All the jackals have arrived.
Dale Eastman
Let us assume that you work 8 hours a day, five days a week, for a
total of 40 hours per week.
One day, you arrive at work at your customary time of 10 minutes
before the scheduled start time but there is a man standing their with
a sidearm strapped to his leg. This man orders you to "Follow me."
When you object, this man pulls the sidearm out of the holster, aims
it between your eyes, and repeats, "Follow me."
You have no choice since you are being forced to comply at gunpoint.
The man holsters the sidearm and walks out the door with you following
him. You follow the man to a drainage ditch where there are spare
shovels, and people digging the ditch. The man with the gun indicates
a shovel, then gestures to a place in the ditch, and says, "Dig."
Having faced the threat of a gun already, you pick up the shovel and
dig. You dig for two hours, until the man returns and tells you, "You
are free to go. Return here at the same time tomorrow."
Hot, sweaty, and annoyed, you demand from the man with the gun, "Do I
get paid for this!?"
The man answers, "NO".
The following are rhetorical questions, because the Collaborators
won't give honest answers to anything that gores their sacred oxen.
The answers are self-evident anyway, so I really don't need their
answers. This type of question is only to get the reader to think
about the issues that ARE self-evident once highlighted by a question.
Is your action in the above scenario voluntary or mandatory?
Is being forced to do something against your will, in a situation such
as what is described above, within the definition of SLAVERY?
--
LEGAL DISCLAIMER
Anybody answering this post consents to having their replies posted on
my website.
(Not that I need your consent since you post to public domain.)
I am not a Tax Lawyer, Nor do I play Dan Evans on the internet.
I am not a Certified Public Accountant, Nor do I play Paul Thomas on
the internet.
I am not an Enrolled Agent, Nor do I play Richard Macdonald on the
internet.
That's because I'm not an IRS sycophant.
Cold Contacts via this page ONLY:
http://www.synapticsparks.info/tax/contact.html
Joe Steel
news:6YT5f.16944$hY6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> SLAVERY
>
>
> The following are rhetorical questions, because the Collaborators
> won't give honest answers to anything that gores their sacred oxen.
> The answers are self-evident anyway, so I really don't need their
> answers. This type of question is only to get the reader to think
> about the issues that ARE self-evident once highlighted by a question.
>
> Is your action in the above scenario voluntary or mandatory?
>
In a sense, yes. Where the community have levied a term of service on all
its members, each agrees to comply when he remains a member of the
community.
> Is being forced to do something against your will, in a situation such
> as what is described above, within the definition of SLAVERY?
>
Not when it a lawful obligation.
Joe Steel
"Joe Steel" <aa1...@highstream.net> wrote in message
news:11lg45q...@corp.supernews.com...
> "Dale Eastman" <dalere...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6YT5f.16944$hY6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > SLAVERY
> >
> >
> > The following are rhetorical questions, because the Collaborators
> > won't give honest answers to anything that gores their sacred oxen.
> > The answers are self-evident anyway, so I really don't need their
> > answers. This type of question is only to get the reader to think
> > about the issues that ARE self-evident once highlighted by a question.
> >
> > Is your action in the above scenario voluntary or mandatory?
> >
>
Revision.
> In a sense, VOLUNTARY. Where the community have levied a term of service
Shyster1040
you've made, Dale.
Billary/2008
was intelligent on your part don't you? What an idiot.
"Dale Eastman" <dalere...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
news:6YT5f.16944$hY6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Frank B.
> what is described above, within the definition of SLAVERY?
>
>
moune_...@yahoo.com
Billary/2008 wrote:
> This line of thinking doesn't even merit a response. You really think this
> was intelligent on your part don't you? What an idiot.
It's like the mafia, as you really don't have a choice.
cpt banjo
eliminated the taxing powers of all federal, state, and local
governments.
Earth to Dale: all law, including but not limited to tax law, involves
the use of force or the threat to use force. Dream up some better
argument against the income tax, because this simplistic piece of
intellectual diarrhea won't do.
Dale Eastman
Billary/2008 wrote:
> This line of thinking doesn't even merit a response.
Then why did you?
> You really think this
> was intelligent on your part don't you?
I flushed you out with it. And the best response you have is to call
me names.
> What an idiot.
And on our first date.
You are shameless.
Hale Westman
>
>
> > This line of thinking doesn't even merit a response.
>
> Then why did you?
>
> > You really think this
> > was intelligent on your part don't you?
>
> I flushed you out with it. And the best response you have is to call
> me names.
>
> > What an idiot.
>
> And on our first date.
> You are shameless.
dale, you are the shameless one
www.quatlosers.com internet tax scams
www.evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
ccr
have to pay a toll. The breakfast you ate was safe and nutricious. You
didn't have to worry about getting poisoned. Your kids all go to school and
you pay only a small portion of the cost through state and local taxes. You
and you family have very little to fear from criminals because the police
force, criminal courts, and prison system are working and you don't have to
pay cops or firemen to come to your home in an emergency. The government is
spending billions protecting you from terrorism and fighting expensive wars
overseas "so we don't have to fight here". Etc. etc. etc.
Freedom costs money. Your freedom, your liberty, your rights come as a
result of taxes.
--
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of
fighting a foreign enemy." James Madison
"Dale Eastman" <dalere...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
news:6YT5f.16944$hY6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Paul Thomas, CPA
AllYou!
"Dale Eastman" <dalere...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
news:6YT5f.16944$hY6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
mandatory
> Is being forced to do something against your will, in a situation such as what
> is described above, within the definition of SLAVERY?
Probably.
But now tom the question you'll never answer head on.............are you
claiming that the hypothetical you've posted above is analogous to taxation?
Shyster1040
law" means.
Obviously, what Dale's pathetic little tale is supposed to illustrate is
that the government, by taxing you, is in effect forcing you to work for
it for free, that this is tantamount to slavery, and that therefore we
should all reject the government's attempts to tax us.
As a first point, let's all reassure poor Dale - every person would agree
with you Dale that, if another private citizen tried to force one of us to
work for him for free at the point of a gun, that would be slavery.
What you fail to grasp, however, is that the act is objectionable because
that private citizen does not have the authority to force you to work for
him - the Constitution in fact explicitly provides that he cannot force
you to work for him, unless of course you've been duly convicted of a
crime and this private citizen happens to be the warden of the prison
you've been confined to in a state that permits hard labour as a
punishment for your crime. See XIIIth Amendment, Section 1.
In point of fact, prior to the Civil War, if you were an African-American
in the Southern States, guess what - that private citizen could, in fact,
force you to work for him for free, and there would be nothing you could
do about it; under the Constitution as it then existed he had the
authority (provide state law permitted it) to force you into involuntary
servitude. If that authority still existed, the same result would occur,
and if you objected, that person would most likely be within his rights to
slap you down.
By contrast, the federal government has been given plenary power to impose
taxes on people, whether they agree with that tax or not. The only limit
being that the act imposing the tax must be duly enacted and that it not
operate in such an extremely harsh and arbitrary manner that it
constitutes the taking of property without due process of law - it is
almost impossible to prove that any given tax meets these tests, and few
if any taxes have been invalidated on these grounds, including some that
were clearly imposed for the purpose of preventing the taxed activity
rather than for the purpose of collecting revenue.
Thus, since the government has the constitutional power to impose taxation
on you, it may constitutionally do so, and it may constitutionally punish
you for failure to comply. That's not slavery, Dale, that's taxation.
Even your precious little case of Pollock acknowledged this - one of the
few points it got right.
But wait, I hear you whine, if the 13th Amendment prohibited involuntary
servitude unless a person was duly convicted of a crime, and since (as you
seem to think) forced taxation is tantamount to involuntary servitude,
doesn't it inevitably follow that the 13th Amendment prohibits forced
taxation?
The short answer is "No." Provisions of the Constitution are construed in
such a way that any potential conflict between two provisions is avoided,
and where twho constructions of a provision exist, one of which conflicts
with another provision and one of which does not, then the construction
that does not conflict is to be preferred. [No, Dale, I'm getting a
little tired of doing all the research here; if you want authority for
this, go find it yourself - try starting with some of Marshall's opinions
- you know, the Marshall of Madison v. Marbury fame.] Further, the
Constitution is not read in a vacuum, and recourse may be had to the
intent of those who drafted it in determining its necessary effect.
Since the people who drafted the 13th Amendment were attempting to prevent
a particular form of activity, namely the sort of slavery practiced in the
ante-bellum South, and were not simply drafting on the basis of generic
conceptual theory; since, in their deliberations they never took the
position that compulsory taxation was a similar evil that they wished to
include within the category of proscripted acts; and since applying the
13th Amendment to proscribe compulsory taxation would virtually negate the
power granted to Congress to lay and collect taxes whereas not applying it
to taxation would still leave a large category of activities to which the
13th Amendment still applied (meaning that such a limitation would not
negate the 13th Amendment), it follows that the 13th Amendment does not
proscribe compulsory taxation.
