Chris M. "... not on board with Obama – or humanity ..."

38 posts / 0 new
Last post
SamLinder's picture
SamLinder
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 10 2008
Posts: 1499
Chris M. "... not on board with Obama – or humanity ..."

Not everyone is thrilled with Chris M.'s recent post "Obama Punishes Responsible Parties".

http://andrewtobias.com/

THE CRASH COURSE
Douglas Patton:  “I’m sure surprised you touted this guy.  He’s sure not on board with Obama – or humanity for the matter.  See this [recent post of his, decrying Obama’s plan to help people stay in their homes].”

AT: I didn’t tout his political views, I touted his “crash course.”  I think he makes a mistake to join the radio talk show hosts and others who whip up outrage and resentment over the mortgage package.  Leaving aside any thought that it can be a good thing to help one’s neighbor, there is the question of whether it’s worth trying to avert a depression.  A lot of people think that’s what’s at stake here.

strabes's picture
strabes
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 7 2009
Posts: 1032
Re: Chris M. "... not on board with Obama – or humanity ...

I'm not on board with Chris' post, but I'm certainly not on board with this guy that equates Obama with human interest!  That's absurd.  Chris is right that government extortion and robbery to pay other people is wrong.  And he's right that this program won't really help anyone...it won't work.  But his antipathy toward community care and apparently adopting the philosophy of pure individualism is where I part ways.  We should resist national government claiming it's doing things in community interest, but don't rage against the idea of community interest itself.  We need power to shift from national to local levels.  Local communities and neighborhoods and families SHOULD be doing something like Obama's plan...somehow helping people in times of need. 

The guy who suggests it might be worth trying to avert a depression is what I'm scared of.  If too many people think government can avoid depression, then they're going to keep doing this crap that only makes the problem worse.  As Jim Rogers says, we were headed into a severely deep recession that would've been very painful for a few years, but government's attempt to stop the markets from adjusting is now in danger of CAUSING the depression, not fixing it.   

 

Reuben Bailey's picture
Reuben Bailey
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 17 2008
Posts: 138
Re: Chris M. "... not on board with Obama – or humanity ...

Strabes,

   I do not see where Chris is extolling pure idividualism - most of what I hear Chris saying is about building communities.  What I hear him saying in his post about Obama's plan is that the attempted fix will not work, and that those who have been responsible in their decisions should not be forced to pay (through gov't bailouts and tax dollars) for others mistakes.  I do not hear him say that those who are in a position to help others in their local community should not do so.

All the best,

Reuben

DrKrbyLuv's picture
DrKrbyLuv
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 1995
Re: Chris M. "... not on board with Obama – or humanity ...

I'm on-board with Chris and others who see this insanity for what it is.  The bad mortgage holders are only a small part of a much bigger middle class financial genocide.  We are hopelessly in debt but yet the solution is to borrow our way out and to artificially prop-up markets.

We have just over 17 trillion dollars in outstanding mortgage debt in the US, why not have the government provide financing for all that qualify and then eliminate the interest.  This would reduce the average mortgage payment by half - talk about a stimulus package!

Larry

 

Mike Pilat's picture
Mike Pilat
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 8 2008
Posts: 929
Re: Chris M. "... not on board with Obama – or humanity ...

strabes:

I've seen the community that Chris lives in and I've seen and heard the evidence of the actions he's taken to develop community ties and interdependence. I can speak for myself in saying that Chris is far more community oriented than I am at this moment. His actions have spoken stronger than words can. I think many have misinterpreted some of the statements that Chris has recently made.

Far from promoting the notion that each person should only "save themselves" at all costs, I think Chris is urging prudence:

1) We must make ourselves viable before we're even capable of helping others. We will be a burden to others if we can't address our needs first. The stronger each person is as an individual, the more they are able to help others when there are bumps in the road. If our nation is insolvent, there seem to be barriers to helping anyone with anything. Maybe the government should clean its house first.

2) The Obama housing bailout not only won't work but is also not fair to others for the simple reason that it forces responsible people to bailout the irresponsible. If fewer handouts were given in our system, each person would likely feel more willing to voluntarily help others.

As it stands now, if I'm already being forced into taxation to pay for other's mistakes, it sure doesn't make me feel like I owe anything more. This would be a whole different situation if, hypothetically, Obama appealed to the American people to voluntarily make some sacrifice (financial or otherwise) to assist their fellow citizens in need. We already know the end results of Taxation Without Representation. Further, there are further frustrations with having me (in Wash DC) paying tax to bail out someone I never met in California. These social relief packages work best at the most local level possible. A nationally managed housing bailout is a great way to divide people people in this country, and it is working perfectly. I think we will agree on this point.

