FAQ Update

[LPC]

I've updated the Tax Protester FAQ again (groan), and this time I'm providing a list of the major changes:

Additional historical evidence on the meaning of "direct tax" in the Constitution.

Explanations and citations on why the opinions of economist Adam Smith are not relevant to the meaning of "direct tax"in the Constitution.

Why an IRS levy to collect taxes without a court order is not a violation of our 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Why a notice of lien is valid even though the form and content of the notice does not comply with the state law for recording liens.

Additional citations explaining why a "notice of levy" really is an actual levy.

[Lambkin]

Thank you for the "Weston White edition" (among other updates). I feel certain this information must help some people avoid terrible mistakes, even though a few noisy fellows may be unable to benefit from high-quality free advice. The FAQ is a true public service.

[Famspear]

Thank you for the "Weston White edition" (among other updates). I feel certain this information must help some people avoid terrible mistakes, even though a few noisy fellows may be unable to benefit from high-quality free advice. The FAQ is a true public service.

I second that.

[wserra]

That's a FAQ, JAQ.

[The Operative]

Thank you Dan. Your FAQ is a great resource for those of us who try to correct tax denier misconceptions.

[ASITStands]

Thank you Dan. Your FAQ is a great resource for those of us who try to correct tax denier misconceptions.

Yep. I've found it useful for research on arguments made by the movement and answers.

[webhick]

Very lovely, Dan!

[Doktor Avalanche]

Thank you for the "Weston White edition" (among other updates). I feel certain this information must help some people avoid terrible mistakes, even though a few noisy fellows may be unable to benefit from high-quality free advice. The FAQ is a true public service.

And where has Weston been hiding out lately?

Yes, Dan, nicely done.

[Imalawman]

Thank you Dan. Your FAQ is a great resource for those of us who try to correct tax denier misconceptions.

Yep. I've found it useful for research on arguments made by the movement and answers.

A certain section of a certain state's attorney general's office regularly uses the FAQ when litigating cases against TPs. I got them hooked on it, it is a real time saver.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Let me throw in my thanks as well, Dan. It sure saves time when some newbie in trouble stumbles into one of the schemes and suddenly believes they can solve their financial problems through dodging the tax man.

At the risk of being redundant, people in financial trouble can become desperate and they often grasp for quick remedies and bury their heads in the sand when it comes to long-term risks. Not paying Uncle Sam or getting more back with a scam return brings no immediate consequences and may keep the car from being repo'd or a roof over your head for a couple of months. Best of all, you can rationalize breaking the law if you point to something that says you're not really breaking the law.

[buck09]

My thanks as well - I've pointed several people to your FAQ when they got their first dose of tax denier nonsense. (The new convert stage...) Most, after reading it, decided not to go through with it. The others, at least those I kept tabs on, didn't fare so well.

[Gregg]

Thank you for the "Weston White edition" (among other updates). I feel certain this information must help some people avoid terrible mistakes, even though a few noisy fellows may be unable to benefit from high-quality free advice. The FAQ is a true public service.

And where has Weston been hiding out lately?

Yes, Dan, nicely done.

please don't invoke the loonies....it's been very nice for a few days

[Weston White]

I feel compelled to make a post regarding this topic, to better aid any non-tax professionals that may happened upon it, complements of some innocuous Internet search engine…

I just read through these so-called "additions" and I find them actually amusing. This is because the author of them [Evans] known on here as member ‘LPC’ [an obvious acronym for: Lying Piece of Crap], has utterly and completely “podded” himself. Unfortunately, for an individual who has yet to have delved into actually studying these SCOTUS cases in question nor has yet to have engaged in the requisite reading, they might just actually buy into his complete nonsense without any real though on their part.

For those Quatloosians reading my post, please keep in mind that I will not be debating any of this post with you, that I am merely making this single post in an effort to set the record straight. I find that debating with the bunch of you is purely a waste of my time, this has already been proven, for evidence of such, one merely need to run a search on my name [Weston White] and read the latest posts that query back. Contained therein is nothing but childish retort after childish retort offered on the part of the Quatloosians, e.g. "Because I say so. that is why I am right and you are wrong!" and "Nope wrong, nope wrong, nope wrong!", etc., persistently misquoting of legal citations such as Black’s Dictionary by another member here who claims that Black’s Law Dictionary defines ‘capitation taxes’ as only “A poll tax.”, citing SCOTUS cases out of context by leaving out important information, which makes the quote to appear to be something that it really not, entirely ignoring and discarding Congressional hearings, the CRS Annotated Constitution (which BTW does not support the Quatloosian perception and for very good reason, this is why you will never ever see them reference it), historical writings on economics, combined with perpetually flagrant and insidious name calling, the deletion of my complaint against a member on this forum without any discussion on the issue brought forth by myself, a member that is supposedly an attorney though strangely enough has the mentality of a weak minded street banger… go figure. Nonetheless, to put this more simply for you Quatloosian types, not a single one of you is deserving of my time nor effort.

