| LEGAL
DISCLAIMER 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. DO NOT TAKE MY WORD FOR ANYTHING ON THIS PAGE. Go look it up for yourself. |
Ed Senter v. Dale E.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| [1] Nonetheless, an income tax on
wages,
or a wage tax, is not and has never been a Direct Tax. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Wrong. http://www.synapticsparks.info/evidence/c04/direct.html |
||||||||||||||||||||
| [2] Income is not property, retard. [3] Income is the gain or increase DERIVED FROM labor or property (capital). [4] In another sense, Income adds TO property. It thus BECOMES property. [5] The Income Tax only taxes the INCREASE/ACCESSION TO wealth. [6] Therefore, the Income Tax is not a tax on property. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| [2]
I loan $5000 to a friend. The friend pays back the $5,000 by handing me
a total of fifty one hundred dollar bills. The friend then pays me
interest on the money by handing me a fifty dollar bill. What do you
call that $50 bill? |
||||||||||||||||||||
| [2] INCOME = $50 [2] PROPERTY = $5050 |
||||||||||||||||||||
| [2]
Simple math logic "PROPERTY = $5050"
is the same as "$5050 = PROPERTY". After all, they are
"equal" (" = "). You typed
it out yourself. You said "Income is not property, retard." You then say "PROPERTY = $5050" which means "$5050 = PROPERTY". Subtract the original $5000 and you have "$50 = PROPERTY" You have contradicted yourself. [4] You said "In another sense, Income adds TO property. It thus BECOMES property." Wasn't that $50 bill that was the interest on the original capital, the property of my friend to begin with, or are you asserting that the $50 bill is NOT property? Remember, I said"The friend then pays me interest on the money by handing me a fifty dollar bill." If that $50 bill is not property, how could my friend give it to me to pay me interest? |
||||||||||||||||||||
| [2]
You don't know your math,
dale. In order to maintain the equation, you have to subtract it from both sides. Therefore, $5050 = PROPERTY $5050 - $5000 = PROPERTY - $5000 $50 = PROPERTY - $5000 [4] The $50 bill is in YOUR hand so it is YOUR income. [7] Your friend doesn't pay YOUR taxes, does he? |
||||||||||||||||||||
| [7]
Irrelevant Non
Sequitur. [2] You said, and I quote as accurate as only a copy and paste can be: "$5050 = PROPERTY" There is absolutely no need to look at any of the rest of your sophistry. The equal sign is a symbolic substitute for the word "IS". The issue is NOT a math problem. The issue is an English problem. [2] PROPERTY IS $5050 "$5050 IS PROPERTY" As you succinctly stated, and I QUOTE: "$5050 = PROPERTY". ("$5050 IS PROPERTY") Yep. From the very First dollar (dollar #1) to the very Last dollar (dollar # 5050) and EVERY dollar in between, they are property. Somebody owned each and every one of those dollars from dollar #1 to dollar #5050 from the moment acquired to the moment divested. [4] You failed to directly answer the question: "Wasn't that $50 bill that was the interest on the original capital, the property of my friend to begin with, or are you asserting that the $50 bill is NOT property? " However, you did answer the question with that succinct formula of yours: "$5050 = PROPERTY" [4] The $50 bill is in my hand, it is my property, just like you succinctly stated with your equation: "$5050 = PROPERTY" which includes the $50 of interest as well as the original $5000. [8] I work for a friend for a couple of hours. My friend hands me a $50 bill. What do you call THAT $50 bill? |
||||||||||||||||||||
| [8]
I call it INCOME, dale. [9] A tax on INCOME is not a property tax, nor does it require apportionment. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| [8]
I call it "COMPENSATION FOR LABOR", Mr. Senter. [10] Labor is property. IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) Mr. Justice SWAYNE, dissenting: "Property is everything which has an exchangeable value, and the right of property includes the power to dispose of it according to the will of the owner. Labor is property, and as such merits protection. The right to make it available is next in importance to the rights of life and liberty. It lies to a large extent at the foundation of most other forms of property,..." BUTCHERS' UNION CO. v. CRESCENT CITY CO., 111 U.S. 746 (1884) FIELD, J., concurring. "It has been well said that 'the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property." [11] Compensation for labor is the exchange of labor (property) or services (property) for money or other forms of property. COPPAGE v. STATE OF KANSAS, 236 U.S. 1 (1915) Mr. Justice Pitney delivered the opinion of the court: "As a result, we are constrained to reaffirm the doctrine there applied. Neither the doctrine nor this application of it is novel; we will endeavor to restate some of the grounds upon which it rests. The principle is fundamental and vital. Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property-partaking of the nature of each- is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property. If this right be struck down or arbitrarily interfered with, there is a substantial impairment of liberty in the long-established constitutional sense. The right is as essential to the laborer as to the capitalist, to the poor as to the rich; for the vast majority of persons have no other honest way to begin to acquire property, save by working for money." If I throw a stone through your window, I am required to compensate you for damages. I am required to make you whole again. You would be paid or compensated for your loss to restore you to the condition you had prior to the diminution of your worth. [12] Compensation is the making whole, that which has been diminished. [13] Gain is the increase of something that is already whole. [14] “Compensation for labor” can NEVER be “Gain derived from labor”. It is fascinating to observe how quickly dale changes course in his blather. He thought he had me cornered with the interest question, but when shown that a tax on the $50 interest would be an income tax while a tax on the entire $5050 (principle and interest) would be a property tax, he just switches gears. "Well, what if the $50 was for my work?" dale is indeed a piece of work and an idiot. I once had a chess game with a co-worker where I pushed a pawn. When my opponent was about to take that pawn, I stated: "Take that pawn, loose your queen." 8 moves later, his 4 and my 4, his queen was gone. You think I switched gears at random? Good. Your tactical loss. I switched gears after YOU proved the $50 returned above the $5000 is property. After we dance on the $50 compensation for labor, I'll compare the two. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| I call it INCOME, dale. [8] I call it "COMPENSATION FOR LABOR", Mr. Senter. Whatever YOU want to call it dale, that does not preclude the fact that the compensation you receive for your work is INCOME. Your assertion does not make it so. [10] Labor is property. So what? [10a] The Income Tax does not tax your labor. [10b] The Income Tax taxes the gains derived from your labor. Your statement, labeled [10b] is absolutely true. The Income Tax taxes the GAINS DERIVED from one's labor. [11] Compensation for labor is the exchange of labor (property) or services (property) for money or other forms of property. Would not that exchange be equal? -value for value? Yes Mr. Senter it would. Thank you for acknowledging my (the court's) point. [12] Compensation is the making whole, that which has been diminished. [13] Gain is the increase of something that is already whole. [14] “Compensation for labor” can NEVER be “Gain derived from labor”. [12] Problem, dale. You have failed to show how labor was diminished. You are correct, Mr. Senter, I have not yet shown diminishment. I will rectify that below. [12] Besides, you are not being compensated for your labor. Your assertion has no standing. I am compensated for my labor. [12] You are being compensated for the PRODUCT of your labor which is your production. Your assertion does not make it so. [12] If you don't produce something, you won't get paid. Title 29 says you are wrong on that point. Payment is for TIME consumed. [Title 29, Volume 3] [CITE: 29CFR785.15] TITLE 29--LABOR PART 785_HOURS WORKED-- Sec. 785.15 On duty. A stenographer who reads a book while waiting for dictation, a messenger who works a crossword puzzle while awaiting assignments, fireman who plays checkers while waiting for alarms and a factory worker who talks to his fellow employees while waiting for machinery to be repaired are all working during their periods of inactivity. The rule also applies to employees who work away from the plant. For example, a repair man is working while he waits for his employer's customer to get the premises in readiness. The time is worktime even though the employee is allowed to leave the premises or the job site during such periods of inactivity. The periods during which these occur are unpredictable. They are usually of short duration. In either event the employee is unable to use the time effectively for his own purposes. It belongs to and is controlled by the employer. In all of these cases waiting is an integral part of the job. The employee is engaged to wait. [Code of Federal Regulations] [Title 29, Volume 3] [CITE: 29CFR785.17] Sec. 785.17 On-call time. An employee who is required to remain on call on the employer's premises or so close thereto that he cannot use the time effectively for his own purposes is working while ``on call''. An employee who is not required to remain on the employer's premises but is merely required to leave word at his home or with company officials where he may be reached is not working while on call. [Code of Federal Regulations] [Title 29, Volume 3] [CITE: 29CFR785.28] Sec. 785.28 Involuntary attendance. Attendance is not voluntary, of course, if it is required by the employer. It is not voluntary in fact if the employee is given to understand or led to believe that his present working conditions or the continuance of his employment would be adversely affected by nonattendance. You think I switched gears at random? Good. Your tactical loss. I switched gears after YOU proved the $50 returned above the $5000 is property. Whether or not it was property does not preclude the fact that the $50 interest payment was INCOME. You agreed it IS property. I agree it IS "INCOME". It is 16th Amendment, Constitutional