Capitation Taxes - Redux

[Famspear]

Responding to me (Famspear), Weston White wrote:

Figures, I already knew you were going to be unable to provide a link.

Weston, I am not here to provide you with a "link." I have led you on and on, and that has frustrated you. Meanwhile, several other contributors have blown you out of the water over and over -- and that has frustrated you. You are frustrated by your lack of knowledge of the subject matter, and by the fact that you have slowly come to realize that others here have actually read -- and understand -- the legal materials you only claim to have read or understand.

Well, Weston, you got yourself into this; you have only yourself to blame.

I also knew that you would pretend to be stupid, most likely that is because you really are, stupid that is, (seriously what sort of poor idiot exerts effort and money to become a CPA? Just a bad career move, really!).

Oh, what's the matter Weston? Jealousy is not a constructive emotion, my boy. If you had wanted to be a CPA you could have applied yourself and worked hard and attained that goal. Oh, boo-hoo for you. Move out of momma's basement, kid (because that's where you are, at least mentally).

I knew you would pretend to not know that incomes has nothing to due with taxing labor, I knew that you would pretend to be so stupid that you would think the income tax a tax for laboring, I knew that you would be so utterly dumb that you would think the XVI Amendment somehow morphed the income tax from the capitation tax. I knew it, even before you posted it.

No, I never "posted it." And I never said it or wrote it. You obviously have me confused with someone else -- possibly you yourself, Einstein. Can't even keep straight who posted what, eh Weston?

Well, since non of you are any longer capable of offering any actual sustenance to the conversation I will give you a few days to pull something out of your sad asses. I will check back in a few days... to you know let you "stew" around in your own pity.

Translation: Weston is frustrated, and can't come up with anything substantive, so he's dragging his sad ass back to Headquarters for the Tyrannical Response Team, to "stew" around in his own self-pity. Can you say "projection"?

Move out of momma's basement, kid.

[Paul]

See you still do not get that the income tax is not the capitation tax, never was, never will be.

So if an income tax is not a capitation, why does it have to be apportioned?

[Nikki]

WW has reported me as "abusive" and asked that I be banned from future postings.

I will let others deal with his request, but I will say that truth is a defense to slander and libel, and I think that a preponderance of the evidence shows that WW really is a f***ng moron.

WhineyWeenie has not yet seen Quatloosian abuse, mainy because it would just be a futile exercise in WOOOOOOsh on our part.

Since he lacks the intelligence to comprehend the most basic concepts of law, he would completely miss the cows flying past his head.

But, WW may be completely correct in his accusation. It is, as you have clearly demonstrated with your last statement above, entirely possible to abuse someone with the truth.

Still, you do have to remember from where he came and the monitoring / banning policies there. WW seems to have been much happier during his short stint as a big frog in a totalitarian pond.

[Gregg]

I saw the report. WW accuses Top Cat of using foul language, but i find that it is all decently asterisked. Albeit, under the Quatloosian Standard Terminology Guide, you ought to be calling him a Frickin Tard. Also WW complains about posts that offer no substance, however he fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted, since he himself has the power to add substance to his posts.

To get a definitive ruling we have to consult the Mother of the Elf, but I would offer that Weston's intellect does not approach "Fricken Tard" he is too actively involved in his own stupidity for that. I'm with Dan on this one, Weston is a F*&#*&g Moron.

[Gregg]

See you still do not get that the income tax is not the capitation tax, never was, never will be.

So if an income tax is not a capitation, why does it have to be apportioned?

One of those things so obvious I wonder why they never see it. But if it IS a capitation tax (an its not) it still doesn't have to apportioned after the 16th amendment.

I'm no longer amused by Weston. I think he'd argue about the law of gravity (and I honestly know someone who does, although she is a mental patient) At first I thought it would be interesting to have someone start to see the light. But he hasn't, he provides little entertainment value because his arguments are not original, he refuses to see reason, his writing is hard to read and well, he's an ass(^$* So I'm done with him.