Thus, since Congress has the power to impose compulsory taxation on you
under Article I, and since the 13th Amendment does not limit that power,
it follows that compulsory taxation is fully compliant with the notions of
due process of law and is therefore not similar to slavery or involuntary
servitude in any meaningful sense under the Constitution.
Or, to use your own phrase - your pathetic little anecdote is IRRELEVANT.
Dale Eastman
on this post to correct it to match your revision shown on your
subsequent post and added a missing word.
And since you have posted a reasonable reply, (one that I was not
expecting no less), I will pause from my original posting intentions
to answer your reply.
Joe Steel wrote:
>>SLAVERY
>>
>>
>>
>>Is your action in the above scenario voluntary or mandatory?
>>
>
>
> In a sense, VOLUNTARY. Where the community have levied a term of service on all
> its members, each agrees to comply when he remains a member of the
> community.
>
>
>>Is being forced to do something against your will, in a situation such
>>as what is described above, within the definition of SLAVERY?
>>
>
>
> Not when it [is] a lawful obligation.
Mr. Steel, You have made the most cogent reply to date. Your post is
the best of the many replies made. Even so, there are several
assumptions inherent in your comments as well as other... "errors".
"Where the community have levied a term of service on
all its members..."
1. This contains an assumption that "the community" has the
"authority" to levy a term of service.
"... each agrees to comply when he remains a member
of the community."
2. This contains an assumption that being a member of the community
somehow means there is agreement to ANY demand by the community.
"Not when it is a lawful obligation."
3. This contains the same assumption stated in #1 above. In order for
there to be a lawful obligation, there must be authority to create the
law.
Unfortunately bandwidth snipping of posts also removes context. Thus I
am replacing the context that you removed before I continue with my
examination of your post.
One day, you arrive at work at your customary time of
10 minutes before the scheduled start time but there
is a man standing there with a sidearm strapped to
his leg. This man orders you to "Follow me."
When you object, this man pulls the sidearm out of
the holster, aims it between your eyes, and repeats,
"Follow me."
You have no choice since you are being forced to
comply at gunpoint.
Your words:
"... each agrees to comply when he remains a member
of the community."
What you replied to:
"When you object ... you are ... forced to comply
at gunpoint."
4. An objection is not voluntary compliance. An action under duress is
not voluntary compliance. Action under threat of bodily harm is not
agreement to comply. Thus you are attempting to introduce consent
where none exists. If there was consent, there would not need to be a
resort to force or threat of force. The man would not have aimed the
gun between your eyes.
I specifically identify your phrase "... each agrees to comply when he
remains a member of the community" as a presumption and introduction of
consent where none exists.
==================================================================
Moving on to the next part of my reply.
The lowest common denominator; the least complex point to understand,
is that forced labor at gunpoint is slave labor; Forced labor without
compensation is slave labor. This is not arguable.
In order to argue the point, you would have to argue that if I along
with my lieutenant pointed our guns between your eyes and ordered you
to cut our grass or wash our cars, with or without compensation, we
would NOT be forcing you to do slave labor.
You can NOT argue that pointing a gun at you and ordering you to wash
our cars is not slave labor. You have no recourse on that issue.
Forced labor is slave labor with or without compensation. PERIOD.
If you can be forced to to labor against your will, this proves that
somebody else has a higher claim on the actions you will take with
your body than you do.
If you can be forced to to labor against your will, with or without
compensation, this implies that you do not own your own body.
If somebody else owns your body, you ARE a SLAVE.
If you can be forced to give labor away for free, this implies that
others have a higher claim on your labor than you do.
In other words, any part or percentage of your labor taken from you
against your will is a part of your labor that you do not own.
Are you willing to admit that somebody else owns you for some portion
of your life? Are you willing to admit that somebody else owns 100%
of you and your labor for the duration that somebody else owns that
portion of your life?
Because of the jackals, I am required to break concepts down to pablum
so that even the jackals can understand. I request the intelligent
readers to please bear with me while I state the obvious.
If your labor were pennies, and the total of your labor was 100
pennies, Then a demand on 10% of your labor would be a demand of 10
pennies. Submission and acquiescence to that demand is the granting
that somebody else owns 10% of your labor; or that somebody else owns
10% of your pennies; or that you don't own those ten pennies; or that
you don't own that 10% of your labor.
Somebody else owns 100% of those 10 pennies. Thus somebody else owns
100% of 10% of your labor.
There is no difference between an individual for an individual's
purposes and an individual representing the community for the
community's purposes when it comes to forcing labor and taking it
without compensation.
In either case, with or without compensation, either the individual
owns their own selves and their own labor, or the individual does not.
Most people believe that they own their own bodies. Labor is the
action of one's body, so labor is under the will of the owner of the body.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Since you can NOT argue that forced labor is NOT slave labor, you
added this magical "community levied term of service" in an effort to
justify SLAVE LABOR by invoking "a lawful obligation".
In view of your comments, I'm going to refer to this magic as the
"community created obligation".
I call the "community levied term of service", transformed into the
"community created obligation", magical for reasons that will become
apparent.
Where does the community get the authority to create an obligation in
the first place? No matter what avenue you choose, the beginning of
authority comes from the individuals of the community.
An individual can exist without a community. A community can NOT exist
without two or more individuals.
The simplest community then, is two individuals.
Individual AA and individual BB.
Does individual AA have the authority to command that individual BB
dig a drainage ditch on behalf of the community? The obvious answer
is, "Only if individual BB consents".
Individual BB can consent to follow AA's commands.
If BB does not consent, AA has no recourse other than to attempt to
physically force BB to do the work. (Perhaps at gunpoint, which is no
different than my forcing you to wash my car.)
AA has no authority to command BB except the authority that BB
consents to allow AA to have in regard to commanding BB.
The next level of community would be three individuals.
Individual AA, individual BB, and individual CC.
A small digression is required to make a point.
Can individual BB consent for CC to authorize AA to command CC?
When stated in this manner, the answer can only be NO.
Example: I can consent to let anybody drive my car. I can NOT consent
to allow anybody to drive my neighbor's car. BB can no more consent to
allow AA to command CC than I can consent for somebody to drive my
neighbor's car.
Does AA have the authority to command that CC dig a drainage ditch on
behalf of the community? What should be the same answer as in the case
when only AA and BB were the members of the community, to wit; "Only
if CC consents", will be argued against by statists.
In fact, this is what you argued against, considering the parallels
that now exist. In my hypothetical scenario, AA is the man with the
gun; CC is you in the scenario... Digging a drainage ditch... and BB
is the "community".
Statists argue that we consented to have somebody command us by
"voting". Let us look at "voting" in our three individual community.
The theory presented to justify AA's authority is that AA, BB, & CC
voted to choose a law maker and commander.
Let us presume for a moment that AA abstains from voting. BB votes for
AA to be the law maker and commander, CC votes for CC to be the law
maker and commander. In this case there is a draw. There is no law
maker and commander.
BB can consent to give AA authority over himself.
BB can NOT consent to give AA authority over CC.
With AA abstaining from the voting, Does AA have the authority to
demand that CC dig a drainage ditch on behalf of the community? In
this case the answer reverts to the same as when there was a two
person community. The answer is "only if CC consents."
If AA and BB voted for AA to be the law maker and commander, CC's vote
DOES NOT MATTER. 2:1 or 2:0 is a majority. AA is the law maker and
commander.
How is this different from my scenario where I and my lieutenant
ordered you to wash our cars.
CC's vote does not matter regardless of whether CC voted to be leader
and commander himself, or whether CC refused to vote. In either case,
CC no longer owns CC's body, because as commander, AA can now order CC
to dig the ditch for the community on behalf of the community.
Consider also, if the scenarios above were all replayed with AA and BB
exchanging positions. If AA can not order CC to dig the ditch, and If
BB can not order CC to dig the ditch, how then does AA get to order CC
to dig the ditch when BB agrees that CC is supposed to dig a ditch.
Coming back to the point:
Forced labor is slavery. Labor without compensation is slavery.
Cogent as it is, your spin can not remove those truths.
Dale Eastman
ccr wrote:
> What a dumb "analogy".
Opinions are like assholes.
> You drove to work on a decent road and you didn't have to pay a toll.
Calculate this: 100,000 miles per year; 6 miles per gallon; 25 cents
per gallon federal fuel tax. 8 cents per gallon (Georgia) to 24 cents
per gallon (Il & Wi) State fuel taxes (15 cents per gallon is close
enough) $1,600 per year license tag fees, $550 per year HVUT and seven
years at that.