Just my thoughts. But I must add that after attending the Rowe conference, I personally came to a stronger understanding of the importance of community in all of this, and that is a direct result of the community oriented activities that Chris has modeled.

Mike

 

joe2baba's picture
joe2baba
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 17 2008
Posts: 807
Re: Chris M. "... not on board with Obama – or humanity ...

this really has no place on this site.

as with most things people simply fail to investigate and do critical thinking. chris is all about community. it is not the job of the federal government to do community service. it is not the business of the federal gov. to begin or end depressions. 

of course i could be wrong. i guess i should go back and read the enumerated powers clause. and see what powers then revert to the states.

this is kind of thinking is to be expected from obots tripping on obama koolaid. big brother will always rescue us no matter how stupid we are. if this person does not come back i for one will toast that non event.

this is the natural outcome of hamilton's bastard child idea of implied powers. these people have been swimming in this cesspool for so long it smells sweet. if all these ideas in the spendulus bill are so wonderful why dont the banksters pony up and invest their money in them

sorry i am a jeffersonian and i happen to believe that government that governs least is government that governs best.

i am encouraged by the states pasing the resolutions to assert their rights it is a small step but an important one.

it is time people started to read the history of this country to understand how far off the reservation we have strayed.

i hope these obots stay just long enough to get exposed to austrian school economics and the ideas of ron paul.

i cant believe i wasted my valuable time to even respond to such drivel 

adios amigo go get your handout .

Farmer Brown's picture
Farmer Brown
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 23 2008
Posts: 1503
Talking Heads and Thick Skin

 

I hope nobody is surprised by this ignorant (that is a fact) and shallow post on another site.  People on this site, and Chris in particular, should ready themselves for the onslaught that is going to be launched at Chris, the Crash Course, and everything else on this site once it reaches a certain threshold viewing/reading audience.  That is natural, and hopefully it will be taken as the sign of success that it is.  

I said above this post was factually ignorant.  The reason I say that is because the entire purpose of the Crash Course, as Chris lays out numerous time in the CC itself and throughout this website, is help humanity not repeat the mistakes of the past!  He may not use those exact words, but I cannot see how that is not the case.  To say Chris is "not on board with humanity" has to be the most laughable thing I've heard in a long time!!!

Back to my original point, and my subject title:  To all of us who have actually taken the time to view the entire Crash Course, some of us multiple times, the message is logical, clear, and conclusive.  Once this site reaches a critical mass, however, there will be a number of people who will judge it by the conclusions it reaches without bothering to learn how those conclusions were reached.  These people will offer knee-jerk, and sometimes vicious criticism of what they perceive to be an attack on their world-view or world-order, of some sort or another.  

This is just human nature, and in a strange way, it is a sign of success.  There is a saying that goes, "If you're not catching any flack, you must not be over the target."   Well, it looks like Chris's CC is hitting some targets!  What's important is how we react to the criticism that is launched our way.  If we descend into the trench warfare defined by the status-quo political camps, and the trap of partisan and ideological bickering, we will have accomplished nothing.  Falling into any ideological camp is a trap because once you become pegged or labelled, nothing else you say matters because it will not be heard. 

If we strive to maintain a politically neutral tone and define issues based on facts (not opinions), as Chris has adeptly done, then we will be able to have our own seat at the table.  If we do not, it will be assumed that we share a seat with whichever ideology we are perceived to be a part of, and there goes any chance of any of these ideas taking hold in the public.

Peace out,

Patrick

 

Mike Pilat's picture
Mike Pilat
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 8 2008
Posts: 929
Re: Chris M. "... not on board with Obama – or humanity ...

well stated, Patrick.

Thank you.

caroline_culbert's picture
caroline_culbert
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 2 2008
Posts: 624
Re: Chris M. "... not on board with Obama – or humanity ...
Mike Pilat wrote:

2) The Obama housing bailout not only won't work but is also not fair to others for the simple reason that it forces responsible people to bailout the irresponsible. If fewer handouts were given in our system, each person would likely feel more willing to voluntarily help others.

