Weston White and the "Quatpillar" - continued

[Famspear]

In another thread, Weston White wrote:

See what you are intentionally leaving out from your comments is that for literally months Famspear has pretended that I had made that entire comment up all on my own, when in fact he must have known (just as you must have known), the entire time that I had merely obtained it from a tax honesty site (just do a Google search on the sentences from the quote and many sites should query back), as this case and many outer court cases are frequently cited upon such sites. Though as it turns out Famspear, this entire time knew it was actually the respondents own statements included within the Certiorari, and that entire time he was boasting me as an outright liar for posting that quote. Though in actually this means, beings Famspear being a downright mentally unstable liar, that at the most this quote was a misunderstanding or unintentional misrepresentation of what are the facts of the case.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4189&p=65380#p65380

No, Weston, everybody knows that you copied the material from somewhere else. Nobody ever said you "made it up all on your own." What we said was that you did what other tax protesters have done -- you tried to make it look like the quote was a ruling by the Court itself. You put it on YOUR WEB SITE and you falsely identified the quote as being a ruling by the Supreme Court.

Yes, I knew the entire time that these statements were the Respondent's statements -- I specifically stated so, back in February, right here in Quatloos, in an entire thread with your name on it -- a thread devoted to this and other nonsense that you have been pushing.
And Weston, I'm not the only one who zapped you on the phony Lucas v. Earl quote:

What, you mean that Mr. White is relying on phony quotes? Surely he didn't try to pass off the losing argument that Mr. Earl's attorney's made as if it were part of the Supreme Court's decision in Lucas v. Earl, did he?

He did? I'm shocked, shocked!

from Cpt Banjo on
Feb. 7, 2009,
here
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3740&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

Now, see my comments, back around February 13:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3814&start=0

And here's a reprint of what I wrote:

In a sense, this quoted language is both "fake" and "real." It is "real" in that it actually is found somewhere and, as explained below, this is very unfortunate for Weston White and the many other tax protesters who continue to be caught quoting it because they don't do their homework and, indeed, do not know how to do their homework when it comes to legal analysis.

Weston White's fakery here is that the quoted words are not the words of the U.S. Supreme Court. Instead, this language is an almost direct quote from page 17 of the taxpayer's brief filed in that case. Guy C. Earl was the taxpayer, and the brief was written by Mr. Earl’s attorneys: Warren Olney, Jr., J.M. Mannon, Jr., and Henry D. Costigan. In some printed versions of the case, this statement and other quotes and paraphrases from pages 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, and 18 of the taxpayer's brief are re-printed ABOVE the opinion of the Court. The Respondent's (taxpayer's) brief is available in PDF format at the web site for the College of Law of the University of Cincinnati. See the file

http://www.law.uc.edu/taxstories/chap09/earl07.pdf earl07.pdf

In the case reprints that include this language (and many of them do not even show it), these excerpts are not identified as being from the taxpayer's brief in a way that non-lawyers would be able to tell. And 99.9% of all tax protesters are NOT lawyers. Tax protesters like Weston White are doomed and they don't even know it, because they lack the skills to be able to analyze legal materials, and this is a classic example. As illustrated below, the quoted words that the protesters claims are part of the ruling of the Court ARE ACTUALLY THE TAXPAYER'S LOSING ARGUMENT IN THE CASE. Tax protesters like Weston White continue to make fools of themselves by copying and pasting these materials blindly from tax protester web sites.

Another point that sails right over the heads of tax protesters is that Lucas v. Earl IS A LEADING CASE. EVERY LAW STUDENT WHO TAKES FEDERAL INCOME TAX STUDIES THIS CASE. When a tax protester cites this case for a proposition which is the VERY OPPOSITE of the Court's ruling, it's all the more hilarious.

Yes, Lucas v. Earl is a leading case in the area of U.S. income taxation, and stands for the ''Anticipatory Assignment of Income Doctrine''. In the case, Mr. Earl was arguing that because he and his wife, in the year 1901, had made a legally valid assignment agreement (for state law purposes) to have his then-current ''and after-acquired income'' (which was earned solely by him) be treated as the income of both him and his wife as joint tenants with right of survivorship, the legally valid assignment agreement should also determine the federal income tax effect of the income he earned (i.e., only half the income should be taxed to him).