That's MY road you are driving on. "didn't have to pay a toll" What a
joke.
Oh, and those road funds don't come out of income taxes.
> The breakfast you ate was safe and nutricious. You
> didn't have to worry about getting poisoned.
Red herring. Poison all your customers and you are out of business.
> Your kids all go to school
You mean PUBLIK SKOOL. By your post, it looks like you went to PUBLIK
SKOOL. I don't have kids.
Why do I have to pay extra because you fucked without a rubber.
> and
> you pay only a small portion of the cost through state and local taxes.
Because I pay even more for the bureaucratic administrative costs of
having the Federal government handle it before it comes back to the
local school minus the bureaucratic administrative costs and the
portion sent to some other state's school.
> You
> and you family have very little to fear from criminals because the police
> force,
2000 stats:
Violent 1,424,289
Murder 15,517
Forcible Rape 90,186
Robbery 407,842
Burglary 2,049,946
Vehicle Theft 1,165,559
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
<sarcasm> Yeah, they're doing an excellent job. </sarcasm>
Cops clean up the mess afterwards. They are under NO LEGAL DUTY to
protect you. I have personally had this confirmed by somebody I know
who works with my county Sheriff's office.
Free clues:
http://www.jpfo.org/dial911anddie.htm
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html
http://home.pacbell.net/dragon13/policeprot.html
http://www.leaa.org/Cops%20Versus%20Gun%20Control/cvgcwhytheyoppos.html
> criminal courts, and prison system are working and you don't have to
> pay cops or firemen to come to your home in an emergency.
Call for a cop, a fireman, and a pizza and see which one arrives first.
> The government is
> spending billions protecting you from terrorism
By having the TSA grope women's boobs, steal nail files, and arresting
8 year old boys for plastic 2 inch long rifle toys for GI Joe dolls.
> and fighting expensive wars
> overseas
Like the illegal, unconstitutional, and UNDECLARED war and invasion of
Iraq?
I'm still awaiting the findings of the weapons of mass destruction. So
far the only thing I have found is the depleted uranium from the US'
weapons.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=depleted+uranium&btnG=Google+Search
I'll stop now before I start calling you names.
arthurs...@hotmail.com
You seem to have emerged unscathed from your educational experiences.
Dale Eastman
Shyster.
I'd snip it unread, but then that would defeat the purpose of allowing
the wider audience enjoy Shyster's posts.
Shyster1040 wrote:
--
Shyster1040
have explained where I was wrong.
Dave Johnson
>> This reply is only to reinstate the wider audience
the wider audience wants to know why your tax scams fail dale !! (and
what about those failed long haul trucking jobs?
www.quatlosers.com internet tax scams
www.evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
Various tax scams (nolo trust, 861, gross income, etc.) rest upon
quotations out of context from the regulations. For example, tax
protesters like to quote the first sentence of Treas. Reg. ("Part I
(section 861 and following), subchapter N, chapter 1 of the Code, and
the regulations thereunder determine the sources of income for purposes
of the income tax.") but steadfastly ignore the second sentence of the
same paragraph ("These sections explicitly allocate certain important
sources of income to the United States or to areas outside the United
States, as the case may be....") because the second sentence makes it
clear that the purpose of the regulations is to determine the
geographical source of income, which is relevant only to nonresident
aliens, foreign corporations, and certain other taxpayers.
ccr
>
>
> ccr wrote:
>
>> What a dumb "analogy".
>
> Opinions are like assholes.
And you are therefore like an opinion...
>> The breakfast you ate was safe and nutricious. You didn't have to worry
>> about getting poisoned.
>
> Red herring. Poison all your customers and you are out of business.
Stupid response. You can run a very unhygenic food processing business and
still only poison a small percentage of your customers. And it would be much
more profitable. Thank goodness government regulations enforced by tax
dollars prevent that.
>> Your kids all go to school
>
> You mean PUBLIK SKOOL. By your post, it looks like you went to PUBLIK
> SKOOL. I don't have kids.
Did you go to public schools? If so, who paid for that? If not, do you think
the average American is in the same situation as you? Most families have
more than one kid and those kids go to public schools. Thank goodness tax
dollars are available to help them get an education instead of being on the
streets. That benefits you even if you don't have kids yourself.
>> You and you family have very little to fear from criminals because the
>> police force,
>
>
> 2000 stats:
> Violent 1,424,289
> Murder 15,517
> Forcible Rape 90,186
> Robbery 407,842
> Burglary 2,049,946
> Vehicle Theft 1,165,559
>
> http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
> <sarcasm> Yeah, they're doing an excellent job. </sarcasm>
Another pathetic response. If you don't live in a poor, inner city area,
your chances of being a victim of a major crime are near zero. The suburbs
and rural areas are very safe.
>> The government is spending billions protecting you from terrorism
>
> By having the TSA grope women's boobs, steal nail files, and arresting 8
> year old boys for plastic 2 inch long rifle toys for GI Joe dolls.
LOL. I think they are doing a bit more than that.
Taxes pay for protecting your rights, liberties and standard of living. The
unpleasant fact is that freedom isn't free-- it costs money, lots of money.
That money is raised through taxation. Deal with it.
cpt banjo
Dale Eastman wrote:
> I don't have kids.
Thank goodness. The gene pool is safe for a while.
AllYou!
>A reasonable reply begets a reasonable reply. I've edited your words
> on this post to correct it to match your revision shown on your
> subsequent post and added a missing word.
>
> And since you have posted a reasonable reply, (one that I was not
> expecting no less), I will pause from my original posting intentions
> to answer your reply.
>
> Joe Steel wrote:
>
>
>>>SLAVERY
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Is your action in the above scenario voluntary or mandatory?
>>>
>>
>>
>> In a sense, VOLUNTARY. Where the community have levied a term of service on
>> all
>> its members, each agrees to comply when he remains a member of the
>> community.
>>
>>
>>>Is being forced to do something against your will, in a situation such
>>>as what is described above, within the definition of SLAVERY?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Not when it [is] a lawful obligation.
>
>
> Mr. Steel, You have made the most cogent reply to date. Your post is
> the best of the many replies made. Even so, there are several
> assumptions inherent in your comments as well as other... "errors".
>
>
> "Where the community have levied a term of service on
> all its members..."
>
> 1. This contains an assumption that "the community" has the
> "authority" to levy a term of service.
This assumes that there is an ultimate authority. In the end, there is no such
authority and each society takes upon itself whatever authority those in control
of that society decide they desire. In the case of a democratic society, the
people decide what authority will reside in the community, and which will reside
in the individual.
> "... each agrees to comply when he remains a member
> of the community."
>
> 2. This contains an assumption that being a member of the community
> somehow means there is agreement to ANY demand by the community.
The community decides the extent to which it shall share its resources with
non-members of the community, and the terms by which non-members of the
community shall be subject in return for their use of those resources. In this
case, the community has decided that self-proclaimed non-members who avail
themselves of any of those resources shall be subject to the same code as
members. The agreement of the non-member is not required.
> "Not when it is a lawful obligation."
>
> 3. This contains the same assumption stated in #1 above. In order for
> there to be a lawful obligation, there must be authority to create the
> law.
And this contains the same assumption as #1 above. All you have here is your
assertion that some ultimate authority is required, and there is no such
authority anywhere in the world. As such, all authority in a community rests
with the community.
> Unfortunately bandwidth snipping of posts also removes context. Thus I
> am replacing the context that you removed before I continue with my
> examination of your post.
>
> One day, you arrive at work at your customary time of
> 10 minutes before the scheduled start time but there
> is a man standing there with a sidearm strapped to
> his leg. This man orders you to "Follow me."
Your analogy is fulty right there. Implied in your story is that the use of the
resources required to provide that job, and the means by which you'll arrive at
it is yours for the taking. The community has decided that as the providers of
those resources, anyone who avails themselves of them must abide by the code
which the community has adopted, and the penalties for not doing so will be as
contained in the code.
> When you object, this man pulls the sidearm out of
> the holster, aims it between your eyes, and repeats,
> "Follow me."
The analogy is also flawed in the no one is required to perform any tasks othere
than those which they choose. They may be required to perform more of them, but
not different ones.
> You have no choice since you are being forced to
> comply at gunpoint.
You had a choice, and you knowingly chose to absond with resources which are
provided by the community, and did so knowing that the community has imposed a
price for the use of those resources. You made your choice freely, and
knowingly.
> Your words:
> "... each agrees to comply when he remains a member
> of the community."
>
> What you replied to:
>
> "When you object ... you are ... forced to comply
> at gunpoint."