income. It is Return On Investment INCOME derived from (whatever source of) Invested Property. [12] Problem, dale. You have failed to show how labor was diminished. Quoting from Title 29 of the CFR above: "In either event the employee is unable to use the time effectively for his own purposes. It belongs to and is controlled by the employer." "An employee who is required to remain on call ... that he cannot use the time effectively for his own purposes is working..." Time traveling from the plant gate to the workstation is "compensable" under certain conditions as covered in 29CFR785.50 (not quoted, cited by reference). As Title 29 of the CFR shows, time is the actual thing being "compensated". A dead human can NOT labor. Labor requires life. Labor consumes life. What is life? life n. 3. A living being, especially a person. 4. The physical, mental, and spiritual experiences that constitute existence. 5.a. The interval of time between birth and death. 9. Human existence, relationships, or activity in general. Time is your total capital, and the minutes of your life are painfully few. -- Robert A. Heinlein The total capital of any human being is "5.a. The interval of time between birth and death." Labor consumes portions of "The interval of time between birth and death." Labor DIMINISHES "The interval of time between birth and death." Compensation for labor is compensation for time diminished. Compensation for labor is compensation for Life diminished. Life (time) consumed is life (time) never to be repossessed. A laborer can NOT buy more life. A laborer's capital is consumed by his labor. A tax on compensation for labor is a tax on compensation for life. A tax on compensation fot labor is a tax on life itself. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| [11]
Compensation for labor is the exchange of labor (property) or
services (property) for money or other forms of property. Would not that exchange be equal? -value for value? Yes Mr. Senter it would. Thank you for acknowledging my (the court's) point. But whether or not the exchange was equal does not address the issue as to whether or not the exchange resulted in income. Actually it does. You have implicitly agreed that "compensation for labor" is the exchange of labor for money or other forms of property. As shown in Slaughter House and Butcher's Union shown above (on the web page), Labor is property. You implicitly agree that labor is property. (If you don't agree, then answer the question, "Who owns your labor?") Therefore, "compensation for labor" is the exchange of property for like valued property. If I exchange a pair of $5 bills for a $10 bill, have I derived a gain, or have I simply changed the form of my property without changing its essence or its value? Those are two different questions. You admitted that the income tax taxes GAINS DERIVED from your labor. Yes, I have agreed that the income tax taxes GAINS DERIVED from labor. Those two words were put in allcaps for a reason. I will address why I have emphasized the allcaps below. Whether or not the exchange resulted in income depends on whether or not there was a realized gain. I agree that "income" depends on a gain being realized. No gain: no income. That "gain" is very specific to the 16th Amendment. GAIN = REVENUE - COSTS REVENUE = whatever you were paid COSTS = $0 (because your own labor cost you nothing) Therefore, GAIN = REVENUE (whatever you were paid) The naked assertions above are without standing. As I said above, GAINS DERIVED are in allcaps for a reason. "'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. Brief as it is, it indicates the characteristic and distinguishing attribute of income essential for a correct solution of the present controversy. 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. [EISNER v. MACOMBER , 252 U.S. 189 (1920)]" The controversy the court speaks of is whether a stock dividend is "16th Amendment Income." As the court stated: "Defendant in error, being the owner of 2,200 shares of the old stock, received certificates for 1,100 additional shares...", So the controversy is whether the 1,100 additional shares are "16th Amendment Income." When GAIN is DERIVED from capital, after the GAIN is severed from the capital, the capital remains whole and undiminished. As discussed in the beginning of this dialog, $5,000 is loaned to a friend. The friend pays back $5,050. The $5,000 is invested capital, the $50 is a 1% Return On Investment (ROI). The $50 is the GAIN DERIVED from the capital. The capital is undiminished and ready to be reinvested. The $50 IS "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 $50 IS 16th Amendment "INCOME". GAIN is DERIVED from "capital, however invested or employed". $5,000 can be invested by purchasing labor. $5,000 will purchase 200 hours of a mechanic's labor at $25 per hour. This mechanic's labor can then be billed to the customers at $50 per hour. The gross revenue is then $10,000. Subtract the shop expenses of $4,950 from the $10,000 and $5,050 remains. Sever the GAIN from the capital by subtracting the original $5,000 invested. What remains is a ROI of $50 (1%). The $50 IS ALSO "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 $50 IS ALSO 16th Amendment "INCOME". That $50 is GAIN DERIVED from (investment in) labor. The Eisner court quoted the Doyle court's definition of "INCOME": "'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." The Doyle court actually quoted the Stratton's Independence v. Howbert and then added " provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets" to the Stratton's court definition of "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. As was said in Stratton's Independence v. Howbert: 'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined.' [DOYLE v. MITCHELL BROS. CO. , 247 U.S. 179 (1918)]" This brings us to the part of the definition of "INCOME" you are attempting to use to transmute "compensation FOR labor" into "gain derived FROM labor". Specifically the phrase: "Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined." Here is the context from which the above phrase was taken: "But when a company is digging pits, sinking shafts, tunneling, drifting, stoping, drilling, blasting, and hoisting ores, it is employing capital and labor in transmuting a part of the realty into personalty, and putting it into marketable form. The very process of mining is, in a sense, equivalent in its results to a manufacturing process. And, however the operation shall be described, the transaction is indubitably 'business' within the fair meaning of the act of 1909; and the gains derived from it are properly and strictly the income from that business; for 'income' may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, and here we have combined operations of capital and labor. [STRATTON'S INDEPENDENCE, LTD. v. HOWBERT, 231 U.S. 399 (1913)]" Recap: 1913: Income is corporate gain derived from capital, from labor, or both combined. 1918: Income is gain or increase arising from corporate activities including profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets. 1920: Income is gain severed from capital, however invested. [12] You are being compensated for the PRODUCT of your labor which is your production. Your assertion does not make it so. [12] If you don't produce something, you won't get paid. Title 29 says you are wrong on that point. Payment is for TIME consumed. Your argument is semantical. Whether you are paid for your "time", "labor", "good looks", etc., you are bringing something of value to the table for which your employer compensates you. If the employer does not get what he bargained for, you don't get paid. There are no semantics. There is NO argument. Title 29 states: " Sec. 785.15 On duty. A stenographer who reads a book while waiting for dictation, a messenger who works a crossword puzzle while awaiting assignments, fireman who plays checkers while waiting for alarms and a factory worker who talks to his fellow employees while waiting for machinery to be repaired are all working during their periods of inactivity. The rule also applies to employees who work away from the plant. For example, a repair man is working while he waits for his employer's customer to get the premises in readiness. The time is worktime even though the employee is allowed to leave the premises or the job site during such periods of inactivity. The periods during which these occur are unpredictable. They are usually of short duration. In either event the employee is unable to use the time effectively for his own purposes. It belongs to and is controlled by the employer. In all of these cases waiting is an integral part of the job. The employee is engaged to wait." If you are paid by the hour, you are paid for your TIME. [12] Problem, dale. You have failed to show how labor was diminished. A laborer can NOT buy more life. A laborer's capital is consumed by his labor. A laborer never "bought" his life anyway. From the recent Murphy v. IRS case is an expanded version of what Mr. Senter is attempting to say: Murphy v. IRS: "In addition, the Government challenges the coherence of Murphy’s analogy between a return of “human capital or wellbeing” and a return of “financial capital,” the latter of which it acknowledges does not constitute income under the Sixteenth Amendment. See Doyle, 247 U.S. at 187; S. Pac. Co., 247 U.S. at 335. The Government first observes that financial capital, like all property, has a “basis,” defined by the IRC as “the cost of such property,” 26 U.S.C. § 1012, adjusted “for expenditures, receipts, losses, or other items, properly chargeable to [a] capital account,” id. § 1016(a)(1); thus, when a taxpayer sells property, his income is “the excess of the amount realized therefrom over the adjusted basis.” Id. § 1001(a). The Government then observes that “[b]ecause people do not pay cash or its equivalent to acquire their well-being, they have no basis in it for purposes of measuring a gain (or loss) upon the realization of compensatory damages.” Nor is there any corresponding theory of “human depreciation,” which would permit “an offsetting deduction for the exhaustion of the taxpayer’s physical prowess and mental agility.” Boris I. Bittker & Lawrence Lokken, Federal Taxation of Income, Estates, and Gifts ¶ 5.6 (2003). Finally, the Government points to the Ninth Circuit’s dictum in Roemer v. Commissioner, 716 F.2d 693 (1983), suggesting that “[s]ince there is no tax basis