I'd like to suggest, ask, beg, whatever, for everyone to just ignore him and quit responding to his nonsense. He's like a crying infant, he just wants attention and too much will spoil him. He's had too much already...

[SteveSy]

Then cite one case that supports that definition of "capitation."

All these posts and none of you have even provided a definition of a capitation tax.

Let's set the facts straight. A tax on the person measured by his class or income is and was considered a capitation tax in every country we may have adopted our legal concepts from. States prior to and not long after the adoption of the constitution routinely used capitation taxes measured by class or by earnings and sometimes by occupation. Every single quote that can be found during and shortly after the adoption of the constitution clearly establish that the "general opinion" is that a tax on a person's earnings falls under the category of direct taxes. No quote has yet to be found by anyone saying otherwise.

Every time this subject gets brought up all of you keep arguing that we have a different definition of constitutional words than every one else. And the definitions we can find by those involved in the constitutional debates are meaningless. Apparently most of you believe there was a super secret group that created secret definitions of words that only they knew about. When the time was right these super secret definitions would miraculously be hailed as the true definition. No need to support these definitions with fact because everyone knows they've always been like this since the founding..er even though no one can find a single quote supporting them. But we all should know the founders knew and supported these super secret definitions, contrary to every other country's defintion, treatise on taxation or political economist of the time that we might have adopted the meaning from. We used common words in the constitution that really meant something other than what everyone else thought they meant..oh that's right everyone knew they changed just for us...er ah, finding the historical evidence is not important, it's the truth! What fricking ever!

Let's get one more fact straight, it wouldn't matter if a quote was found by every single member who signed the constitution saying a tax on income of individuals regardless of occupation fell in to the category of direct taxes. The courts, nor the government as a whole would change their position. I only post to point out the obvious, the emperor has no clothes!

[The Operative]

A summary of WW:

1. The income tax is not a capitation.

On this point, he is correct and we agree.

2. A tax on the compensation received in exchange for labor is not an income tax or is not part of an income tax.

Of course, he is wrong. The courts have specifically stated that wages are income. WW thinks that the word 'wages' holds some special meaning that doesn't apply to private sector earnings. He complains that the Supreme Court has not specifically used the words, "compensation for labor is income', even though several lower courts have used those words. He also seems to believe that if the word 'services' is included in the same sentence that it somehow negates the fact the court used the word 'labor'.

3. A tax on the compensation received in exchange for labor must be direct (alternatively, I think this is what WW considers a capitation).

Again, WW is wrong. I believe he would see that he is wrong if he would dump his preconceived beliefs and read the court cases with an open mind. WW has also stated that Congress can not tax laboring. Congress does not tax labor, Congress taxes the compensation received in exchange for labor. There is a difference.

Finally, John L. Cheek argued that his salary as an American Airlines pilot could only be taxed as a direct tax and that the 16th amendment did not apply to his salary. The Supreme Court specifically stated that his Constitutional arguments were 'frivolous'.

It is my opinion that the Supreme Court is NEVER going to accept a petition for writ of certiorari in cases where one party argues that a tax on the compensation received in exchange for labor can only be direct. The Supreme Court considers that issue settled through cases going back to Stanton, Brushaber, Pollock, and Springer.

EDIT: You want a definition of a capitation tax? Fine, here is a definition...

A capitation tax is one that falls indifferently upon all types of revenue of the people, regardless of the source of that revenue. As with taxes on consumption of necessary items, a person must pay it regardless of the amount of revenue they have. A tax that requires every citizen to pay $1,000 regardless of how much revenue they have is a capitation.

[Joey Smith]

A capitation tax is simply a flat tax on a thing, and that thing may be a person. For instance, the Cayman Islands used to have a capitation tax of a flat CI$10 per male, per year.

NOTE that both capitation taxes and direct taxes are specifically allowed by the Constitution, though subject to apportionment by the census of enumeration.

Even if income taxes were mischaracterized as capitation or direct taxes, they are still 100% constitutional because they are exempt from apportionment in any case.

[Famspear]

Then cite one case that supports that definition of "capitation."