>
> 4. An objection is not voluntary compliance. An action under duress is
> not voluntary compliance. Action under threat of bodily harm is not
> agreement to comply. Thus you are attempting to introduce consent
> where none exists. If there was consent, there would not need to be a
> resort to force or threat of force. The man would not have aimed the
> gun between your eyes.
True. What you did was to freely and knowingly use the resources of the
community against their will, and then only objected when the community acted
exactly as they informed you they would. Too late for that objection. You
already made your choice.
> I specifically identify your phrase "... each agrees to comply when he
> remains a member of the community" as a presumption and introduction of
> consent where none exists.
>
> ==================================================================
>
>
> Moving on to the next part of my reply.
>
> The lowest common denominator; the least complex point to understand,
> is that forced labor at gunpoint is slave labor; Forced labor without
> compensation is slave labor. This is not arguable.
But that's not the case in this society. In this society, you are only forced
to provide labor to the community if you choose to avail yourself of it's
resources. That's a freely made choice on your part.
> In order to argue the point, you would have to argue that if I along
> with my lieutenant pointed our guns between your eyes and ordered you
> to cut our grass or wash our cars, with or without compensation, we
> would NOT be forcing you to do slave labor.
You would if you did so not matter my actions.
> You can NOT argue that pointing a gun at you and ordering you to wash
> our cars is not slave labor. You have no recourse on that issue.
> Forced labor is slave labor with or without compensation. PERIOD.
People who end such arguments as though there's no room for debate know that
their arguments are weak at best, and so try to forestall any further debatre
with these kinds of false bravado. It's an obvious sign of weakness of an
argument, not strength. Anyway, as I've poointed out, that whole missing piece
in your story is that you made a concious, knowing, and willing choice to use
the resources of the community before the community ever took any action at all.
[snip more of the same flawed argument]
Shyster1040
as metaphor to the income tax (or to the tax collector). Let's try one on
for size:
You arrive for your interview. Upon being offered a position, you are
informed that, should you accept, you will be working 5 days a week, 8
hours a day, for a total of 40 hours a week. Your duties will consist of
[fill in your favorite job description]; however, one day a week (i.e.,
20% of the time), you will be required to follow the orders of the
"gunman," a likeable nut who insists on wearing a side-arm (he's got all
the permits - he's an honorably retired ex-cop). The work you do for the
"gunman" will, however, be precisely the same work you perform for the
rest of the week, and will be done from the same place as your regular
duties. However, you will be treated as a lent-out employee, and will
bill directly for the work you do (the rate you bill the customers for is
significantly higher than the hourly rate you were expecting). You ask if
your pay will increase because you're billing directly instead of your
prospective boss doing the billing; they say, no, you'll only get the same
hourly amount - any excess over that will go to the "gunman."
Specifically, the customers will send you their payments; you can keep an
amount equal to your hourly wage, but you have to turn the rest of it over
to the "gunman."
Do you accept the job? Depends. You look at the net amount of your
expected take-home pay, decide if that's enough for you, and (everything
else being equal) you accept if the amount of your net take-home pay is
above your minimum threshhold.
Finally, assume that, after many months, the "gunman's" attitude is
beginning to wear on you. At last, in a fit of pique, when the "gunman"
arrives at his appointed day, you throw your workpapers in his face, say
that you're no longer going to work for him, and stomp off home.
Unfortunately, you still have some of the payments from customers in your
personal bank account and you haven't turned over to the "gunman" his
share of those payments. What happens? Well, you've breached your
employment contract and you have possession of money that does not belong
to you; so, your employer files suit for breach of contract, and the
"gunman" files suit for conversion. After a very short trial, the court
renders judgment in their favor and orders you to pay damages and to
return the "gunman's" money to him. If you don't, that judgment will be
subject to enforcement and collection by becoming a lien on all of your
property, which property is subject to levy.
That, I would suggest, is a slightly more realistic analogy for the income
tax. You know, before you take a job, that your gross pay will be subject
to income taxes, and that in economic reality you are really being offered
economic compensation equal to your net take-home after taxes.
Further, unlike Dale's too-cute anecdote, you don't have to go anywhere
different or do anything different than you normally do - the quantum of
work you do that represents the taxes is indistinguishable from the work
you do that represents your net pay.
In fact, from your standpoint, the amount of your "pay" that represents
the taxes is economically similar in many respects to that part of the fee
your employer's customers pay to your employer that you do not receive as
wages. Example - you work for a company that provides housepainting
services. The guy who owns the company does nothing more than make a few
calls every so often (the office manager does all of the work arranging
the jobs, advertising the company's services, and etc - which he does for
a fixed wage as well). Other than the office-work, you actually do all of
the work for which the customer is paying - you paint the house. However,
the customers pay, on average, $25 for every hour of work you do, but you
only get paid $8 an hour by the company. Economically, the owner of the
company is taking a cut off of your hard work in exactly the same
(economic) sense that the government is taking taxes. And yet, other than
a few communists and socialists, not many people find this arrangement
equal to "involuntary servitude" - and for good reason, because its not.
Neither is the income tax.
I realize that many of you are still cringing at the characterization of
the amount of taxes due as somehow not being "yours;" however, in a very
real economic sense that money isn't yours - when you accepted the job you
knew that your wages would be subject to income tax, and you were
therefore implicitly giving up any claim you might have to the money that
represents those taxes. It's just the same as where you agree to be
employed by a passive employer - you do the real work that earns the
bucks, but you don't get to keep it all - the employer keeps his share
(usually the lion's share).
In more technical terms, the income tax more closely resembles a
transaction cost in the transaction between you and your employer - just
like the additional overhead expense that the employer will incur (e.g.,
state unemployment insurance premiums) solely as a result of employing
you. The effect, of course, is sometimes that such transaction cost is
greater than the difference between the minimum amount you're willing to
take to do the work and the maximum amount the employer is willing to pay
to have you do it - in which case you won't work for the company (or he
won't hire you) and a transaction that otherwise should have ocurred
(because, absent the tax both you and the employer were economically
willing to engage in the transaction) will not take place.
Just so with the income tax - if, net of taxes, your take-home pay is
below your minimum, you simply won't take the job; instead, you'll go find
another job that will pay you at least your minimum. Since the minimum
represents what you would have been perfectly happy accepting, everything
else being equal, the fact that the income tax levied on you represents an
amount of value in excess of this minimum is not particularly relevant
because, in a world without the income tax, you would have been
economically indifferent to that additional amount in that you would still
have accepted the job for pay equal to the net pay after taxes that you
are in fact receiving.
Not to put too fine a point on it (and subject to the usual criticism of
economic theorists who know better), the amount of tax you in fact owe is
more closely analogous to a windfall that you would not have been entitled
to under orthodox economic theory.
Similarly (and here is one major point where income taxes are utterly
unlike involuntary servitude), if your minimum pay threshhold increases
(e.g., because your first child was just born), you are perfectly free to
ask for a raise or find a higher-paying job - thus, you can adjust your
net takehome pay so that it accords with your new (higher) minimum. A
slave, no matter how unbearable the burden put on him is or becomes,
cannot change the nature of that burden.
Finally, if you don't like the idea of income taxes at all, you, again
unlike the slave, are always free to renounce your citizenship and move to
a country where they don't have an income tax. Slaves who tried that were
hunted down and punished (severely) for trying to escape their burdens.
And what of the "threat" posed by the gun in Dale's cute little anecdote?
Given that you consciously accepted the work for which you get paid
knowing that there was an income tax associated with it, you are in almost
precisely the same position you would be in if you made a contract with
another private party and breached that contract - the other party would
be able to get damages for breach against you, enforceable by lien and
levy against all of your property if necessary - just like in the case of
unpaid taxes. So, again, the "threat" posed by the taxman is no greater,
and no more pernicious, than the "threat" you face every time you make any
other type of contract - either you perform your end of the bargain or you
face the consequences - judgment, lien, and levy.
So, Dale, as with everything else you've posted on this website, you
simply do not understand involuntary servitude.
Dale Eastman
Sometimes you bring up points that would be worth debating... With a
non-troll.
http://www.synapticsparks.info/tax/allyou.html
AllYou! wrote:
<bandwidth snip>
Dale Eastman
Shyster1040 wrote:
> Several factual flaws arise that render this little anecdote inapplicable
> as metaphor to the income tax (or to the tax collector). Let's try one on
> for size:
>
> You arrive for your interview. Upon being offered a position, you are
> informed that, should you accept, you will be working 5 days a week, 8
> hours a day, for a total of 40 hours a week.
<snip what is irrelevant until presumptions are proven true or false>
> You know, before you take a job, that your gross pay will be subject
> to income taxes, and that in economic reality you are really being offered
> economic compensation equal to your net take-home after taxes.