Now back onto point, it is further amusing that the OP keeps referencing Justice Chase, while at the same time leaving out the very first sentence he stated and not making the reader aware that Justice Chase was not giving his judicial opinion for the case being quoted, that he was effectively brainstorming the issue at bar. Furthermore, what Justice Chase stated only serves to aid my argument anyways. If one were to actually read through it and compare what had been stated by the other Justices participating in that case, they would come to understand that. It is silly that the OP feels so compelled to keep falling back on that quote to aid his misconstrued stance on the issues of direct taxation. There is a reason why the IRS relies entirely upon lower court rulings to pander their perceptions upon the public, otherwise they would be citing the same SCOTUS cases that the moronic Quacklost quote… The distinction being that those “Quack n’ lost”, just really do not “get it”, while the IRS at least works to ensconce the truth.

Clearly, the OP does not understand the implications of the quote included in their FAQ:

“This review [of the history of Congressional impositions of “direct taxes”] shows that personal property, contracts, occupations, and the like, have never been regarded by Congress as proper subjects of direct tax.”

This is stating that Congress may tax such numerations, although it has never been considered proper etiquette to actually do so, and yes a review of past legislation proves this be true. If you read the Federalist Papers you would know that direct taxes are meant to serve as a last ditch avenue to produce revenue for the government, not as an ongoing annual source. This quote is also making the distinction that taxes placed upon such numerations is a direct tax. The OP [still even to date] fails to notice that never is it mentioned that such numerations are the proper subjects of indirect taxes or of excise or income taxes to be more precise. It is very clearly discussing this in the context as it is related to direct taxation.

Also the OP [still even to date] fails to acknowledge that the issue at bar is what is within the meaning of direct taxes as in the phrase ‘other direct taxes’ as prescribed within the Constitution, your quote from Justice Chase only serves to clarify this, there are capitation taxes and other direct taxes, such as taxes upon property. Ergo, capitation taxes are not taxes upon property and in the above quote it is furthermore noted that personal property is a direct tax just as real property is and just as slaves were. A tax upon property is a direct tax, while a tax upon the use of that property is an indirect tax. This is where much of the confusion lay.

It has been stated by SCOTUS that if the tax can be apportioned and remain just it is a direct tax, a tax upon ones labor can be apportioned and remain just, just as a tax upon realty and slaves; however, a tax upon carriages or cars or guns could not be just as a direct tax. A tax upon your labor is a tax upon you, just as a tax upon your head is a tax upon you. It has also been stated that a tax, which can be shifted to another for payment of such tax is an indirect tax, such as a tax upon the manufacturer of a shirt being shifted onto the consumer through an increase in price which is an indirect tax versus a tax upon labor or the money earned through laboring cannot ever in any case be shifted to any other because it is a tax philosophically upon the person themselves, meaning that one cannot live without laboring in exchange for monies or barter (with exception to the small percentage of the population that was born wealthy).

Your quote about Wealth of Nations is grossly misleading as well, the court in that passage was not quoting Dr. Adam Smith it was quoting Albert Gallatin, whom was quoting Dr. Adam Smith within his own writings. And if you think the court would discard Albert Gallatin [4th United States Secretary of the Treasury 1801-1814 – Learn more about Mr. Gallatin here] in the same fashion that you claim it was discounting Dr. Adam Smith, you are even a bigger moron than I prior thought. If you think Albert Gallatin was quoting Dr. Adam Smith for a negative reason or for a pointless reason, then you should take your weak little FAQ offline this day, this moment, this second, and run into hiding, because you are hapless. …On second thought since you actually think that the court was quoting these passages for no reason, for no consideration, for no real purpose other than to reject them outright, in their entirely, perhaps you better pull your FAQ offline, period… because there is nothing to support your contention on such points, especially since the ruling of POLLOCK was in favor, in protection of the rights of ones property and not against it.