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected that argument, essentially ruling that under federal income tax law all the future income earned by Mr. Earl was taxable to him at the time he earned the income, even though he had already assigned part of the income to his wife, and regardless of the validity of the assignment agreement under state law. And obviously, the Cracking the Code issue -- of whether the private-sector compensation received by an individual for personal services in an activity unconnected with a federal privilege is non-taxable -- was neither presented to nor decided by the Court.

Weston appeared to be so proud of his web site -- with his fake quotations and his quotations taken out of context......

Weston, my boy, either you didn't read what I wrote back in February, or your memory ain't so good. As you can see, back as early as February 13th, I clearly identified your Lucas v. Earl fakery as being from the taxpayer's brief, and I clearly provided the link to the University of Cincinnati Law school web site.

And Weston -- regardless of the fact that you copied and pasted the fakery from somewhere else -- it's still YOUR FAKERY AS WELL when you put it on your own web site (as you did) and you falsely identify it as being a Supreme Court ruling (as you falsely did).

[Weston White]

Don't play dumb, Weston. You act dumb quite well naturally - so there's no need to try to fake it.

Perhaps I am confusing you with another, though I recall you telling me at one point that were a CPA and not an attorney, or whoever it was. Though I was posing a question… and still you are incapable of simply answering it… So ta-ta.

That being said, if you truly are an “attorney”, I know janitors and plumbers with more mental wherewithal than you have ever represented within your silly postings. And I think a few them even lived in doublewides.

Nice try, Weston. No cigar.

Again you offer nothing factual, merely your own comments, gee is this how you handle your cases, attorney? Gee, you must have a loosing streak the size of Texas!

Earlier, I wrote:
Today, the Opinion of the Court is typically printed with a "syllabus" at the top which attempts to summarize the holding(s) of the Court, but which is technically not part of the Court's opinion. (In the time of Lucas v. Earl, you saw that sometimes there was a summary of the parties' briefs -- a summary that was not clearly identified, so that non-lawyers like you would realize that you were not reading the Opinion of the Court.)

Yea, and frankly I do not trust anything you type without cited sources, unfortunately, so you are wasting your keystrokes, I feel that you all are paid to lie, contrive, deceive, fabricate, etc., etc..

Mere speculation? You're saying that the above quote is mere speculation on my part? Are you lost?

No what you type yourself, is speculation, why would I say a court document is speculation, are you that obtuse, really?

Right. And you are a living testament to the viability of the idea that you yourself know how to analyze legal materials, eh Weston?

Me? ROFL, I am just learning, ask me again though in about 2-years from now, ok? I have come a long way in this last year though. We all have to begin somewhere, I guess that is a lesson you yourself have failed to learn.

No, Weston, those web sites are not where you're getting your tax protester rhetoric. You copy and past legal materials from those web sites, and you get your tax protester material from tax protester web sites. I know it, and you know it. Don't play dumb. (See my comments above.)

ROFL, and you keep bringing up this old issue to rehash it, meanwhile never seriously addressing the major issue I bring up. The Lucas quote is a small and not very significant quote, though I notice you never bother to address its context, only that it is not the decision of the court. I ponder why.

I further notice that you never reply to the fact that you have this entire time been less than dishonest, in fact you have outright lied. This makes you a liar… liars cannot be trusted. Though I would surmise this is also a lesion you have failed to learn.

Ho, ho, hee, hee. Good one, Weston!

Yup, that is why I took it upon myself to read through the material and provide the quotes and you have yet to do so yourself. All the while you played snake in the grass acting like I had made it all up on my own, when you in fact knew the truth! And you call yourself an attorney, how shameful for you. If we were in court I would move to have you sorry bum disbarred!

ATTENTION, ATTENTION: I Weston White, decree that I have just shown up both an “ATTORNEY” and a CPA.

[Weston White]

OMG, this 100 post rule is so utterly stupid. Leave it up to a group of utter idiots to come up with such a policy.

[Weston White]

No, Weston, everybody knows that you copied the material from somewhere else. Nobody ever said you "made it up all on your own." What we said was that you did what other tax protesters have done -- you tried to make it look like the quote was a ruling by the Court itself. You put it on YOUR WEB SITE and you falsely identified the quote as being a ruling by the Supreme Court.