All these posts and none of you have even provided a definition of a capitation tax.

Let's set the facts straight. A tax on the person measured by his class or income is and was considered a capitation tax in every country we may have adopted our legal concepts from.

Let's set the facts straight. Our legal definitions are not determined by "every country we may have adopted our legal concepts from." Our legal definitions are found in our own statutes, regs, case law, etc.

States prior to and not long after the adoption of the constitution routinely used capitation taxes measured by class or by earnings and sometimes by occupation.

We don't care. And the law doesn't care.

Every single quote that can be found during and shortly after the adoption of the constitution clearly establish that the "general opinion" is that a tax on a person's earnings falls under the category of direct taxes.

We don't care. And the law doesn't care.

No quote has yet to be found by anyone saying otherwise.

Yes, we use the definition of "capitation" as provided by our own court cases. Those cases have been cited.

Every time this subject gets brought up all of you keep arguing that we have a different definition of constitutional words than every one else.

To be more precise, under U.S. Constitutional law, we follow the definitions under the law itself. If that means our definitions are different from those in other countries, that's too bad.

And the definitions we can find by those involved in the constitutional debates are meaningless.

Not necessarily. Again, definitions provided in constitutional debates are not primary sources of law under our legal system. Definitions in court decisions are primary sources.

Apparently most of you believe there was a super secret group that created secret definitions of words that only they knew about.

Nope. You raised the specter of "super secret groups." We're talking about the courts of law that you despise.

When the time was right these super secret definitions would miraculously be hailed as the true definition. No need to support these definitions with fact because everyone knows they've always been like this since the founding..er even though no one can find a single quote supporting them.

Baloney.

But we all should know the founders knew and supported these super secret definitions, contrary to every other country's defintion, treatise on taxation or political economist of the time that we might have adopted the meaning from. We used common words in the constitution that really meant something other than what everyone else thought they meant..oh that's right everyone knew they changed just for us...er ah, finding the historical evidence is not important, it's the truth! What fricking ever!

Baloney. Court decisions, Steve. We've been through this a thousand times. The law is what the courts rule the law to be, not what some tax protester argues about Adam Smith or the Federalist Papers or the constitutional debates, etc., etc., etc.

Let's get one more fact straight, it wouldn't matter if a quote was found by every single member who signed the constitution saying a tax on income of individuals regardless of occupation fell in to the category of direct taxes. The courts, nor the government as a whole would change their position. I only post to point out the obvious, the emperor has no clothes!

Sell it to Weston White, Steve.

[SteveSy]

Let's set the facts straight. Our legal definitions are not determined by "every country we may have adopted our legal concepts from." Our legal definitions are found in our own statutes, regs, case law, etc.

Constitutional law is supreme over all of those. What good is a constitution where the words within can change without support?

No quote has yet to be found by anyone saying otherwise.

Yes, we use the definition of "capitation" as provided by our own court cases. Those cases have been cited.

Based on what? Besides, you have never quoted one. As far as I know no federal court has ever defined a capitation. I love how you make crap up. Maybe if you say it enough times someone might believe you.

And the definitions we can find by those involved in the constitutional debates are meaningless.

Not necessarily. Again, definitions provided in constitutional debates are not primary sources of law under our legal system. Definitions in court decisions are primary sources.

So why even have a constitution? If the constitution can mean anything the courts want it to mean then the courts are superior to every other arm of government and they, not the constitution, are the supreme law of the land.

The constitution is absolutely meaningless under your reasoning.


"The powers of the legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction, between a government with limited and unlimited powers, is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed, are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act"

Marshall's words become meaningless under your position. Instead of congress having unlimited powers it simply allows the courts have unlimited powers. They are completely unrestrained under your position because they could simply redefine the words at will to mean whatever they like without any support whatsoever. Their every will and pleasure could be attained.

You have totally dismissed the reality that courts are intended to rule based on what exists. If their position is unsupportable its just garbage and "We the people" who allowed them to exist should either ignore them or move to make changes to deny them their ability to abuse the power we so graciously allowed them to have.