Cutting this cute little calf out of the herd:
"your gross pay will be subject to income taxes"
"your gross pay will be subject to income taxes" by the IRS'
misapplication of tax law.
Before we can understand what an "income tax" is, we need to
understand what "income" is.
http://www.synapticsparks.info/tax/income60.html
Dale Eastman
Shyster1040 wrote:
> Several factual flaws arise that render this little anecdote inapplicable
> as metaphor to the income tax (or to the tax collector). Let's try one on
> for size:
>
> You arrive for your interview. Upon being offered a position, you are
> informed that, should you accept, you will be working 5 days a week, 8
> hours a day, for a total of 40 hours a week.
<snip what is irrelevant until presumptions are proven true or false>
> You know, before you take a job, that your gross pay will be subject
> to income taxes, and that in economic reality you are really being offered
> economic compensation equal to your net take-home after taxes.
Cutting this cute little calf out of the herd:
"your gross pay will be subject to income taxes"
"your gross pay will be subject to income taxes" by the IRS'
Richard Macdonald
>
> Shyster1040 wrote:
>
>> Several factual flaws arise that render this little anecdote inapplicable
>> as metaphor to the income tax (or to the tax collector). Let's try one
>> on
>> for size:
>>
>> You arrive for your interview. Upon being offered a position, you are
>> informed that, should you accept, you will be working 5 days a week, 8
>> hours a day, for a total of 40 hours a week.
>
> <snip what is irrelevant until presumptions are proven true or false>
>
>> You know, before you take a job, that your gross pay will be subject
>> to income taxes, and that in economic reality you are really being
>> offered
>> economic compensation equal to your net take-home after taxes.
>
> Cutting this cute little calf out of the herd:
>
> "your gross pay will be subject to income taxes"
>
> "your gross pay will be subject to income taxes" by the IRS'
> misapplication of tax law.
>
> Before we can understand what an "income tax" is, we need to understand
> what "income" is.
Dale is still in total denial of reality:
EISNER v. MACOMBER , 252 U.S. 189 (1920), 252 U.S. 189, EISNER, Internal
Revenue Collector, v. MACOMBER. , No. 318.
. . .
'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from
both combined,' provided it be understood to include profit gained through a
sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle
Case, 247 U.S. 183, 185, 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 (62 L. Ed. 1054).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
791 F.2d 68
Norman E. COLEMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
Gary HOLDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF the TREASURY and United
States of America, Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 85-1202, 85-1601.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 17, 1985. Decided May 7, 1986.
. . .
The code imposes a tax on all income. See 26 U.S.C. § 61. WAGES ARE
INCOME, [emphasis added] and the tax on wages is constitutional. See, among
hundreds of other cases, United States v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250, 1253 (7th
Cir.1986); Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517 (7th Cir.1984); Granzow v.
CIR, 739 F.2d 265, 267 (7th Cir.1984); United States v. Koliboski, 732 F.2d
1328, 1329 & n. 1 (7th Cir.1984). See also Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R.,
240 U.S. 1, 12, 24-25, 36 S.Ct. 236, 239, 244-45, 60 L.Ed. 493 (1916).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
GERALD ALAN BROWN, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.
Docket: 95-367T Filed April 3, 1996
. . .Moreover, and contrary to plaintiff's assertions, citizens and
residents of the United States must pay federal income tax on their wages,
regardless of whether they receive benefits from the United States
government. Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517, 519 (7th Cir. 1984).
Courts have also consistently rejected plaintiff's claim that his wages do
not constitute taxable income under the I.R.C. See, e.g., Stubbs v.
Commissioner of IRS, 797 F.2d 936, 938 (11th Cir. 1986) (rejecting argument
that wages are not taxable income as "patently frivolous"); Ficalora v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 751 F.2d 85, 87-88 (2d Cir. 1984) (holding
that income includes compensation for services), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1005
(1985); Lonsdale, 661 F.2d at 72 (rejecting "even exchange" argument).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
771 F.2d 471
Paul E. CHARCZUK and Victoria Charczuk, Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, Appellee.
No. 83-2370.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Aug. 29, 1985.
. . .
In making his argument that Congress lacks constitutional authority to
impose a tax on wages without apportionment among the States, the appellant
has chosen to ignore the precise holding of the Court in Pollock, as well as
the development of constitutional law in this area over the last ninety
years. While ruling that a tax upon income from real and personal property
is invalid in the absence of apportionment, the Supreme Court explicitly
stated that taxes on income from one's employment are not direct taxes and
are not subject to the necessity of apportionment. Pollock v. Farmer's Loan
and Trust Co., 158 U.S. at 635, 15 S.Ct. at 919. Furthermore, the Sixteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution, enacted in 1913, provides that:
"The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on income, from
whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and
without regard to any census or enumeration." Finally, in the case of New
York, ex rel. Cohn v. Graves, 300 U.S. 308, 57 S.Ct. 466, 81 L.Ed. 666
(1937), the Supreme Court in effect overruled Pollock, and in so doing
rendered the Sixteenth Amendment unnecessary, when it sustained New York's
income tax on income derived from real property in New Jersey. Id. at
314-15, 57 S.Ct. at 468-69. Hence, there is no question but that Congress
has the constitutional authority to impose an income tax upon
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The taxpayer next argues that wages are not income but an exchange of
property. As money is property and labor is property, so his argument goes,
his work for wages is a non-taxable exchange of property. Wrong again.
WAGES ARE INCOME." [emphasis added] Connor v. Commissioner, 770 F.2d 17, 20
(2nd Cir. 1985), (the court not only ruled against the taxpayer, but also
imposed sanctions of $2,000 against the taxpayer).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In our view, petitioner's wages are taxable as gross income..." Beard v.
Commissioner, 793 F.2d 139, 140 (6th Cir. 1986), aff'g 82 T.C. 766 (1984);
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Wages are taxable income." Perkins v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 746
F. 2d 1187, 1188 (6th Cir. 1984).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Although not raised in his brief on appeal, the defendant's entire case at
trial rested on his claim that he in good faith believed that wages are not
income for taxation purposes. Whatever his mental state, he, of course, was
wrong, as all of us are already aware. Nontheless, the defendant still
insists that no case holds that wages are income. Let us now put that to
rest: WAGES ARE INCOME. Any reading of tax cases by would-be tax protesters
now should preclude a claim of good-faith belief that wages--or
salaries--are not taxable." United States v. Koliboski, 732 F.2d 1328, 1329
& n.1 (7th Cir. 1984), (emphasis in original; convictions for criminal
failures to file affirmed).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"[W]e have [repeatedly] held that wages are within the definition of income
under the Internal Revenue Code and the Sixteenth Amendment, and are subject
to taxation. Denison v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 241, 242 (8th Cir.1984) (per
curiam), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1069, 105 S.Ct. 2149, 85 L.Ed.2d 505
(1985)." United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255 (8th Cir. 1993).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code imposes a tax on income, and under
the Tax Code, WAGES ARE INCOME." [emphasis added] Grimes v. Commissioner,
806 F.2d 1451, 1453 (9th Cir. 1986).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Compensation for labor or services, paid in the form of wages or salary,
has been universally held by the courts of this republic to be income,
subject to the income tax laws currently applicable." United States v.
Romero, 640 F.2d 1014, 1016 (9th Cir. 1981).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255 (8th Cir. 1993)
"Likewise, we have held that wages are within the definition of income under
the Internal Revenue Code and the Sixteenth Amendment, and are subject to
taxation. Denison v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 241, 242 (8th Cir.1984) (per
curiam), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1069, 105 S.Ct. 2149, 85 L.Ed.2d 505
(1985)."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ficalora v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 85 (2d Cir. 1984)
"Lastly, the appellant asserts that the term "income", as used in the taxing
statutes, has no defined meaning and is unconstitutionally vague and
indefinite. As discussed above, Section 61 of the Code defines gross income
as "all income from whatever source derived". Even if we were to assume,
arguendo, that this phrase is somehow vague or indefinite, Section 61 of the
Code specifically cites "[c]ompensation for services ..." as a concrete
example of what is meant by the term income. The wages which the appellant
received for his services rendered to New York Telephone in taxable year
1980, fall squarely within the definition of income contained in Section
61(a)(1) of the Code. The appellant's argument that the term "income", as
used in the Code, is unconstitutionally vague and indefinite, is totally
without merit."
Dale Eastman
Richard Macdonald wrote:
>>Before we can understand what an "income tax" is, we need to understand
>>what "income" is.
>
>
> Dale is still in total denial of reality:
>
> EISNER v. MACOMBER , 252 U.S. 189 (1920), 252 U.S. 189, EISNER, Internal
> Revenue Collector, v. MACOMBER. , No. 318.
> .. . .