For those interested in actually learning something about this issue here is some Albert Gallatin for you:
http://defendindependence.org/RR/ASketc ... States.PDF


For more reading materials including three volumes on Albert Gallatin’s writings, you can visit (click on the Reading Room tab): http://defendindependence.org/RC/RC.html


To read through out nations founding documents and historical writings, be sure to check out (some sections still not complete and more materials to be included): http://defendindependence.org/HDV/HDV.html


To better understand… The Crux of Federal Taxation: http://defendindependence.org/OIF/TheCr ... xation.PDF


And for a viewing of the outline for 'Pip Prolificate', which is going to be a whitepaper on direct taxation: http://calmilitia.us/Forum/viewtopic.ph ... =101&p=172


Lest we forget the complete fallacy of your contentions, if direct taxes only include taxes upon property and taxes upon slaves and that money earned from laboring exists not within such category of taxes, why even have two categories of taxes? What is the point? There is none, there is nothing so special about such objects that they to could not just be taxed indirectly rather than directly. As well your contention is out of accord with the doctrine of principle classes, the taxing of one form of property would also include the taxing of similar forms of property although not specifically inferred, (clearly the intention of direct taxation is the taxing of the object as opposed to the taxing of the use of the object, the latter falling indirectly as a tax upon the object). Furthermore, you negate the origins of ‘capitations’, the use of this word came from someplace, just as polls, excises, imposts, incomes, and duties, and it did. Dr. Adam Smith did not create these words himself, he merely encapsulated the use of ‘capitation taxes’ and ‘poll taxes’ within his prized work, ‘Wealth of Nations’. Never did their definitions change, only did their applications change. You claim the former, though you are never able to support such a wildly irresponsible contention, not even within your silly little FAQ.

In the end your readers will quickly realize that so far as the issue of direct taxes is concerned all that you have to aid your contentions are a couple of misconstrued quotes from a few SCOTUS cases and nothing more, that is it, end of story, period. They will come to realize matters of SCOTUS only represent one perspective of the argument, not the whole argument, there origins of the argument must also be considered and SCOTUS cannot alter the origin or redefine the origin. The origin is always withstanding, it is the origin that transpired the post or result, not the other way around. In summery your readers will only come to realize your FAQ for what is actually is… crap or an ‘LPC’ if you will.

FUN FACT ALERT! Do you know who it was that created the concept of “free trade”? That is right, it was Dr. Adam Smith! Now imagine that!

In closing, I sincerely wish that I could say I am honored that such an impact was made by me that you felt obligated or inspired to include a rebuttal to such issues within your FAQ; however, I cannot. And not because I dislike you or hate you the whole lot of you, but for the fact that I hold absolutely no respect or regard for any of you, I do not view a single one of you as professional or as serious beings. How shameful.


P.S. A ‘notice’ of levy is itself not a legal document that is why it is called a notice, without the authority of the court it means squat, with exception to some type of prior agreed upon contract being already in effect. Otherwise I could send you, your family, your employer, and your bank a ‘notice of surrender all of your worldly possessions’ to me and sit back and wait to receive all of your family’s entire wealth. So far at dealing with the government is concerned anything else is an outright violation of the due process and taking of personal property without just compensation clauses of the Bill of Rights… this is exactly why the Bill of Rights was ratified, to prevent governmental abuses from occurring and thereby serving to protect the population from the potential tyranny of the government. A notice is not a warrant nor is it a subpoena.

Definition of ‘notice’ – “a written or printed announcement”. That is all a notice is, period.

Here ye, here ye! All take ‘notice’ that Quatloosian’s are mentally unstable subjects frequently vexed to threadbare replies and retaliatory remarks of petty gauge.

IRM 1.2.13.1.5 (Approved 12-23-1960)
Policy Statement 4-7
Impartial determination of tax liability

An exaction by the United States Government, which is not based upon law, statutory or otherwise, is a taking of property without due process of law, in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Accordingly, a Service representative in his/her conclusions of fact or application of the law, shall hew to the law and the recognized standards of legal construction. It shall be his/her duty to determine the correct amount of the tax, with strict impartiality as between the taxpayer and the Government, and without favoritism or discrimination as between taxpayers.

- BTW, OP in cast you missed it, you have just been SeRveD! …Carry on.


