability to interpret the law and they have done so with respect to the income tax. I am saying that Justice Scalia is entitled to his opinion but that opinion has nothing whatsoever to do with the income tax issue presented and that other members of the Supreme Court do not agree with him. I am saying that there is no "capitation tax quandary" except perhaps in what passes for your mind.

And I am saying that you are totally and unequivocally wrong.

Is that clear enough?
So in other words, in your own little warped and twisted way you actually mean yes. Funny thing though, I am not saying anything of what you posted regarding the constitutionality of the IRC.

Though regarding your statement of capitations taxes, I say... and yet you can provide no sort of rebuttal, no, nothing but insults and poor demeanors.
Judge Roy Bean
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Posts: 3704
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 6:04 pm
Location: West of the Pecos

Re: Weston White: Wrap-up

Post by Judge Roy Bean »

Allow me to summarize:

WW: "See, it's not dark any more."

Us: "Yes, the sun has come up."

WW: "No, you fools. There's no such thing as the sun. It's the moon. It changes."

Us: "Then why can you sometimes see the moon and the sun at the same time?"

WW:

Us: "Well, Weston, how can they both be visible sometimes?"

WW:

Us: "Weston - you didn't answer the question."

WW: LOL! You really are a bunch of fools! You didn't even refute my argument!"
The Honorable Judge Roy Bean
The world is a car and you're a crash-test dummy.
The Devil Makes Three
Duke2Earl
Eighth Operator of the Delusional Mooloo
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri May 16, 2003 10:09 pm
Location: Neverland

Re: Weston White: Wrap-up

Post by Duke2Earl »

Mr. White,

No, I meant exactly what I said, not what you want to warp it into. And no, I will not debate with you. I do not debate with small children or those with no more understanding than small children. And there really is nothing to debate because the pure plain and simple truth is you are clearly wrong.
My choice early in life was to either be a piano player in a whorehouse or a politican. And to tell the truth there's hardly any difference.

Harry S Truman
The Operative
Fourth Shogun of Quatloosia
Posts: 885
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 3:04 pm
Location: Here, I used to be there, but I moved.

Re: Weston White: Wrap-up

Post by The Operative »

After seeing a few posts that quoted WW, I displayed a few of his posts even though he is on my FOE list.
Weston White wrote:Though in your defense I seriously doubt you numbers are correct, I see the same ~4+ persons making the same silly posts over and over and over.
In my defense you doubt my numbers are correct? In my defense of what? The fact that I am right? I decided to do a quick count of just the posters to this thread that I know have told WW his theories are wrong. The count was 19, so yes, my number was off a bit.

Now, Weston, it matters not how YOU think the Constitution should be interpreted or what YOU think the members of the Constitutional Convention thought. What matters is how the COURTS have interpreted the Constitution because they are the final arbiters of what the Constitution means. There does not have to be a court case where someone specifically argued that a tax on compensation received in exchange for labor is a capitation. Why? Because the courts have already decided that a tax on compensation received in exchange for labor is an indirect tax or can otherwise be taxed by Congress without apportionment. There have been tax protesters that have already tried to argue that a tax on a salary they received while working for a private sector employer was a direct tax. The courts have all agreed that Congress can tax those salaries without apportionment. If the Supreme Court disagreed with the lower courts rulings, it would not have denied all the petitions for writs of certiorari.

BTW, I did not remove you from my FOE list earlier. Whenever someone quotes one of your posts, what you wrote is visible within their post. I responded to what you had written because I read it from within another person's post.
Light travels faster than sound, which is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak.
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Weston White: Wrap-up

Post by Famspear »

Capitations,
Capitations,
Give poor Weston
Palpitations.

Cannot face the fact he's wrong--
Droning on
and on
and on....

Elevating Adam Smith,
Weston's theory -- lacking pith --
Is full of nonsense
Gnarled and knurly,
Moribund - so "Weston Worldly".