By voluntarily handing over our taxes to the government we imply that we "allow" or "support" the government in whatever decisions they make?  I mean, we're not there to say yea or nay to every single itemization.  So why micromanage the government when we act as if we are macro-managing the government.  If you don't trust the government to make the decisions for you upon your (taxes) behalf, then why are you entrusting your tax dollars to them?

We complain yet we keep handing over money to the very system we dislike.

It's like hiring a financial advisor who invests your money poorly, complaining ceaselessly about it, never firing him/her, AND continuing to give him/her more money to invest. 

This doesn't make sense to me.

(I realize the system is more complicated than this but I thought I'd comment.)

Regardless of what we see, I think there is a lot we don't see (that they(gov) sees).  Also, there are a lot of people who seem very certain that what Obama is doing is "wrong".  I didn't realize there were so many psychics in the world.  We don't know if "it" will work, do we?

BTW: I do not support the bailout but I'm hoping I'm wrong and they know a little more than my speculative ideas.

TimesAwasting's picture
TimesAwasting
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 13 2008
Posts: 100
Re: Chris M. "... not on board with Obama – or humanity ...

Caroline,

Did you just say "voluntarily" handing over our taxes? If it is voluntarily, then I volunteer to keep my tax dollars.

Of course if I can get a cabinet position... taxes might be voluntary.

caroline_culbert's picture
caroline_culbert
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 2 2008
Posts: 624
Re: Chris M. "... not on board with Obama – or humanity ...
Pat Carney wrote:

Caroline,

Did you just say "voluntarily" handing over our taxes? If it is voluntarily, then I volunteer to keep my tax dollars.

Of course if I can get a cabinet position... taxes might be voluntary.

Yes; voluntary.  There's no law that states you have to file your taxes and/or pay.  (You might want to look this up-- I found this info. out from Zeitgeist)... sorry... lack of sufficient information.

Farmer Brown's picture
Farmer Brown
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 23 2008
Posts: 1503
Re: Chris M. "... not on board with Obama – or humanity ...
caroline_culbert wrote:

There's no law that states you have to file your taxes and/or pay. 
(You might want to look this up-- I found this info. out from
Zeitgeist)... sorry... lack of sufficient information.

Err, you may want to dig a little deeper: 

 

Income Tax Myths

"There's just no law requiring you to pay federal
income taxes."

The most basic myth of tax protestors is that there
is simply no law mandating the payment of income taxes. Frequently one
can observe anti-tax types to say something like, “if only someone
would show
me the law
that says that I have to file a tax return and pay taxes,
I’d be happy to do it.” I have a strong suspicion that people
who say that are not
serious
, but I’m going to take them at their word. Here are
the laws that (a) impose an income tax on you, (b) require you to file
an income tax return, and (c) require you to pay taxes:

§
1

 

 

The federal tax laws are contained in the Internal
Revenue Code, also known as Title 26 of the United States Code, which
is the compilation of laws passed by the Congress (“Title”
basically means “Volume” when applied to the U.S. Code as
a whole, so Title 26 is what might more casually be called Volume 26).

The Internal Revenue Code is the law that
requires people to pay taxes (and yes, the Internal Revenue Code is
the law -- for more detail on this point click here).

The most important statutory provision with regard
to income taxes is section one of the tax code, 26 U.S.C. §
1. This is the section that actually imposes the income tax. It’s
very simply written. If you are unmarried, the relevant provision is
§ 1(c), which states:

26 U.S.C. §
1
There is hereby imposed on the taxable
income of every individual . . . who is not a married individual
a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

followed by a table specifying the tax rates on various
income amounts. If you are married, you are covered by the similar provision
at § 1(a). There are also a couple of other possible filing statuses
covered elsewhere in § 1 (such as “head of household”),
but the basic point is that section 1 imposes an income tax.

§
61
and § 63

 

 

Section 1, it will be observed, imposes the tax on
your “taxable income.” How do you know what that is? Section
63 of the Code, 26 U.S.C. § 63, defines “taxable income”
to mean “gross income minus the deductions allowed” by chapter
1 of the Code, so now we need to know what “gross income”
is. So we turn to section 61 of the Code, 26 U.S.C. § 61, which
provides the critical definition:

26 U.S.C. § 61

[G]ross income means all income from whatever
source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe
benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
. . .

There are 15 items in the full list (I’ve only
quoted the first seven), but the key part of the definition is that
gross income means “all income from whatever source derived.”

So, between sections 1, 61, and 63, we see that the
tax code passed by Congress imposes a tax on your taxable income, which
includes all your income, from whatever source derived, less the deductions
allowed by the tax laws. So the tax laws do impose a tax on
you.