--------------------------------------


A few updates:

To address the allegation regarding Lucas v. Earl, Famspear keeps bringing this up for some reason; however, I keep addressing it when he does and then he never replies. Regardless, you can read my address to his allegation here:

http://losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1237

To address LPC’ allegation that I am claiming that income taxes are direct taxes, I can really only say that I have never make any such claims, that LPC is being willfully ignorant, (ignorance appears to be epidemic with him). I do stay that income does not mean all money or pay exchanged for whatever reason. I do say that the income tax is not a capitation tax. The income tax is something entirely different and distinct than an income tax, just as a poll tax is. The income tax can never be a direct tax. This is all I say and nothing more. Though to learn more about what the income tax is you can read these: http://defendindependence.org/OIF/TheCr ... xation.PDF
http://calmilitia.us/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=96


The fact is that the XVI Amendment has absolutely nothing to due with earning a living. To better understand income taxes check this out:

The income tax is merely the "realized" profits/gains obtained either from participating in excise taxable activities (e.g. federal investments, stocks, bonds, federally licensed professions, nationalized insurance and banking companies, interstate activities such as railroads, crude mining such as coal and petrol, international corporate or business activities, etc.), or from the monies earned through the use of ones property or realty which has been used in the performance of excise taxable activities, i.e. rents or occupations of [federally] corporatized business.

At its most basic perspective the income tax appears to exist as a form of double-taxation, though upon further study it is a tax placed upon the [business] engaged activity itself rather than solely the employer, employee, manufacturer, or consumer, such as an 'excise tax' itself is. It is taxing a different perspective of the same event. It is essentially a tax upon achieving or winning so far as the business itself is concerned.

The income tax is an equation that requires a source which generates the income to be measured for the income tax. Without a source there is nothing to be generated for the measurement of the tax to be levied, e.g. earning for money in exchange for labor creates the source not the income; however, if you were to then take that source and invest it in bonds and that activity thereafter earned you profits you would then have derived income to be measured for the tax to be levied.

All direct taxes are taxes levied upon the realty or property itself as opposed to its use. However, taxing the result of the realty or property is the same as taxing the realty or property itself, e.g. taxing the money earned from laboring is the same as taxing the labor
itself.

All direct taxes require an assessment to be performed, while all indirect taxes, such as the income tax, do not.

http://calmilitia.us/Forum/viewtopic.ph ... =101&p=172


Dr. Adam Smith did not make the U.S. laws, yes this is true; however, the laws use words that derived from other nations, these words carry with them definitions and applications. The laws can alter their application, though they can’t change their definitions. Otherwise you are simply making up words and that is just crazy…no it is ‘frivolous’!

As you can see Wealth of Nations influencing in Albert Gallatin’s writings you can also see that same influencing within the Constitutional Convention.

In your mentioning of the Convention it is odd that you do not bother quoting Justice Paterson, who was member of the Convention and a Justice in the Hylton case, while you instead choose to quote Justice Chase, who did not offer a judicial opinion for the purposes of your included quotation. Perhaps because what he stated is entirely damming to your weak contentions?

http://defendindependence.org/SCOTUS/Hy ... States.PDF
http://defendindependence.org/SCOTUS/Po ... ompany.PDF

[Judge Roy Bean]

Yawn.

[Duke2Earl]

Here's the deal... it truely doesn't matter if you are right or not, Mr. White. My strong belief is that you are wrong but that doesn't matter either. The truth is whether you are right or not, if you persist you will end up in a world of hurt. You will not and cannot win. Your beliefs, your research and your fervent hopes will not matter one little bit. So if it makes you feel better or wiser or smarter to persist, be my guest so long as you are prepared to pay the price, which will be not pleasant. Your choices are few... you can end up like Irwin Schiff or Ed Brown and end up dying in prison like they will or spending years there like your personal guru is going to do or you can avoid income tax by essentially living in poverty. That's about it. If you think that's worth it, so be it. For me, much as I dislike paying tax, I'd rather live in a nice home with my family. Your choice.

[The Operative]

To any casual readers who happen to read Weston White's post...

Weston White is a follower of a tax SCAM entitled Cracking the Code. The author of Cracking the Code is currently being prosecuted for breaking the tax laws. Neither he or Weston White have any formal training in law or taxation. They both believe that they can interpret laws and court decisions better than every court and lawyer in the U.S. even though there are several examples of Weston's and Pete's reading comprehension problems.

On the other hand, most posters to this forum are extremely well-educated. Many are lawyers, several are CPAs or other tax professionals. A few are neither, but definitely have the ability to read and understand the basics of tax law.

If you decide to follow Weston and his guru, Pete Hendrickson, in the long run, it will only cost you twice or maybe three times as much in taxes and penalties as it would have originally. Additionally, you may find yourself facing a jury trial and possible jail time.

