The income tax (in it's current fom) is fast approaching its 100th birthday. You'd think that tax deniers would figure out it's here to stay...The truth is simple, people have been making these arguments for lots of years.
You're confused. In the latter half of the nineteenth century Indian lands were established by executive order as "reservations" on Federal land. As states were carved out of the territories, large portions of them (especially in the west) remained Federal land as a condition of statehood. That's a land ownership/control issue and it essentially precludes a state from attempting to interfere with the use of Federal lands. Federal jurisdiction for tax purposes recognizes no physical border among the states and territories.GoldandSilverEagles wrote:...
Question: Why is it touted that indian reservations are on "federal land...within federal jurisdiction" if all of the land within the 50 union states is federal land/ jurisdiction? That makes absolutely no sense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Wharton“I am not an attorney, and I have no knowledge of Francis Wharton.”
And Quatloos.com has an alternate meaning: “M-E-N-I-A-L R-E-T-A-I-N-E-R”Regurgitation (puke) has an alternate spelling, "W-E-S-T-O-N W-H-I-T-E."
Great and once again most of us have no issue with the income tax itself. The only real issue is its all encompassing misapplication. That is where the debate exists. The income tax in its correct application could say for a thousand years more, so long as Congress does not overbear its application, such as constantly raising and raising the percentages, which seems to be the pattern. Regardless its misapplication needs to cease. Taxing something a person does is only to be legally under the form of direct taxation.“The income tax (in it's current fom) is fast approaching its 100th birthday. You'd think that tax deniers would figure out it's here to stay...
The tax denier "movement" has been desperately trying to find a way out of the current tax system for more than 40 years. You'd think that tax deniers would figure out that they haven't made a single advance in all those decades...”
And with the hoop only 6 feet off the floor.Duke2Earl wrote:To the courts, this is a slam dunk...
The problem, Mr. White, is that there is absolutely no legal basis for this claim.Weston White wrote:Taxing something a person does is only to be legally under the form of direct taxation.
Oh look. Mr. White has read a book about Skull and Bones. How nice.we do not make those or other similar arguments as you all so readily chant like a Yale Bonesman on initiation night. 3-2-2! 3-2-2! 3-2-2! all hail the glorious and magnificent, the all knowing and powerful 322!
There is plenty, your only real issue is that you willfully ignore all such evidence... that or discount it. Such as the annotated Constitution for example. The definition of income is clearly laid therein and nothing mentioned about the sweat of the brow being taxable. Another example would be legal dictionaries, the Federalist Papers, the great works of past economists. I could go on but my fingers are already tired from all of this typing.The problem, Mr. White, is that there is absolutely no legal basis for this claim.
Oh yea, that is why there are no cases dealing with this issue... other than the current lower court rulings, which argue only the Code itself.Duke2Earl wrote:Please try to understand that the "debate" as you call it only exists in your mind. To the courts there is no debate whatsoever. To the courts, this is a slam dunk... game, set and match. The only uncertainty here is the one you have created for yourself in your own mind. The fact that you think there is a "debate" doesn't mean that others, especially the others that count think there is one.