Now, how do you know that you have to file a tax return and actually
pay the tax?

§
6012 and § 6151

 

 

Section 6151 of the code, 26 U.S.C. § 6151, says:

26 U.S.C. § 6151

[W]hen a return of tax is required under this
title or regulations, the person required to make such return
shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary,
pay such tax to the internal revenue officer with whom the return
is filed, and shall pay such tax at the time and place fixed for
filing the return (determined without regard to any extension
of time for filing the return).

So according to this section, if you are required
to file a tax return, you are required to pay the tax owed, to pay it
at the time you file your return, and to pay it to the internal revenue
officer with whom you file the return.

But who says you’re required to file the return?
Turn back to section 6012(a) of the code, 26 U.S.C. § 6012(a),
which provides:

26 U.S.C. § 6012(a)

Returns with respect to income taxes * * *
shall be made by the following:
(1)(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income
which equals or exceeds the exemption amount * * *.

The “exemption amount” is defined in 26
U.S.C. § 151(d) as $2000, adjusted for inflation since 1989. You
can see the exact amount for the current tax year in the IRS instructions
to form 1040. If you have more income than this amount, section 6012
requires you to file a tax return (except that if you’re married,
section 6013 gives you the option of filing a joint return with your
spouse).

So there it is:

Sections 1, 61, and 63 impose the tax,
Section 6012 requires you to file a tax return if you have
income of more than the exemption amount, and
Section 6151 requires you to pay the tax at the time and place
fixed for the filing of your return.

§
6072

 

 

And when is your return due? Section 6072 provides
the answer: “[R]eturns made on the basis of the calendar year
shall be filed on or before the 15th day of April following the close
of the calendar year.” This is the statutory basis for the familiar
April 15 tax deadline.

Of course, there’s a lot more to know if you
want to achieve a full understanding of the tax system. For example,
other statutes besides the ones quoted above create the extensive system
of tax “withholding,” whereby you actually pay your taxes
on your wages in advance, each time you receive a paycheck, so that
on the day your return is due the government usually ends up owing you
a refund. If you have substantial amounts of unearned income, there
are also other statutes that require you to pay estimated taxes each
quarter. And, needless to say, there are innumerable, complex statutes
that more specifically define how much income tax you owe. But you only
need to look at a few, relatively simple statutes to see that the duty
to pay income tax is mandatory. You can look up the above statutes yourself
in any law library (just ask the librarian to help you find Title 26
of the United States Code.) These statutes demonstrate that the claim
that there is no law requiring average Americans to file income tax
returns or pay income tax is complete nonsense.

 

From: http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/JustNoLaw.htm 

 

 

SamLinder's picture
SamLinder
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 10 2008
Posts: 1499
Re: Chris M. "... not on board with Obama – or humanity ...
caroline_culbert wrote:
Pat Carney wrote:

Caroline,

Did you just say "voluntarily" handing over our taxes? If it is voluntarily, then I volunteer to keep my tax dollars.

Of course if I can get a cabinet position... taxes might be voluntary.

Yes; voluntary.  There's no law that states you have to file your taxes and/or pay.  (You might want to look this up-- I found this info. out from Zeitgeist)... sorry... lack of sufficient information.

Caroline,

Please - let's be realistic here. None of us are paying our taxes voluntarily (except, perhaps, a couple of extremely naive people). I don't care what Zeitgeist or any other "Don't Pay Taxes" web site says. Try not paying your federal taxes "voluntarily" and see what happens. It's been tried before and the "perps" usually wind up doing hard time. Try not paying your local taxes and you'll find the city and/or county and/or state tapping on your door and, if you currently own a house, you soon won't.

 

Edited to say, "Thank you Patrick!"

propamanda's picture
propamanda
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 17 2008
Posts: 61
Re: Chris M. "... not on board with Obama – or humanity ...

Very informative, Patrick, but I think you missed some fine print there...

 

Patrick Brown wrote:

Income Tax Myths

"There's just no law requiring you to pay federal
income taxes." ***

 

 

***
Unless your name is Timothy F. Geithner

 

 

 

Dogs_In_A_Pile's picture
Dogs_In_A_Pile
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 4 2009
Posts: 2606
Re: Chris M. "... not on board with Obama – or humanity ...
caroline_culbert wrote:

Yes; voluntary.  There's no law that states you have to file your taxes and/or pay.  (You might want to look this up-- I found this info. out from Zeitgeist)... sorry... lack of sufficient information.