> 'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from
> both combined,' provided it be understood to include profit gained through a
> sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle
> Case, 247 U.S. 183, 185, 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 (62 L. Ed. 1054).
http://www.synapticsparks.info/tax/income60.html
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 791 F.2d 68
> Norman E. COLEMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
> REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
> Gary HOLDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF the TREASURY and United
> States of America, Defendants-Appellees.
> Nos. 85-1202, 85-1601.
> United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
> Submitted Dec. 17, 1985. Decided May 7, 1986.
> .. . .
> The code imposes a tax on all income. See 26 U.S.C. § 61. WAGES ARE
> INCOME, [emphasis added] and the tax on wages is constitutional. See, among
> hundreds of other cases, United States v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250, 1253 (7th
> Cir.1986); Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517 (7th Cir.1984); Granzow v.
> CIR, 739 F.2d 265, 267 (7th Cir.1984); United States v. Koliboski, 732 F.2d
> 1328, 1329 & n. 1 (7th Cir.1984). See also Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R.,
> 240 U.S. 1, 12, 24-25, 36 S.Ct. 236, 239, 244-45, 60 L.Ed. 493 (1916).
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
> GERALD ALAN BROWN, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.
> Docket: 95-367T Filed April 3, 1996
> .. . .Moreover, and contrary to plaintiff's assertions, citizens and
> residents of the United States must pay federal income tax on their wages,
> regardless of whether they receive benefits from the United States
> government. Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517, 519 (7th Cir. 1984).
> Courts have also consistently rejected plaintiff's claim that his wages do
> not constitute taxable income under the I.R.C. See, e.g., Stubbs v.
> Commissioner of IRS, 797 F.2d 936, 938 (11th Cir. 1986) (rejecting argument
> that wages are not taxable income as "patently frivolous"); Ficalora v.
> Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 751 F.2d 85, 87-88 (2d Cir. 1984) (holding
> that income includes compensation for services), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1005
> (1985); Lonsdale, 661 F.2d at 72 (rejecting "even exchange" argument).
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 771 F.2d 471
> Paul E. CHARCZUK and Victoria Charczuk, Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF
> INTERNAL REVENUE, Appellee.
> No. 83-2370.
> United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
> Aug. 29, 1985.
> .. . .
--
Shyster1040
"your gross pay will be subject to income taxes"
"your gross pay will be subject to income taxes" by the IRS'
misapplication of tax law.
Before we can understand what an "income tax" is, we need to
understand what "income" is.""
Gee, Dale, haven't you read Eisner v. Macomber, yet? Or at the very least
Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass, 348 U.S. 426 (1955)? "Income" is "the
gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it
be understood to include profit gained through the sale or conversion of
capital assets ...." Eisner, or, as rephrased most succinctly in Glenshaw
Glass, income is any undeniable accession to wealth, clearly realized, and
over which the taxpayer has complete dominion.
Sounds like a pretty easy definition to me - the Court hasn't really
bothered with this issue since a spate of stock-dividend cases in the
1920's (which, BTW, mostly involved individuals, not corporations)
Which reminds me, when you were stumbling through the Cliff's Notes
version of Merchant's Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509 (March
28, 1921) (it's so hard without pictures, isn't it?) did you happen to
bother reading the companion cases that were decided on the same day? I
refer to Goodrich v. Edwards, 255 U.S. 527 (March 28, 1921) and Walsh v.
Brewster, 255 U.S. 536 (March 28, 1921).
In those cases, which involved only individuals, the same Supreme Court
that rendered the decision in Merchant's Loan & Trust said, "And the
definition of 'income' approved by this Court is: 'The gain derived from
capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it be understood to
include profits derived through sale or conversion of capital assets.'
Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207." Goodrich, 255 U.S. at 535; Walsh
v. Brewster, 255 U.S. at 538 (applying Goodrich without further comment).
So you tell me? Is there really any question over whether wages, or any
other accession to wealth realized by an individual, constitute "income"
in the Constitutional sense?
Dale Eastman
Shyster1040 wrote:
> Dale sez:""Cutting this cute little calf out of the herd:
>
> "your gross pay will be subject to income taxes"
>
> "your gross pay will be subject to income taxes" by the IRS'
> misapplication of tax law.
>
> Before we can understand what an "income tax" is, we need to
> understand what "income" is.""
>
> Gee, Dale, haven't you read Eisner v. Macomber, yet?
If you read the page at the link you snipped, you would know the
answer to that question. Thus I must presume that you are a troll.
Richard Macdonald
Since Dale wrote no refutation he must totally agreee with what ewas posted.
> Richard Macdonald wrote:
>
>>>Before we can understand what an "income tax" is, we need to understand
>>>what "income" is.
>>
>> Dale is still in total denial of reality:
>>
>> EISNER v. MACOMBER , 252 U.S. 189 (1920), 252 U.S. 189, EISNER, Internal
>> Revenue Collector, v. MACOMBER. , No. 318.
>> .. . .
>> 'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or
>> from both combined,' provided it be understood to include profit gained
>> through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied
>> in the Doyle Case, 247 U.S. 183, 185, 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 (62 L. Ed.
>> 1054).
>
> http://www.synapticsparks.info/tax/income60.html
Lanks are not refutations, only writtings on the post are.
AllYou!
> It's such a shame that you are a troll.
>
> Sometimes you bring up points that would be worth debating... With a
> non-troll.
IOW, I've basically defeated your arguments, but because you know you have no
valid counter-argument, you label me in an attempt to validate your dismissal of
my arguments.
You're so incredibly transparent. I'm perfectly willing to engage in any
reasonable debate about my views. You're just incapable of such a process.
>
> <bandwidth snip>
Only a moron would think that bandwidth conservation is meaningful anymore. In
fact, I'll wager you have no idea what it is.
AllYou!
>
>
> Shyster1040 wrote:
>
>> Several factual flaws arise that render this little anecdote inapplicable
>> as metaphor to the income tax (or to the tax collector). Let's try one on
>> for size:
>>
>> You arrive for your interview. Upon being offered a position, you are
>> informed that, should you accept, you will be working 5 days a week, 8
>> hours a day, for a total of 40 hours a week.
>
> <snip what is irrelevant until presumptions are proven true or false>
So your analogies are the only valid ones? LOL! That's what makes you the
troll. You've taken upon yourself the authority to decise what's relevent and
irrelevant in a *debate*. Face it Mr. Invisible, you simply have no valid
argument.
Shyster1040
answer to that question. Thus I must presume that you are a troll.""
Presume all you want to Dale; as I have shown on another thread on this
page, "income" is not limited to the gains derived by corporations -
neither Merchant's Loan & Trust nor any other case imposed that limitation
(in fact, the Supreme Court applied the Eisner definition to two
individuals in two cases it decided on the same day that it decided
Merchant's Loan & Trust, and as to which it heard arguments after it heard
arguments in Merchant's; see Walsh v. Brewster and Goodrich v. Edwards).
The fact is, you're a clueless idiot, and your presumptions are as
meaningless as your substantive conclusions. As evidence of this fact,
you do not even understand what the term "supra" means when it occurs
after a case citation in a court opinion.
Dale Eastman
Richard Macdonald wrote:
>>>>Before we can understand what an "income tax" is, we need to understand
>>>>what "income" is.
<snip>
>>http://www.synapticsparks.info/tax/income60.html
>
>
> Lanks are not refutations, only writtings on the post are.
If it makes you feel smugly superior to me, to ignore the "lanks" that
refute you, Then who am I to remove your happiness.
While you are ignoring my "lanks", the lurkers are reading them.
(And with this new hosted website, I can see just how many times an
individual page gets hit. <snicker>)
http://www.synapticsparks.info/tax/income60.html
Oh, and one more thing, Mr. Macdonald, You can NOT answer any of the
60 questions I ask contrary to the truth exposed by the question
without contradicting the Supreme Court.
> Lanks are not refutations, only writtings on the post are.
You don't like "Lanks" because you can not obfuscate, misdirect, and
disrupt the reader's concentration and chain of thought.
You are refuted, and refuted most unassailably, on the issue of what
income is.
http://www.synapticsparks.info/tax/income60.html
http://www.synapticsparks.info/tax/income60.html
http://www.synapticsparks.info/tax/income60.html
http://www.synapticsparks.info/tax/income60.html
http://www.synapticsparks.info/tax/income60.html
http://www.synapticsparks.info/tax/income60.html
Dale Eastman
AllYou! wrote:
>
> "Dale Eastman" <dalere...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Wkv7f.1395$Rl1...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>> It's such a shame that you are a troll.
>>
>> Sometimes you bring up points that would be worth debating... With a
>> non-troll.