in a person’s health and other personal interests, money received as compensation for an injury to those interests might be considered a realized accession to wealth.” Id. at 696 n.2." The following allcap emphasis is mine. Murphy v. IRS: "At the outset, WE REJECT THE GOVERNMENT'S breathtakingly expansive CLAIM of congressional power under the Sixteenth Amendment -- upon which it founds the more far-reaching arguments it advances here. THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT SIMPLY DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE CONGRESS TO TAX AS "INCOMES" EVERY SORT OF REVENUE A TAXPAYER MAY RECEIVE. As the Supreme Court noted long ago, the “Congress cannot make a thing income which is not so in fact.” Burk-Waggoner Oil Ass’n v. Hopkins, 269 U.S. 110, 114 (1925). Indeed, because the “the power to tax involves the power to destroy,” McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 431 (1819), it would not be consistent with our constitutional government, and the sanctity of property in our system, merely to rely upon the legislature to decide what constitutes income. Fortunately, we need not rely solely upon the wisdom and beneficence of the Congress for, when the Sixteenth Amendment was drafted, the word “incomes” had well understood limits. To be sure, the Supreme Court has broadly construed the phrase “gross income” in the IRC and, by implication, the word “incomes” in the Sixteenth Amendment, but it also has made plain that the power to tax income extends only to “gain[s]” or “accessions to wealth.” Glenshaw Glass, 348 U.S. at 430-31. That is why, as noted above, the Supreme Court has held a “return of capital” is not income. Doyle, 247 U.S. at 187; S. Pac. Co., 247 U.S. at 335. The question in this case is not, however, about a return of capital -- except insofar as Murphy analogizes human capital to physical or financial capital; the question is whether the compensation she received for her injuries is income.* * In any event, the Government’s quarrel with Murphy’s analogy, based upon Glenshaw Glass, of “human capital” to financial or physical capital is not persuasive. To be sure, the analogy is incomplete; personal injuries do not entail an adjustment to any basis, nor are human resources, such as reputation, depreciable for tax purposes. But nothing in Murphy’s argument implies a need to account for the basis in or to depreciate anything. Her point, rather, is that as with compensation for a harm to one’s financial or physical capital, the payment of compensation for the diminution of a personal attribute, such as reputation, is but a restoration of the status quo ante, analogous to a “restoration of capital,” Glenshaw Glass, 348 U.S. at 432 n.8; in neither context does the payment result in a “gain” or “accession[] to wealth,” id. at 430-31." The KEY WORD is "COMPENSATION". The making whole, that which is diminished. "When the act took effect, plaintiff's timber lands, with whatever value they then possessed, were a part of its capital assets, and a subsequent change of form by conversion into money did not change the essence." Supreme Court - Doyle v. Mitchell Brother's. If I exchange a pair of $5 bills for a $10 bill, have I derived a gain, or have I simply changed the form of my property without changing its essence or its value? The laborer's life is his CAPITAL. The laborer's life is his PROPERTY. When the laborer exchanges his property (life-capital) for money and other forms of property, he is merely changing the form, not the essence. A laborer has a choice. He can spend his life sitting on his ass doing nothing, or he can labor all his life for his pleasure. It is ONLY when he gets PAID for his labor, does the question of income even come up. "Compensation for labor" is NOT "16th Amendment income." "16th Amendment income" is the gain of one's "Return On Investment". A tax on compensation for labor is a tax on compensation for life. A tax on compensation for labor is a tax on life itself. Whether or not that compensation was income depends on his COST. COST = $0 Make sure your surviving next of kin understand that you place no value on your life. My snide comment and your sophistry aside, you are ignoring the point made that LIFE itself is being taxed. I have pointed out that Labor is LIFE, and LIFE is TIME. From your first heartbeat to your last, your TIME is LIMITED. This limitation makes your LIFE and your TIME invaluable (of inestimable value; priceless). The basis of your LIFE and your TIME is so high that it's value can NOT be calculated. Supply and Demand. You posted this formula above in an attempt to make "compensation for labor" into "income": GAIN = REVENUE - COSTS REVENUE = whatever you were paid COSTS = $0 (because your own labor cost you nothing) Therefore, GAIN = REVENUE (whatever you were paid) My labor is literally my LIFE and my TIME. Supply and Demand: My LIFE is priceless beyond measure; My TIME is priceless beyond measure. A finite positive amount, minus an INFINITE positive amount results in an INFINITE negative amount. A negative gain is a LOSS. To continue to argue against this in the face of what I have presented is to argue FOR SLAVERY. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|