If you follow the advice of the regular posters here, you will probably only pay an amount similar to others with finances similar to your own. You will probably never have to worry about $5,000 frivolous filing penalties. You will probably never be facing a jury trial for tax related crimes. Which would you prefer?

[Famspear]

I feel compelled to make a post regarding this topic, to better aid any non-tax professionals that may happened upon it, complements [sic] of some innocuous Internet search engine…

I just read through these so-called "additions" and I find them actually amusing. This is because the author of them [Evans] known on here as member ‘LPC’ [an obvious acronym for: Lying Piece of crap], has utterly and completely “podded” himself. Unfortunately, for an individual who has yet to have delved into actually studying these SCOTUS cases in question nor has yet to have engaged in the requisite reading, they might just actually buy into his complete nonsense without any real though on their part.

Baloney.

For those Quatloosians reading my post, please keep in mind that I will not be debating any of this post with you . . . . .

Yeah. That's what I thought.

. . . . that I am merely making this single post in an effort to set the record straight.

Too late for that now.

I find that debating with the bunch of you is purely a waste of my time, this has already been proven, for evidence of such, one merely need to run a search on my name [Weston White] and read the latest posts that query back.

Contained therein is nothing but childish retort after childish retort offered on the part of the Quatlosians, e.g. "Because I say so. that is why I am right and you are wrong!" and "Nope wrong, nope wrong, nope wrong!", etc.,

Baloney.

.....persistently misquoting of legal citations

No, but you, Weston were caught doing that. Remember Lucas v. Earl? Your excuse for that one was completely inadequate.

....citing SCOTUS cases out of context by leaving out important information, which makes the quote to appear to be something that it really not . . . .

No, Weston, that's what you have consistently done. Remember Lucas v. Earl, for example?

. ....entirely ignoring and discarding Congressional hearings

That's very nice, Weston, but Congressional hearings are not "the law."

.....the CRS Annotated Constitution (which BTW does not support the Quatloosian perception

Wrong.

.....historical writings on economics...

For the umpteenth time, "historical writings on economics" are not "the law."

combined with perpetually flagrant and insidious name calling

Oh, it's OK for you, Weston, to call people names, but you get upset when the same tactic is used on you. Very impressive.

the deletion of my compliant [sic] against a member on this forum without any discussion on the issue brought forth by myself, a member that is supposedly an attorney though strangely enough has the mentality of a weak minded street banger… go figure.

Ah yes, again, it's OK for you, Weston, to call people names......

And what's this about "Compliant"? Did he mean "Complaint"? What's he talking about here?

Now back onto point, it is further amusing that the OP keeps referencing Justice Chase, while at the same time leaving out the very first sentence he stated and not making the reader aware that Justice Chase was not giving his judicial opinion for the case being quoted, that he was effectively brainstorming the issue at bar. Furthermore, what Justice Chase stated only serves to aid my argument anyways.

Uh-huh. Yeah. Right.

If one were to actually read through it and compare what had been stated by the other Justices participating in that case, they would come to understand that. It is silly that the OP feels so compelled to keep falling back on that quote to aid his misconstrued stance on the issues of direct taxation. There is a reason why the IRS relies entirely upon lower court rulings to pander their perceptions upon the public, otherwise they would be citing the same SCOTUS cases that the moronic Quacklost quote… The distinction being that those “Quack n’ lost”, just really do not “get it”, while the IRS at least works to ensconce the truth.

?????

Clearly, the OP does not understand the implications of the quote included in their FAQ:

“This review [of the history of Congressional impositions of “direct taxes”] shows that personal property, contracts, occupations, and the like, have never been regarded by Congress as proper subjects of direct tax.”

This is stating that Congress may tax such numerations, although it has never been considered proper etiquette to actually do so, and yes a review of past legislation proves this be true.

??????

If you read the Federalist Papers you would know that direct taxes are meant to serve as a last ditch avenue to produce revenue for the government, not as an ongoing annual source. This quote is also making the distinction that taxes placed upon such numerations is a direct tax. You [still even to date] fail to notice that never is it mentioned that such numerations are the proper subjects of indirect taxes or of excise or income taxes to be more precise. It is very clearly discussing this in the context of direct taxation.