Yes, I knew the entire time that these statements were the Respondent's statements -- I specifically stated so, back in February, right here in Quatloos, in an entire thread with your name on it -- a thread devoted to this and other nonsense that you have been pushing.
And Weston, I'm not the only one who zapped you on the phony Lucas v. Earl quote:

Total BS, BS, BS ...

Look fella, you did not come clean until SteveSy posted the court case documents, until then you played the high-horse dumbass, which apparently you are highly trained in. I am not going to discuss this Lucas v. Earl matter with you any further, as far as I am concerned, the issue is closed, end of story. When I get a chance I will remove the quote form my webpage, it is history. See if you would have just come clean months ago, rather than posting your rhetoric and name calling, this could have been rather easily solved, but no you left it to me to do on my own... and this is your hobby and you are here to help. BTW, for your own future reference, posting your unsourced information, holds no water as far as I am concerned. I will never take you at your word, or Captain Banjo, or however.

My focus this last month has become direct taxation vs. indirect taxation and how it relates to people and the philosophy of it all. That is it, I really do not give a crap about 26 USC or anything else at this point. I have studied the Code enough that I can find my way around it fairly quickly and reference materials. Now it is time to move on to the next step and for me that is the aforementioned issues.

So with that back on topic, I say!

[Weston White]

And the real issue is:

DIRECT TAXES IN 1787-94.

It is singularly unfortunate that the moot question concerning the meaning of the "direct taxes" of the National Constitution has been left for discussion to lawyers and Judges by the historical writers of America. It is even more unfortunate that this purely historical question should become the battle ground of party passion and sectional strife. As logical results of these two conditions, we have the Hylton and Springer decisions, together with the more recent indecision, which is, if anything, more humiliating to the American bench and people than the erroneous but consistent prior decisions. In explanation, we are told that economists disagree as to what constitutes a direct tax, and that the framers of the Constitution used the words without attaching any clear meaning to them.

As to the economists, since they are still quarreling over the meaning of the words "wealth" and "value," it is idle to waste time on their definitions. But the framers of the Constitution were practical men, and that they used the words with definite meaning can be demonstrated by citing their own evidence.

The eight section of the Constitution declared that "Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises * * * but all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

In this section, then, four words were used to cover the whole taxing power of the new Government, and three of these were to be "uniform." The nature of these latter was clearly understood. "Imposts" were the equivalent of our customs duties, and were well settled in definition by public discussion. "Excises" were held to be taxes on "consumption," such as on wines, and on manufactured goods of any kind. "Duties" we have clearly explained to us by a member of the convention, (Luther Martin,) who wrote: "The members of the committee were requested to inform us what they meant by the word 'duties' in this section, since the word 'imposts' extended to duties on goods imported, and by another part of the system no duties on exports were to be laid. In answer to this inquiry we were informed that it was meant to give the General Government the power of laying stamp duties on paper, parchment, and vellum." ["Genuine Information Delivered to the Legislature of Maryland. Philadelphia, 1788," Page 45.] Thus it is evident that the words have been most carefully considered and chosen, and that the word "taxes" was the general term employed in this section to cover all assessments of a direct character, clearly showing what the convention meant to include when in Section 2 of the Constitution it employed the term "direct taxes." In corroboration, Gouverneur Morris, in the convention, in proposing the insertion of the word "direct" in this section, distinctly drew the same line by referring to "indirect taxes on exports, imports, and on consumption," to which the rule would be inapplicable. ["Madison Papers," Page 1,080.] Unfortunately, the records of discussion are so fragmentary and meagre that no further evidence of the actual opinions of the framers in convention is extant.

Other evidence of almost equal value is, however, plentiful in the discussion over the adoption of the Constitution, and from a careful study of the whole literature of this epoch, it is not merely evident that the distinctions above noted were well understood, but that furthermore there was practically no confusion of the terms.