>
>
>
> IOW, I've basically defeated your arguments, but because you know you
> have no valid counter-argument, you label me in an attempt to validate
> your dismissal of my arguments.
No, I don't label you. Your words speak for you:
http://www.synapticsparks.info/tax/allyou.html
In case you didn't notice, this is THE dismissal of YOU:
http://www.synapticsparks.info/tax/allyou.html
Since YOU are dismissed, You'll have to send your "good" points to
somebody else who is less obnoxious than you, whom I will still engage
in a discussion of the points.
> You're so incredibly transparent. I'm perfectly willing to engage in
> any reasonable debate about my views. You're just incapable of such a
> process.
I will admit that you are VERY good at trolling.
>>
>> <bandwidth snip>
>
>
>
> Only a moron would think that bandwidth conservation is meaningful
> anymore. In fact, I'll wager you have no idea what it is.
"Only a moron"
- AllYou - this post -
"you label me in an attempt to validate your dismissal of my
arguments."
- AllYou - this post -
If you want to engage in an actual debate, you need to quit trolling.
Dale Eastman
Shyster1040 wrote:
> The fact is, you're a clueless idiot,
Now that really proves your alleged points doesn't it.
Such a wonderful substantiation of your assertions... NOT!
Grow up.
Shyster1040
to (a) substantiate the conclusion that you're wrong, and (b) therefore
clearly justify this remark.
Perhaps you should try addessing the arguments, rather than snivelling at
the (justifiable) characterizations to be drawn therefrom.
Shyster1040
to somebody else who is less obnoxious than you, whom I will still engage
in a discussion of the points.""
Oh, dear me, you've been dismissed by Dale - oh woe, oh
A-a-a-g-g-g-o-o-o-o-n-n-n-n-y-y-y-y.
Dale, making ludicrous claims about the effect of the law (e.g., Sec. 861)
or the effect of judicial decisions (e.g., Merchant's Loan & Trust) or the
meaning of "supra" when appended to a short-form case citation, or any of
the other spurious claims you've run up this flag-pole, and then
retreating into invective and ad-hominem attacks when your errors are
pointed out, does not constitute "discussion."
Dave Johnson
remember, dale eastman is running a scam he resorts to ad-hominem
attacks when you point out his errors or convoluted "discussions"
Dale Eastman
Any time person A takes something that is not theirs, against the will
of person B to whom such a thing belongs, Person A has committed THEFT
against person B.
Dave Johnson
> Any time person A takes something that is not theirs, against the will
> of person B to whom such a thing belongs, Person A has committed THEFT
> against person B.
Did someone steal dale's pick up truck?
we know you don't have income to pay "income taxes" dale!
AllYou!
>
>
> AllYou! wrote:
>
>>
>> "Dale Eastman" <dalere...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:Wkv7f.1395$Rl1...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>>> It's such a shame that you are a troll.
>>>
>>> Sometimes you bring up points that would be worth debating... With a
>>> non-troll.
>>
>>
>>
>> IOW, I've basically defeated your arguments, but because you know you have no
>> valid counter-argument, you label me in an attempt to validate your dismissal
>> of my arguments.
>
> No, I don't label you. Your words speak for you:
> http://www.synapticsparks.info/tax/allyou.html
Which you've used as the basis to label me in a transparent attempt to validate
the dismissal of my arguments. Tell me, Dale ole boy, how many lurkers do you
think you've convinced?
>> You're so incredibly transparent. I'm perfectly willing to engage in any
>> reasonable debate about my views. You're just incapable of such a process.
>
> I will admit that you are VERY good at trolling.
And you're very good at..........well..........at nothing.
>>> <bandwidth snip>
>>
>>
>>
>> Only a moron would think that bandwidth conservation is meaningful anymore.
>> In fact, I'll wager you have no idea what it is.
>
>
>
> "Only a moron"
> - AllYou - this post -
>
>
> "you label me in an attempt to validate your dismissal of my
> arguments."
> - AllYou - this post -
>
>
>
> If you want to engage in an actual debate, you need to quit trolling.
I've challenged you to actual debate many, many times, but as soon as it's clear
that your argument is defeated, you resort to the most childish of debating
tactics by asking hypothetical questions which have no relevance to the issue at
hand, and then by simply resorting to trolling tactics yourself.
You're a moron. I'll debate you on any subject head on.
AllYou!
>
>
> Any time person A takes something that is not theirs, against the will of
> person B to whom such a thing belongs, Person A has committed THEFT against
> person B.
And by using the resources of the society which provided them, and then not
paying the price which that society has placed on the usage of those resources
despite the fact that the society in question made known what the price was well
in advance of using them, you've stolen them, and that society has every right
to exact satisfaction for that theft.
Shyster1040
the will
of person B to whom such a thing belongs, Person A has committed THEFT
against person B.
""
Very good Dale, I'm glad to see that you still remember some of your
lessons from kindergarten.
However, you seem to have forgotten some of the corrollaries. Whenever
person B has agreed that person A may take something that belongs to
person B whenever certain formalities have been performed, even if the
particular thing taken was not specifically identified beforehand, or was
only identified by reference to a formula to be applied to all of the
things owned by person B at the time of taking, then it is not theft.
For example, if B agrees to guarantee the timely payment of a particular
debt owed by A to C, then B has agreed that, once C performs the formality
of providing sufficient notice that A has not paid the debt on time, then
C may take property that belongs to B in an amount sufficient to cover the
amount of the debt then due; and this will be the case even though the
total amount of the debt was not ascertained at the time B made the
guarantee.
Thus, in matters of taxation, "We the People" agreed amongst ourselves in
the Constitution that, provided our elected representatives followed the
formalities of initiating, passing and enacting a tax law, that the
federal government could properly enforce that tax on us, and take our
property to satisfy that debt if we did not voluntarily pay. We agreed
that this would be done by majority consent (i.e., under the formalities
of passing a tax bill, unanimous consent of Congress is not required),
which necessarily implies that those who disagreed with a particular tax
law would nonetheless agree that, if properly passed, it would be binding
on them and enforceable against them.
Therefore, taxation, whether by income tax or by sales tax, or by whatever
agreed upon means, is not theft.
"We the People" further agreed, by the fact that we granted to Congress
the traditional plenary powers of taxation subject only to those
limitations expressly provided in the Constitution itself, that any
properly passed tax law would also apply to any other person who entered
the jurisdiction of the United States (which includes all of the
individual states), regardless of how that entrance was made. Thus,
everyone has effective notice that they will be subject to taxation by the
U.S. upon entering U.S. jurisdiction by whatever means. In the case of
persons born in the U.S., there is obviously an issue with such prior
notice; however, parents have always had the traditional power to bind
their children (that is, to make decisions for their children that have
binding legal effect on those children), and thus notice to the parents
that the power of taxation will apply to their children is sufficient.
The only way to escape such taxation is to leave the jurisdiction of the
United States.
Thus, the fact that you continue to remain here, even after having reached
the age of majority and thus having full power to leave the country and
renounce your citizenship, indicates that you continue to abide by the
agreement that "We the People" have made amongst ourselves, as evidenced
by the Constitution.
If you don't want to be taxed by the federal government, then get out of
here; otherwise, live up to your end of the bargain and pay your taxes.
Dale Eastman
AllYou! wrote:
> You're a moron. I'll debate you on any subject head on.
You won't get that debate until you drop the name calling.
Richard Macdonald
>
> AllYou! wrote:
>
>> You're a moron. I'll debate you on any subject head on.
>
> You won't get that debate until you drop the name calling.
Dale has not shown a willingness to debate, he just posts his
opinions and ignores any questioning of his statements, otherwise
he would have honestly answered this question of his statement:
> "Dale Eastman" <dalere...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
> news:x5S3f.1292$hY6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>>120 T.C. No. 10
>UNITED STATES TAX COURT
>
>Is not a court.
Dale Eastman has asserted that the US Tax Court
is not a court, so let us see if he is correct.
US Constitution, Article I, Section 8
"The Congress shall have Power . . .
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;"
Congress has the specific power to create courts inferior to the Supreme
Court.
26 USC 7441. STATUS
There is hereby established, under article I of the Constitution of the
United States, a court of record to be known as the United States
Tax Court. The members of the Tax Court shall be the chief judge
and the judges of the Tax Court.
Congress has enacted legislation under their specified power
to create courts lesser than the Supreme Court in their creation
of the Tax Court.
"On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit
The chief judge of the United States Tax Court, an Article I court composed
of 19 judges appointed by the President, . . ."
Freytag v. Commissioner, KTC 1991-1 (S.Ct. 1991)
The Supreme Court has recognized that the Tax Court is a Court created
by Congress under its power to do so under Article I, Section 8.
So Dale, real simple question:
Considering the above citations, the Tax Court is a Court
formed by Congress under its authority in Article I, Sec 8.