Also you [still even to date] fail to acknowledge that the issue at bar is what is within the meaning of direct taxes as in the phrase ‘other direct taxes’ as prescribed within the Constitution, your quote from Justice Chase only serves to clarify this, there are capitation taxes and other direct taxes, such as taxes upon property. Ergo, capitation taxes are not taxes upon property and in the above quote it is furthermore noted that personal property is a direct tax just as real property is and just as slaves were. A tax upon property is a direct tax, while a tax upon the use of that property is an indirect tax. This is where much of the confusion lay.

Thank you for sharing that with us.

It has been stated by SCOTUS that if the tax can be apportioned and remain just it is a direct tax, a tax upon ones labor can be apportioned and remain just, just as a tax upon realty and slaves; however, a tax upon carriages or cars or guns could not be just as a direct tax.

A tax upon your labor is a tax upon you, just as a tax upon your head is a tax upon you. It has also been stated that a tax, which can be shifted to another for payment of such tax is an indirect tax, such as a tax upon the manufacturer of a shirt being shifted onto the consumer through an increase in price which is an indirect tax versus a tax upon labor or the money earned through laboring cannot ever in any case be shifted to any other because it is a tax philosophically upon the person themselves, meaning that one cannot live without laboring in exchange for monies or barter (with exception to the small percentage of the population that was born wealthy).

Time to do my nails again.

Your quote about Wealth of Nations is grossly misleading as well, the court in that passage was not quoting Dr. Adam Smith it was quoting Albert Gallatin, whom was quoting Dr. Adam Smith within his own writings [ . . . . .

And on, and on, almost endlessly....

Here ye, here ye! All take ‘notice’ that Quatloosian’s are mentally unstable subjects frequently vexed to threadbare replies and retaliatory remarks of petty gauge.

Unlike the mentally stable Weston White, who has a web site for his "Tyrannical Response Team" and who responds with comments like this (sample of a posting by Weston White, as user "dii2004", in another forum):

Is that all you have? Is that all you have, you small time bitch? Your ass is going to be hammered to the fence in the coming years. You will have hard-pipe laid straight up your ass. Trust that! It will happen, you will go down, your life will be very, very sad from thereafter and onward.

Very impressive use of language, Weston. You seem to be able to dish it out, but you don't seem to be able to take it. Oh, what's the matter, Weston? Things not workin' out the way you hoped?

[Nikki]

Weston, and his fellow CtC disciples have their collective backs against the wall.

They have filed fraudulent tax returns and, at a minimum, are facing one or more $5,000 frivolous filing penalties for those actions.

At best, they will end up on the wrong side of a federal civil court case and will have to pay the taxes they owe, penalties, and accrued interest.

At worst, they will find themselves facing criminal charges and looking at significant time in prison.

No matter what Weston writes, he is an illegal tax evader and is whistling in the wind to comfort himself that, despite all the warnings he's received, all is well.

Check back in a year or two to see what's happened to him.

[LPC]

Your quote about Wealth of Nations is grossly misleading as well, the court in that passage was not quoting Dr. Adam Smith it was quoting Albert Gallatin, whom was quoting Dr. Adam Smith within his own writings. And if you think the quote would discard Albert Gallatin [4th United States Secretary of the Treasury 1801-1814 – Learn more about Mr. Gallatin here] in the same fashion that you claim it was discounting Dr. Adam Smith, you are even a bigger moron than I prior thought.

I have not yet addressed the writings of Albert Gallatin in my FAQ, and plan to in the future.

As a preview, I should point out that Gallatin was not a delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787. His opinions on the meaning of "direct tax" are very different from the opinions of William Paterson, Alexander Hamilton, and other persons who were actually involved in the creation and ratification of the Constitution. And he apparently relied heavily on the writings of Adam Smith, the relevance of which was rejected by the Supreme Court on several occasions (as cited in my FAQ).

I don't say that people are "morons" if they think that a tax on incomes was a "direct tax" before the ratification of the 16th Amendment, because the meaning of "direct tax" in the Constitution has been the subject of much debate, and reasonable minds can differ. However, I do say that people are morons if they think that a tax on incomes is a "direct tax" after the ratification of the 16th Amendment, because they haven't understood (or won't understand) the plain language and obvious intent of the 16th Amendment.

Those who thought that an income tax was not a "direct tax" had the better case, I think, and they prevailed in the Supreme Court up until the Pollock court declared that a tax on incomes from property was "direct." But the 16th Amendment made the argument academic, and those who fail to understand that are not only foolish, but also criminals if they act on their beliefs.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Hmmm....





The Magic 8-Ball has spoken.