And, if tested in a court,
His grand delusion
Would abort.

The saving grace for Weston Man
Might be the prosecutor's plan
To point at Bigger, Better Fish
Who cheat (so Weston now must wish).

But life revolves around this axis:
Weston Man doth owe his taxes.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Weston White

Re: Weston White: Wrap-up

Post by Weston White »

CONSTITUTIONAL TAX CLASS FLOWCHART

DIRECT TAXATION


Capitation Taxes - Tax in consideration of ones labor or business.

Poll-taxes - Taxes upon a class or rank of people without consideration to their labor or business, e.g. free persons, non-free persons, males, females, age groups, etc..

Direct Taxes - Taxes upon realty, buildings and other items tied to the land, e.g. slaves, and the 'income' deriving therefrom, i.e. profits and gains from rents, investments, etc..
NOTICE: Along come POLLOCK in 1894-1895 and the XVI Amendment in 1913, thereafter extricating the reference of 'income' from within 'Direct Taxes' and placing it within the category of INDIRECT TAXATION in the form of an pseudo Excise Tax as (an 'internal tax' upon consumption, privilege, expenditure, commerce, etc.). The question of Capitation Taxes and Poll-taxes was never in the equation, the equation was solely in consideration of just what was actually intended by our Forefathers by use of the phrase other 'Direct Taxes'?

You should realize the absolute distinction of what is Direct Taxation vs. what is Indirect Taxation.

Direct Taxation is a tax directly upon the person, their labor, their rank or class, or their property.

Indirect Taxation is a tax upon engagements or activities using their revenue, stock, capital, or property as the basis for engaging in such activities; such as importing, business, commerce, expenditure, purchasing, etc..

Otherwise what Congress has essentially achieved is to tax living as they deem suitable, they can tax your labor at 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%; hell they could even tax it at 125% if they wanted to! You would be working indebted to them, sort of those that are forced to live on credit cards, just to buy gas and food, while living at home with their immediate family! Such a decision ultimately lies with approximately 600 men and woman. They get to control you standards of living, your sustenance... I ask you is that being "free"? Is that the correct application of a Republican form of government? I think not!

No taxing the act of laboring is to be through apportionment, this ensures that all the people truly do pay their "fair share"... because as it exists in the statute quo mantra, such a tax is anything but!
Weston White

Re: Weston White: Wrap-up

Post by Weston White »

Duke2Earl wrote:Mr. White,

No, I meant exactly what I said, not what you want to warp it into. And no, I will not debate with you. I do not debate with small children or those with no more understanding than small children. And there really is nothing to debate because the pure plain and simple truth is you are clearly wrong.
That is good, because you do not even know what it is that you are debating. I never have stated what you have alleged.
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Weston White: Wrap-up

Post by Famspear »

Weston White wrote:CONSTITUTIONAL TAX CLASS FLOWCHART

DIRECT TAXATION


Capitation Taxes - Tax in consideration of ones labor or business.
No. No federal court has ever ruled that this is definition of a capitation. Nowhere in the text of the Constitution is the term "capitation" or "capitation tax" defined this way.
Indirect Taxation is a tax upon engagements or activities using their revenue, stock, capital, or property as the basis for engaging in such activities; such as importing, business, commerce, expenditure, purchasing, etc..
No. No federal court has ever ruled that "indirect taxation" is limited to taxes upon engagements or activities using revenue, stock, capital or property as the basis for engaging in such activities. Many or even most of the taxable events on which indirect taxes are imposed do involve "activity", but there is no constitutional requirement for an "activity".
No taxing the act of laboring is to be through apportionment [ . . . .]
That is probably incorrect. However, the federal income tax is not precisely a tax on the "act of laboring" anyway.

By the way, a "capitation" is a kind of "direct tax."

Now, Weston, look for an actual federal court ruling that contradicts this statement: "Since the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment it is immaterial, with respect to income taxes, whether the tax is a direct or an indirect tax."
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet