truthseeker67 wrote:My final post......
Promises, promises...I guess you are changing your mind from your previous statement...
truthseeker67 wrote:No Nikki.....I will never leave.....I will pound the TRUTH into you and you will see the real light. By the way, to fund federal highways....hmmmm.....I do believe there is a tax for that called the GAS TAX...... not the income tax. Keep calling me names for in the end you will reap what you sow.
truthseeker67 wrote:There is no Constitutional Basis for a tax based on wages of
Americans living and working in the 50 States of the Union,
period, end of arguement.
Peter Gibbons
Tax Attorney
Let's take a close look at when he made that statement and the sentences prior to that sentence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXIsl45aCjk
First, he mentions the income tax law that Congress enacted in 1894. (Note: Congress did not TRY to enact an income tax law, they DID enact an income tax law.) Without going into the long details here, the Supreme Court (in the two Pollock decisions) decided that a tax on income from personal property was the same as a tax on the property itself. Since a tax on land was known to be a direct tax, the Supreme Court declared that portion of the law was unconstitutional. The court also stated that a tax on income from wages was previously ruled to be a constitutional duty or excise and that tax would still be ok. However, the Supreme Court did not believe that Congress intended that the entire tax burden would fall upon wage earners, so they overturned the entire law.
The 16th amendment specifically overturned the two Pollock decisions. Mr. Gibbons mentions that Congress enacted another income tax law in 1913 (again, they did not TRY, they DID enact a law). He also mentions a Supreme Court decision where the court states that the 16th amendment did not grant Congress any new power to tax. This is correct, but he ignores the fact that statement is taken completely out of context. Here is a more complete quote from the decision in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916).
Supreme Court wrote:The contention is that as the tax here imposed is not on the net product, but in a sense somewhat equivalent to a tax on the gross product of the working of the mine by the corporation, therefore the tax is not within the purview of the 16th Amendment, and consequently it must be treated as a direct tax on property because of its ownership, and as such void for want of apportionment. But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived, that is, by testing the tax not by what it was, a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed.
Basically, what that says is that Congress ALWAYS had the power to tax incomes. The 16th amendment simply prevented income taxes from being classified as direct taxes and instead insured that income taxes are and always have been INDIRECT taxes in a constitutional sense.
truthseeker67 wrote:What of Joe Bannister, hmmmm?
What about him?
http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/joseph-banister
What about all the other tax protesters that have had their property levied and/or seized and those that have, are, or will be serving jail time (including Pete Hendrickson).
truthseeker67 wrote:
You poor saps don't understand the IRC art of words, it so easy a 4th grader could understand it, but obviously I'm dealing with a bunch of third graders.
This REAL patriot is leaving a insignificant and maladroit forum. I leave you all to your ignorance.
And I'm not convinced that you all are not Communists, so here's a bit of literature for you to peruse.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... anifesto/
Happy Reading!!!
"If the taxpayers of this country ever discovered that we operate on 98% bluff, the entire system will collapse."
Reported remark by an internal revenue service officer to Sen. Henry E. Bellmon (R. Okla.) on April 15, 1971.
Again, another quote taken out of context. It is you that has a reading comprehension problem. Let's make this as simple as possible...everyone, every agency, and every court that matters says you (and Pete Hendrickson) are wrong.
Light travels faster than sound, which is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak.