The most important of this evidence to study is to be found in the debate in the various conventions which discussed and voted on the adoption of the Constitution. In that of New-York, Hamilton, (a member of the Federal Convention,) after alluding to direct taxes, outlined as indirect taxes the impost and excises, discussing at length excises "on articles of the growth and manufacturer of the United States." ["Debates of the Convention of New-York," Page 118."] Even more specific was John Jay, who cited as direct "a tax of twenty shillings on all coaches." [Ibid, 126.] In the Virginia Convention, George Mason ["Debates in Convention of Virginia," (Elliott,) Page 265,] (a member of the Federal Convention) held land and poll taxes to be direct. Grayson [Ibid, 285,] argued that so, too, would be one on slaves, and Madison [Ibid, 307,] (a member of the Federal Convention) held that that latter tax was no menace to Virgina, because, being direct, it must be apportioned by population, Mason [Ibid, 459,] agreeing with him as to the nature of the tax, but disagreeing as to its possible equalization. In the Convention of North Carolina, Spencer defined a direct tax as "a poll tax, assessment on land or other property." ["Debates in Convention of North Carolina," Page 77."] Luther Martin (a member of the Federal Convention) reported to the Maryland Legislature that the new Government "may proceed to direct taxation on every individual, ether by a capitation tax on their head or an assessment on their property." ["Genuine Information," Page 47.] Finally, the address of the dissenting minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania argued that, under the direct tax clause, Congress may tax "land, cattle, trades, occupation, &c." ["Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution," Page 479.]

Scarcely less important is the controversial literature. In The Federalist [No. xxxvi.] Hamilton divided internal taxes into direct and indirect, and the former into "duties" and "excises on consumption," and argued on the objections to these latter. He then discussed the direct tax, classing in this "real property, houses, and lands, and, in another part of the work, "polls." In the chief anti-Federal publication, The Federal Farmer, [Page 79,] Richard Henry Lee pointed out the danger of direct taxes, including in them taxes on "polls, lands, houses, labor, &c.," and with true prescience urged that they would be employed "unduly to ease some descriptions of men and unduly burden others." Another great anti-Federalist, as also an able jurist, Robert Yates, (a member of the Federal Convention,) distinguished under this head "a poll tax, a land tax, a tax on houses and buildings, on windows and fireplaces, on cattle and all personal property," at the same time carefully classing under the words "duties, imposts, and excises" the several articles to which those could be extended. ["Letters of Brutus," No. V.] John Winthrop advised the passing of an amendment to the Constitution, forbidding to Congress the right to "levy any direct tax on polls or estates." ["Letters of Agrippa." Noah Webster, already more of a philologist than politician, adopted the distinction of the four words intended by the convention. ["Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787," Page 32.] George Clinton argued that under direct taxes there "will be a capitation or poll tax, window lights, &c.," as the great landlords would successfully prevent a direct tax on land. ["Letters of Cato," No. VI.] While the Harrisburg Convention, guided by Albert Gallatin, suggested an amendment dealing with "direct taxes," granting to Congress the power "to assess, levy, and collect the quota" of each State "upon the inhabitants and estates therein, in such manner as they shall by law direct, provided that no poll tax be imposed." [Ford's "Harrisburg Convention of 1788," Page 37.]

So much for contemporary opinion on the meaning of the words "direct taxes" in the Constitution, at the time of its framing. Only seven years later (1794) the first attempt to pass such a tax was made in Congress. Theodore Sedgwick held that "a capitation tax and taxes on land and on property and income generally were a direct charge." ["Annals of Congress," Page 644.] John Nicholas defined direct taxes as such as "are paid by citizens without being recompensed by the consumer." [Ibid, 646.] Madison protested against a carriage tax being considered as anything but a direct tax, and urged that it was a blow at the Constitution to make it anything else. ["Madison Correspondence," II,. 14.]

Such were the opinions of the men who framed, discussed, and established the Constitution. Opposed to their views, as here given, no contemporary opinion has been found in rebuttal. It is therefore both unfair and inaccurate to fasten upon the statesmen of that time the confusion of the economists and jurists of to-day.


The New York Times
Published: May 1, 1895
Copyright The New York Times

A Hisotrical Reference:

The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the
Convention of Pennsylvania to their Constituents
December 12, 1787
After the Pennsylvania Convention ratified the new constitution on December 12, 1787, by a vote of 46 to 23, twenty-one members of the minority signed a dissenting address that ap peared in the Pennsylvania Packet and Daily Advertiser on December 18, 1787. The address was subsequently reprinted, often in Pennsylvania and other states, becoming in some way a semi-official statement of anti-federalist objections to the new Constitution. The author of the address was probably the same as the author of "Centinel," Samuel Bryan; at least there are notable similarities between the two works, and Bryan later claimed authorship in letters to Jefferson and to Albert Gallatin.
…

We have before considered internal taxation, as it would effect the destruction of the state governments, and produce one consolidated government. We will now consider that subject as it affects the personal concerns of the people.

The power of direct taxation applies to every individual, as congress, under this government, is expressly vested with the authority of laying a capitation or poll tax upon every person to any amount. This is a tax that, however oppressive in its nature, and unequal in its operation, is certain as to its produce and simple in its collection; it cannot be evaded like the objects of imposts or excise, and will be paid, because all that a man hath will he give for his head. This tax is so congenial to the nature of despotism, that it has ever been a favorite under such governments. Some of those who were in the late general convention from this state have long laboured to introduce a poll-tax among us.

The power of direct taxation will further apply to every individual, as congress may tax land, cattle, trades, occupations, etc. in any amount, and every object of internal taxation is of that nature, that however oppressive, the people will have but this alternative except to pay the tax, or let their property be taken, for all resistance will be in vain. The standing army and select militia would enforce the collection.

...

And as stated in POLLOCK (prior to the Acts of 1909, 1913, et al, hence income has yet to take on the meaning of "16th Amendment incomes" or "income as meant by the 16th Amendment"):

4. Whether Particular Taxes Are Direct or Indirect – a. On Income. – A tax upon one’s whole income is a tax upon the annual receipts from his whole property, and as such falls within the same class as a tax upon that property, and is a direct tax within the meaning of the Constitution.

…

The federal statutes annotated [1905]
http://books.google.com/books?id=eN04AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA306

And by Black's Legal Dictionary [and hence Wharton]:

POLL-TAX.
A capitation tax: a tax of a specific sum levied upon each person within the jurisdiction of the taxing power and within a certain class (as, all males of a certain age, etc.) without reference to his property or lack of it.

Taxes are never assessed, unless it be a capitation tax, upon persons, as persons, but upon them on account of their goods and the profits made upon professions, trades and occupations.

Dobbins v. Commissioners of Erie County, 41 U.S. 16 Pet. 435 435 (1842)
CAPITATION TAX.
[1] A poll tax. An imposition levied upon the person simply, without any reference to his property, real or personal, or to any business in which he may be engaged, or to any employment which he may follow.

[2] A tax or imposition raised on each person in consideration of his labor, industry, office, rank, etc. It is a very ancient kind of tribute and answers to what the Latins called “tributum,” by which taxes on persons are distinguished from taxes on merchandise called “vectigalia.” Wharton

And as further noted by Thomas Cooley, Dr. Adam Smith, and Albert Gallatin, their works of which are all cited in several SCOTUS cases.

[Imalawman]

Geez, you're dumb, Westy. Wow.

[Duke2Earl]

Weston,

Nobody who counts gives a crap about any of that other than as historical oddities. Here is the truth... short and sweet, The 16th amendment authorized a tax on incomes without apportionment. So therefore whether the income tax is direct or not simply does not matter. Have a nice day with your ancient totally beside the point histories.

And as I have said to others... no, I will not debate this. I will not play quotes games. I will tell you the actual truth just like I deal with a small child because that is clearly the limit of your understanding.

[Weston White]

Geez, you're dumb, Westy. Wow.

Care to ilaborate or just making small chat? Yea, I though so.


Oh and BTW, for those that were not aware, as it appears at least for some this is the case:

Weston White Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:13 pm.

And the months go: Jan, Feb. March, April, May, June, July, Aug., Sept., Oct., Nov., Dec., and repeat.

[Weston White]

Weston,

Nobody who counts gives a crap about any of that other than as historical oddities. Here is the truth... short and sweet, The 16th amendment authorized a tax on incomes without apportionment. So therefore whether the income tax is direct or not simply does not matter. Have a nice day with your ancient totally beside the point histories.

And as I have said to others... no, I will not debate this. I will not play quotes games. I will tell you the actual truth just like I deal with a small child because that is clearly the limit of your understanding.

Ya, buddy, and income is not revenue, never is this stated anyplace other than in the IRS manuals themselves, never is this issue addressed in Congressional Reports, never is it even Annotated, nothing about labor it is all about business and corporate activities, that is it, that is all. Never does the XVI Amendment address direct taxation, nothing other than the issues of gains and profits realized from business activities, privileged licenses, and that gained from personal property. Again square peg meet round hole, that seems to be the Quatloosian mantra.