True or False.
Come on Dale, show your willingness to debate and honestly answer the
question.
--
Richard A. Macdonald. CPA/EA
SSG (Ret), USA, ADA 16P34
"Gib mir Schokolade und niemand wird verletzt!!!!"
Shyster1040
AllYou! wrote:
> You're a moron. I'll debate you on any subject head on.
You won't get that debate until you drop the name calling.
Dale, he wouldn't get it from you even if he called you "sir."
Dale Eastman
AllYou! wrote:
>
> "Dale Eastman" <dalere...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uEV7f.1941$Rl1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>
>> D:
>> Any time person A takes something that is not theirs, against the will
>> of person B to whom such a thing belongs, Person A has committed THEFT
>> against person B.
>
> A:
> And by using the resources of the society which provided them, and then
> not paying the price which that society has placed on the usage of those
> resources despite the fact that the society in question made known what
> the price was well in advance of using them, you've stolen them, and
> that society has every right to exact satisfaction for that theft.
D:
You start your reply with the words "And by" which means you are
adding to the sentence above your reply. This means you agree with the
principle stated by myself.
D:
I'm calling you on your "premature" introduction of the nebulous thing
called "society". A "society" is an association of natural persons.
We are not done with the rights of the natural person just yet.
D:
Since person A taking something that belongs to person B is the
context, we need to examine briefly, those things that belong to
person B; we need to examine those things that can be taken FROM person B.
Person B owns:
1. Him/her self;
2. His/her property.
This property consists of:
2a. Person B's life;
2b. Person B's labor;
2c. Person B's results or fruits of person B's labor;
2c1. Person B's tangible property;
2c2. Person B's intangible (intellectual) property.
D:
Since a "society" is an association of natural persons, the first
society is an association of person A and person B. (This is starting
to look like my reply to Mr. Steel.)
D:
Let us place person A and person B upon an uncharted tropical island
by shipwreck. This tropical island is lush with vegetation and wild
life. (Since this is a model, we will divert from reality in that
things like corn, tomatoes and other such staples are growing wild on
this island.)
D:
Now that our first society (association of natural persons) has been
created, we can look to the concepts you introduced, to wit, the
"resources" of society.
D:
The first resource, is the main category of resource in its entirety;
the island. Within the main resource of the island are all its
plants, animals, and minerals; as well as the plants, animals, and
minerals adjacent to the island in the sea; to include also, all the
flotsam and jetsam that washes up on the beaches.
D:
Possession is 9/10th of ownership. No country on the planet lays claim
to this island. Ergo, it MUST belong to the society of "AB"; The
association of person A and person B.
Having set up this framework as a microcosm of "society's resources",
I turn the floor over to you, so to speak, to see where you are going
to go with it.
Dale Eastman
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
> <
> <
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It's white space.
Try using it sometime.
It will help to make your posts readable.
I'm not going to spend the time prying your run-on sentences apart so
that I can answer the 25 different points you blend together like so
much bacon bits and diced tomato in a pan of scrambled eggs.
You have mastered the written equivalent of diarrhea of the mouth.
Shyster1040 wrote:
--
Shyster1040
05:58 PM
Do you know what this stuff is?
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
> <
> <
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It's white space.
Try using it sometime.
It will help to make your posts readable.
I'm not going to spend the time prying your run-on sentences apart so
that I can answer the 25 different points you blend together like so
much bacon bits and diced tomato in a pan of scrambled eggs.
You have mastered the written equivalent of diarrhea of the mouth.
""
Unsubstantiated assertion - any supposed lack of white space has
(generally) not stopped you before, and since I haven't changed my writing
style at all, it shouldn't have stopped you this time.
That can only mean one thing - you have no counter-argument, and since you
are singularly incapable of admitting when you're wrong, you (as usual)
instead engage in ad-hominem attacks.
You know what that means, don'cha Dale? It means that you have conceded
defeat.
Being gracious, I kindly accept your concession.
AllYou!
>
>
> AllYou! wrote:
>
>> You're a moron. I'll debate you on any subject head on.
>
> You won't get that debate until you drop the name calling.
I wouldn't get an intellectually honest debate from you anyway. Your track
record proves that you're simply incapable of it. All you'll do when confronted
with a point which you cannot defeat head on is to post a link to a page which
does not directly respond to the point. Posting links in a debate on Usenet is
like responding only with referrals to reference material in a verbal debate.
And just to prove it, I'll agree to put the knives down if you wish.
Here's the first question..........do you believe that all of the courts, all of
the tax lawyers and all of the tax accountants who have interpreted the tax laws
of this country as requiring Americans to pay income taxes are all wrong?
AllYou!
> This post will get attention as valid, since you didn't name call.
>
> AllYou! wrote:
>
>>
>> "Dale Eastman" <dalere...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:uEV7f.1941$Rl1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>>>
>>> D:
>>> Any time person A takes something that is not theirs, against the will of
>>> person B to whom such a thing belongs, Person A has committed THEFT against
>>> person B.
>>
>> A:
>> And by using the resources of the society which provided them, and then not
>> paying the price which that society has placed on the usage of those
>> resources despite the fact that the society in question made known what the
>> price was well in advance of using them, you've stolen them, and that society
>> has every right to exact satisfaction for that theft.
>
> D:
> You start your reply with the words "And by" which means you are adding to the
> sentence above your reply. This means you agree with the principle stated by
> myself.
Not at all. This is where you begin your intellectual dishonesty. I did not
imply that I agree with you. The *And by* was simply a figure of speech used to
that there is another kind of theft in addition to the kind of theft which you
cited.
Let's see if you ever directly address the point I've made.
> D:
> I'm calling you on your "premature" introduction of the nebulous thing called
> "society". A "society" is an association of natural persons. We are not done
> with the rights of the natural person just yet.
You do not get to unilaterally set the perameters of this debate.
Still no direct response. OK, let's proceed.
> D:
> Since person A taking something that belongs to person B is the context, we
> need to examine briefly, those things that belong to person B; we need to
> examine those things that can be taken FROM person B.
> Person B owns:
> 1. Him/her self;
> 2. His/her property.
> This property consists of:
> 2a. Person B's life;
> 2b. Person B's labor;
> 2c. Person B's results or fruits of person B's labor;
> 2c1. Person B's tangible property;
> 2c2. Person B's intangible (intellectual) property.
And person B also owns a stake in that which the society to which s/he belongs
has produced.
> D:
> Since a "society" is an association of natural persons, the first society is
> an association of person A and person B. (This is starting to look like my
> reply to Mr. Steel.)
There are also the associations to which A and B might each belong. In the
context of a society taking that which belongs to Person A, there remains the
issue of whether or not Person A, through his actions, has given the society to
which B belongs the right to deprive person A of certain property.
> D:
> Let us place person A and person B upon an uncharted tropical island by
> shipwreck. This tropical island is lush with vegetation and wild life. (Since
> this is a model, we will divert from reality in that things like corn,
> tomatoes and other such staples are growing wild on this island.)
>
> D:
> Now that our first society (association of natural persons) has been created,
> we can look to the concepts you introduced, to wit, the "resources" of
> society.
There is no society yet. There are simply two individuals. Implicit in your
analogy is that Person B is a member of the US society wich is taking the
property of Person A, who may or may not be a member of the society.
> D:
> The first resource, is the main category of resource in its entirety; the
> island. Within the main resource of the island are all its plants, animals,
> and minerals; as well as the plants, animals, and minerals adjacent to the
> island in the sea; to include also, all the flotsam and jetsam that washes up
> on the beaches.
>
> D:
> Possession is 9/10th of ownership. No country on the planet lays claim to this
> island. Ergo, it MUST belong to the society of "AB"; The association of person
> A and person B.
>
> Having set up this framework as a microcosm of "society's resources", I turn
> the floor over to you, so to speak, to see where you are going to go with it.
But for the sake of a more clear picture, let's also introduce person C. Person
C has come to inhabit the island in exactly the same way as persons A and B, but
whereas Persons A and B, recognizing that there are certain things which they
can only accomplish by association, form such an association, and person C
freely chooses not to do so.
There is agreement by the members of the association that there will be certain
rules which will dictate the use and payment for that which the association
creates, whether they are members or not, and these rules are well known by
all..
Person C, despite knowing of these rules, and despite having the option to join
the association, has opted not to join, but despite knowing the rules, decides
to use those resources anyway. The association evaluates C's usage, applies the
rules to that usage, and decides that because C used the resources while fully
knowing what the conditions for usage were, decides that C has effectively
stolen the value which the use of those resources provides, and so, by force if
need be, exacts a penalty upon C.
IMO, the association is on the ethical high ground, whereas C is not.