In the U.S., citizens all across our great land are exhaling a collective groan: they have either filed income taxes, filed an extension, or haven’t filed and are hoping nobody notices.
However, what do you know about the nature of income taxes in America?
If you’re a Steemian, it’s likely that you have much more knowledge and awareness of this topic than most -- Steemit is a real hardcore “taxation is theft” crowd.
But for those of you who are unaware, I’d like to touch on this topic ever-so-briefly, in my own undereducated way, and see if we can get a bigger discussion going and get some answers from our government about why they’re forcing us to pay them money on our wages.
Define “income”
The 16ht Ammendment reads thusly:
Amendment XVI
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Seems pretty cut-and-dry. But that’s only if you’re taking a few things as a given.
You accept that the amendment was properly ratified, which is an argument that has been made but not considered valid by the courts, despite the fact that the courts don’t do a good job (in my retarded opinion) elaborating on why they consider the evidence presented as invalid.
The word “income” was legally defined as something very different at the time of this writing, and has never been legally redefined by the Supreme Court to mean what we consider “income” in common parlance.
In the U.S. Code: Title 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, the term “income” is used, but is never specifically defined.
“What’s the big deal about that?” you might ask. Income is income is income.
Well, not really…
The Supreme Court defined income in Eisner v. Macomber,
252 U.S. 189 (1920)
The government, although basing its argument upon the definition as quoted, placed chief emphasis upon the word 'gain,' which was extended to include a variety of meanings; while the significance of the next three words was either overlooked or misconceived. 'Derived-from- capital'; 'the gain-derived-from-capital,' etc. Here we have the essential matter: not a gain accruing to capital; not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value, proceeding from the property, severed from the capital, however invested or employed, and coming in, being 'derived'-that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal- that is income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description.
The term "income" has repeatedly been held by the courts to indicate "gain on capital" and not receipts, wages or a fee received in exchange for selling an item of property. Since a tax on property would be a direct, unapportioned tax that the US Constitution does not allow
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Fifth Amendment - U.S. Constitution
“Income” is corporate gains, according to the Supreme Court
Yet it is plain, we think, that by the true intent and meaning of the act the entire proceeds of a mere conversion of capital assets were not to be treated as income. Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of 'income,' it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities.
Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co.,
247 U.S. 179 (1918)
And if it wasn’t clear enough already, in Merchants' Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka,
255 U.S. 509 (1821), it states:
There can be no doubt that the word must be given the same meaning and content in the Income Tax Acts of 1916 and 1917 that it had in the act of 1913.
…
there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act, and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court.
“Income” = corporate gains, not wages, labor, or receipts.
Has any IRS representative contested this?
No.
Not that I’ve seen anyway (feel free to set me straight in the comments).
Some representatives have been questioned, though reluctantly so and very rarely, and have never been able to elaborate on this.
Here we shall see the late Aaron Russo interviewing former IRS Commissioner Sheldon Cohen. Cohen’s answers and his general demeanor is absurd and embarrassing. See for yourself:
I do not accept "it's silly!" or contradictory, randomly pulled out of the ass "facts" as an argument.
Taxation is theft
Swanson dropping red pills.
The fact of the matter when it comes to income tax is that the government simply continues to do it because people continue to let them.
Income tax is an extortion racket: the Government obtains your property and money by force of threat.
What do you think?
Do you agree or disagree with my assessment here?
Have I missed something that would enlighten me that you’d like to share?
Leave a comment below!
Images from Pixabay