[Duke2Earl]

Nobody here ever stated that income means the same thing as revenue but income clearly includes "compensation for services" (section 61(a)(1)) and that means wages for the literacy impared like you. And all the rest of that crap in your last post is simply beside the point.

[Dr. Caligari]

"Excises" were held to be taxes on "consumption," such as on wines, and on manufactured goods of any kind.

Not so fast, Weston:

1. We are told that the relation of employment is one so essential to the pursuit of happiness that it may not be burdened with a tax. Appeal is made to history. From the precedents of colonial days, we are supplied with [301 U.S. 548, 579] illustrations of excises common in the colonies. They are said to have been bound up with the enjoyment of particular commodities. Appeal is also made to principle or the analysis of concepts. An excise, we are told, imports a tax upon a privilege; employment, it is said, is a right, not a privilege, from which it follows that employment is not subject to an excise. Neither the one appeal nor the other leads to the desired goal.

As to the argument from history: Doubtless there were many excises in colonial days and later that were associated, more or less intimately, with the enjoyment or the use of property. This would not prove, even if no others were then known, that the forms then accepted were not subject to enlargement. Cf. Pensacola Teleg. Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 96 U.S. 1 , 9; In re Debs, 158 U.S. 564, 591 , 15 S.Ct. 900; South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448 , 449 S., 26 S.Ct. 110, 4 Ann.Cas. 737. But in truth other excises were known, and known since early times. Thus in 1695 (6 & 7 Wm. III, c. 6), Parliament passed an act which granted 'to His Majesty certain Rates and Duties upon Marriages, Births and Burials,' all for the purpose of 'carrying on the War against France with Vigour.' See Opinion of the Justices, 196 Mass. 603, 609, 85 N.E. 545, 547. No commodity was affected there. The industry of counsel has supplied us with an apter illustration where the tax was not different in substance from the one now challenged as invalid. In 1777, before our Constitutional Convention, Parliament laid upon employers an annual 'duty' of 21 shillings for 'every male Servant' employed in stated forms of work. 3 [301 U.S. 548, 580] Revenue Act of 1777, 17 George III, c. 39.4 The point is made as a distinction that a tax upon the use of male servants was thought of as a tax upon a luxury. Davis v. Boston & Maine R.R. Co., supra. It did not touch employments in husbandry or business. This is to throw over the argument that historically an excise is a tax upon the enjoyment of commodities. But the attempted distinction, whatever may be thought of its validity, is inapplicable to a statute of Virginia passed in 1780. There a tax of 3 pounds, 6 shillings, and 8 pence was to be paid for every male tithable above the age of twenty-one years (with stated exceptions), and a like tax for 'every white servant whatsoever, except apprentices under the age of twenty one years.' 10 Hening's Statutes of Virginia, p. 244. Our colonial forbears knew more about ways of taxing than some of their descendants seem to be willing to concede. 5


The historical prop failing, the prop or fancied prop of principle remains. We learn that employment for lawful gain is a 'natural' or 'inherent' or 'inalienable' right, and not a 'privilege' at all. But natural rights, so called, are as much subject to taxation as rights of less importance. 6 An excise is not limited to vocations or activities [301 U.S. 548, 581] that may be prohibited altogether. It is not limited to those that are the outcome of a franchise. It extends to vocations or activities pursued as of common right.

The case is here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 1&page=548

[Dr. Caligari]

Taxes are never assessed, unless it be a capitation tax, upon persons, as persons, but upon them on account of their goods and the profits made upon professions, trades and occupations.

You keep posting that, without realizing you are destroying your own argument. A capitation tax is "upon persons as persons"-- everyone has to pay the same thing, whether they are kids, working people, unemployed, housewives, or retired. An excise includes a tax on people "on account of ... the profits made upon professions, trades and occupations"--a tax based on the amount of money you get paid for working.

[Weston White]

Nobody here ever stated that income means the same thing as revenue but income clearly includes "compensation for services" (section 61(a)(1)) and that means wages for the literacy impared like you. And all the rest of that crap in your last post is simply beside the point.

No because compensation could mean anything, such as bonds, stocks, dividends, interest gains, etc..

And 'services' for what or for whom and under what circumstances? Does it mean 5 USC services for example?

And no if they meant to tax remuneration, they would have used the word wages [in its plain sense] or remuneration and they would have included the use of the word labor, they would not have used a special definition of the term wages, or given special meaning to the term income from the 1909 Act, which was merged into the 1913 Act. And no wages did not come along later until the Current Tax Payment Act, under Subtitle C.