[Joey Smith]

I feel a psychic channeling of the Founders about to occur ......

[SteveSy]

I feel a psychic channeling of the Founders about to occur ......

You don't need to be "psychic", their words and intentions are clearly documented. If you don't like what they said then you are free to go somewhere else and not take advantage of what they so graciously created for us. Instead, its more likely you'll enjoy the fruits of their labor which many died for while advocating the denial of everything they stood for.

[Famspear]

Based on what? Besides, you have never quoted one. As far as I know no federal court has ever defined a capitation. I love how you make crap up. Maybe if you say it enough times someone might believe you.

Make crap up? Make crap up? Now I'm making crap up?? What's gotten into you today, Steve? Your whole life here at Quatloos is making crap up -- it's all the crap about your personal beliefs and your feelings. You say you decide the law for yourself - that this is your "right." You say the judges are corrupt -- appointed by people who are trying to usurp the constitution, or whatever. You repeatedly reject the very foundational concepts of our legal system. When I and others cite authority that blows you away, you decompensate. Wahhhh wahhhhh wahhhh. Emotion, emotion, emotion.... Now all of a sudden you want us to cite court cases? Whom are you kidding, Steve?

So why even have a constitution? If the constitution can mean anything the courts want it to mean then the courts are superior to every other arm of government and they, not the constitution, are the supreme law of the land.

We have a Constitution so that if people like you and Weston White get into positions of power, we don't run the country off the rails into a ditch.

The constitution is absolutely meaningless under your reasoning.

It's not "my reasoning." It's the law. And if you don't like it, you have my permission to write to your congressman.

Marshall's words become meaningless under your position. Instead of congress having unlimited powers it simply allows the courts have unlimited powers. They are completely unrestrained under your position because they could simply redefine the words at will to mean whatever they like without any support whatsoever. Their every will and pleasure could be attained.

It's not "my reasoning." It's the law. And if you don't like it, you have my permission to write to your congressman.

You have totally dismissed the reality that courts are intended to rule based on what exists.

Baloney. The job of courts is to interpret the law -- not as you, Steve, believe the law should be interpreted, but according to rules of law.

If their position is unsupportable its just garbage and "We the people" who allowed them to exist should either ignore them or move to make changes to deny them their ability to abuse the power we so graciously allowed them to have.

If you don't like the present legal system, Steve, you have my permission to write to your congressman.

[SteveSy]

Based on what? Besides, you have never quoted one. As far as I know no federal court has ever defined a capitation. I love how you make crap up. Maybe if you say it enough times someone might believe you.

Make crap up? Make crap up? Now I'm making crap up?? What's gotten into you today, Steve? Your whole life here at Quatloos is making crap up -- it's all the crap about your personal beliefs and your feelings.

Sorry, everything I have said about what was considered a direct tax, or capitation tax by those who created the constitution is not a belief, its a documented fact. Your entire position has no basis in fact. It's entirely derived from make believe land. You quote sources that have no foundation in fact, the sources are completely without merit as they are derived, apparently, out of one's imagination.

Strangely you have no problem at all dealing with the fact that not one single person, during or shortly after the adoption of the constitution has said anything even close to what you claim is well known fact. In truth the only things that can be found unequivocally prove your position wrong, but that won't stop you. Ironically, you say I'm the nutball....when in truth your position is about as supportable and the existence of shape shifting lizards.

You're like the emperor's servant continually arguing how fine his clothes are. He's even told you how they were created within the finest materials on earth when in fact its clearly obvious he is not wearing any clothes at all but that hasn't deterred you. They're there, they're just invisible. He told you so it must be true, anything else is nothing but a personal belief! While it is true all of the emperor's courts and minions will undoubtedly disagree with people like me, it doesn't change the fact that the emperor is still full of crap.

[Imalawman]

Its early, but this thread has run its course. Its devolved into boring drivel - as is the tendency when a TP gets frustrated that people just don't follow them to their fairyland, where they don't have to pay taxes.