It is now all about words of art. Creating Acts of magic that transform reality into mysterious and wonderful things that they would never ever actually get away with.

[Duke2Earl]

Nobody here ever stated that income means the same thing as revenue but income clearly includes "compensation for services" (section 61(a)(1)) and that means wages for the literacy impared like you. And all the rest of that crap in your last post is simply beside the point.

No because compensation could mean anything, such as bonds, stocks, dividends, interest gains, etc..

And 'services' for what or for whom and under what circumstances? Does it mean 5 USC services for example?

And no if they meant to tax remuneration, they would have used the word wages [in its plain sense] or remuneration and they would have included the use of the word labor, they would not have used a special definition of the term wages, or given special meaning to the term income from the 1909 Act, which was merged into the 1913 Act. And no wages did not come along later until the Current Tax Payment Act, under Subtitle C.

It is now all about words of art. Creating Acts of magic that transform reality into mysterious and wonderful things that they would never ever actually get away with.

You can keep on believing that all the way to jail. And don't say you weren't warned.

[Weston White]

Taxes are never assessed, unless it be a capitation tax, upon persons, as persons, but upon them on account of their goods and the profits made upon professions, trades and occupations.

You keep posting that, without realizing you are destroying your own argument. A capitation tax is "upon persons as persons"-- everyone has to pay the same thing, whether they are kids, working people, unemployed, housewives, or retired. An excise includes a tax on people "on account of ... the profits made upon professions, trades and occupations"--a tax based on the amount of money you get paid for working.

No you only say that because you have no concept of direct taxation as a whole. It means as persons, the question to ask is what does it mean to be a person? That is the essence of direct taxation. You are simply blinded by your own perceptions.

And your example is silly, who are kids, wives, and unemployed going to pay any taxes? Remember times when wives did not work, the breadwinner was the adult male of the family. Thought the tax is much more complex than what you allege. You wish for it to be very limiting and thus useless because it destroys your contentions, and you realize that of course. 'Taxation' is much more complex much more philosophical of an issue than you make it out to be. It is not just simply black and white.

And in law gains and profits has a business orientated meaning, as does labor and service have contextual and specific meanings.

Direct taxes apply to what it is deemed to be taxes, based upon their class or rank for example. This could take the shape of many forms, limited only by the imagination and intent of Congress.

BTW, indirect taxes do not require assessments to be made, assessment apply only to direct taxes. And neither do you grasp the impact of the closing of that sentence you quoted “but upon them on account of their goods and the profits made upon professions, trades and occupations.”. These are all things that serve to make a person whole, to enable and permit them to be persons.

[Weston White]

Nobody here ever stated that income means the same thing as revenue but income clearly includes "compensation for services" (section 61(a)(1)) and that means wages for the literacy impared like you. And all the rest of that crap in your last post is simply beside the point.

No because compensation could mean anything, such as bonds, stocks, dividends, interest gains, etc..

And 'services' for what or for whom and under what circumstances? Does it mean 5 USC services for example?

And no if they meant to tax remuneration, they would have used the word wages [in its plain sense] or remuneration and they would have included the use of the word labor, they would not have used a special definition of the term wages, or given special meaning to the term income from the 1909 Act, which was merged into the 1913 Act. And no wages did not come along later until the Current Tax Payment Act, under Subtitle C.

It is now all about words of art. Creating Acts of magic that transform reality into mysterious and wonderful things that they would never ever actually get away with.

You can keep on believing that all the way to jail. And don't say you weren't warned.

Fine, I shall not, I promise. Though I will say your argument is extremely weak and serves only to convince yourself.

[Duke2Earl]

I am not making an "argument." I am stating a fact. Whether you want to believe it or not is your issue.

[Weston White]

"Excises" were held to be taxes on "consumption," such as on wines, and on manufactured goods of any kind.

Not so fast, Weston:

1. We are told that the relation of employment is one so essential to the pursuit of happiness that it may not be burdened with a tax. Appeal is made to history. From the precedents of colonial days, we are supplied with [301 U.S. 548, 579] illustrations of excises common in the colonies. They are said to have been bound up with the enjoyment of particular commodities. Appeal is also made to principle or the analysis of concepts. An excise, we are told, imports a tax upon a privilege; employment, it is said, is a right, not a privilege, from which it follows that employment is not subject to an excise. Neither the one appeal nor the other leads to the desired goal.

As to the argument from history: Doubtless there were many excises in colonial days and later that were associated, more or less intimately, with the enjoyment or the use of property. This would not prove, even if no others were then known, that the forms then accepted were not subject to enlargement. Cf. Pensacola Teleg. Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 96 U.S. 1 , 9; In re Debs, 158 U.S. 564, 591 , 15 S.Ct. 900; South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448 , 449 S., 26 S.Ct. 110, 4 Ann.Cas. 737. But in truth other excises were known, and known since early times. Thus in 1695 (6 & 7 Wm. III, c. 6), Parliament passed an act which granted 'to His Majesty certain Rates and Duties upon Marriages, Births and Burials,' all for the purpose of 'carrying on the War against France with Vigour.' See Opinion of the Justices, 196 Mass. 603, 609, 85 N.E. 545, 547. No commodity was affected there. The industry of counsel has supplied us with an apter illustration where the tax was not different in substance from the one now challenged as invalid. In 1777, before our Constitutional Convention, Parliament laid upon employers an annual 'duty' of 21 shillings for 'every male Servant' employed in stated forms of work. 3 [301 U.S. 548, 580] Revenue Act of 1777, 17 George III, c. 39.4 The point is made as a distinction that a tax upon the use of male servants was thought of as a tax upon a luxury. Davis v. Boston & Maine R.R. Co., supra. It did not touch employments in husbandry or business. This is to throw over the argument that historically an excise is a tax upon the enjoyment of commodities. But the attempted distinction, whatever may be thought of its validity, is inapplicable to a statute of Virginia passed in 1780. There a tax of 3 pounds, 6 shillings, and 8 pence was to be paid for every male tithable above the age of twenty-one years (with stated exceptions), and a like tax for 'every white servant whatsoever, except apprentices under the age of twenty one years.' 10 Hening's Statutes of Virginia, p. 244. Our colonial forbears knew more about ways of taxing than some of their descendants seem to be willing to concede. 5


The historical prop failing, the prop or fancied prop of principle remains. We learn that employment for lawful gain is a 'natural' or 'inherent' or 'inalienable' right, and not a 'privilege' at all. But natural rights, so called, are as much subject to taxation as rights of less importance. 6 An excise is not limited to vocations or activities [301 U.S. 548, 581] that may be prohibited altogether. It is not limited to those that are the outcome of a franchise. It extends to vocations or activities pursued as of common right.

The case is here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 1&page=548

You are quoting a case about Social Security taxes upon corporate employers? And what does this have to do with anything a laborer faces? And of course the excise tax is expansive, though expansive to only that which is properly suited within such classes of excise taxes (never can you provide how taxing labor is proper within such a head of taxation, however, I have as to the opposite). However, it appears though, the case you quoted seems to be confusing what are known as duties with excises, not that it really matters all that much. Those are well known and established classes of indirect taxes however [see [all directly quoted from Black's Law Dictionary]: http://defendindependence.org/whatistaxation.html].

Though I see no issues of direct taxation being pursed therein. I do like how they reference France though, see you desire to pick and choose your references, this is from France, well guess what so is the Capitation Tax and Dr. Adam Smith explained this in summary in his work Wealth of Nations, pefectly.

[Weston White]

I am not making an "argument." I am stating a fact. Whether you want to believe it or not is your issue.

Great than cite your sources, do not just type our your "facts", show them to me, please.

[Dr. Caligari]

Thought the tax is much more complex than what you allege. You wish for it to be very limiting and thus useless because it destroys your contentions, and you realize that of course. 'Taxation' is much more complex much more philosophical of an issue than you make it out to be. It is not just simply black and white.

I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say here. (Literaly-- I am not being cute.)

And in law gains and profits has a business orientated meaning, as does labor and service have contextual and specific meanings.

Says who? Can you find one federal court case, ever, that agrees with that?

Direct taxes apply to what it is deemed to be taxes, based upon their class or rank for example. This could take the shape of many forms, limited only by the imagination and intent of Congress.

But Congress' ability to impose excises is not "limited only by the imagination and intent of Congress"? And Congress' ability under the 16th Amendment to tax "incomes, from whatever source derived," is not "limited only by the imagination and intent of Congress"?