A specific law - no.  The Constitution - yes.  And a well documented history of related case law. 

I think this is pretty clear - http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Additional_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Amendment_XVI

Amendment XVI

(Ratified February 3, 1913)

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.

This started the ball rolling:

The Pollock case

In the case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. the Supreme Court declared certain income taxes — taxes on income from property under the 1894 Act — to be unconstitutionally unapportioned direct taxes. The Court reasoned that a tax on income from property should be treated as a tax on "property by reason of its ownership," and should therefore be required to be apportioned. The reasoning was that taxes on the rents from land, the dividends from stocks and so on burdened the property generating the income in the same way that a tax on "property by reason of its ownership" burdened that property.

After Pollock, while income taxes on wages (as indirect taxes) were still not required to be apportioned by population, taxes on interest, dividends and rent income were required to be apportioned by population. The Pollock ruling made the source of the income (e.g., property versus labor, etc.) relevant in determining whether the tax imposed on that income was deemed to be "direct" (and thus required to be apportioned among the states according to population) or, alternatively, "indirect" (and thus required only to be imposed with geographical uniformity).

From 1895 up to when the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified, while Congress could have re-imposed taxes on income from labor and other non-property sources without apportionment by population, imposing taxes on interest, dividends and rent income would not have been practical (as the dollar amount of income from interest, dividends and rent would virtually never be exactly the same amount for each and every taxpayer in the United States for any year). The Congress was unwilling to impose an income tax on labor and other non-property sources without also imposing a tax on income from property — and taxes on income from property were no longer realistic. The Pollock ruling made imposition of an income tax politically unfeasible from 1895 until the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment. At the same time, the Congress was reflecting the growing concern among many elements of society that the wealthiest Americans had consolidated too much economic power.

In his dissent to the Pollock decision, Justice Harlan stated:

When, therefore, this court adjudges, as it does now adjudge, that Congress cannot impose a duty or tax upon personal property, or upon income arising either from rents of real estate or from personal property, including invested personal property, bonds, stocks, and investments of all kinds, except by apportioning the sum to be so raised among the States according to population, it practically decides that, without an amendment of the Constitution — two-thirds of both Houses of Congress and three-fourths of the States concurring — such property and incomes can never be made to contribute to the support of the national government.

This popped the rolling ball:

Pollock overruled

The Amendment overruled the effect of Pollock.  That essentially means that when imposing an income tax, the Congress may impose the tax on income from any source without having to apportion the total dollar amount of tax collected from each state according to each state's population in relation to the total national population.  In Abrams v. Commissioner, the United States Tax Court stated: "Since the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, it is immaterial with respect to income taxes, whether the tax is a direct or indirect tax. The whole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from [the requirement of] apportionment and from [the requirement of] a consideration of the source whence the income was derived."

Subsequent Case Law:

The Brushaber case

In Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1 (1916), the Supreme Court ruled that (1) the Sixteenth Amendment removes the Pollock requirement that certain income taxes (such as taxes on income "derived from real property" that were the subject of the Pollock decision), be apportioned among the states according to population; (2) the Federal income tax statute does not violate the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against the government taking property without due process of law; (3) the Federal income tax statute does not violate the uniformity clause of Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution (relating to the requirement that excises, also known as indirect taxes, be imposed with geographical uniformity).

The Kerbaugh-Empire Co. case

In Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170 (1926), the Supreme Court, through Justice Butler, stated:

It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had the power to tax all incomes. But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be "direct taxes" within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. [cites omitted] The Amendment relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes "from whatever source derived". [cites omitted] "Income" has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax of 1909 (36 Stat. 112), in the Sixteenth Amendment, and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed. [cites omitted] After full consideration, this court declared that income may be defined as gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, including profit gained through sale or conversion of capital.

The Glenshaw Glass case

In Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955), the Supreme Court laid out what has become the modern understanding of what constitutes 'gross income' to which the Sixteenth Amendment applies, declaring that income taxes could be levied on "accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion." Under this definition, any increase in wealth—whether through wages, benefits, bonuses, sale of stock or other property at a profit, bets won, lucky finds, awards of punitive damages in a lawsuit, qui tam actions—are all within the definition of income, unless the Congress makes a specific exemption as it has for items such as life insurance proceeds received by reason of the death of the insured party, gifts, bequests, devises and inheritances, and certain scholarships.

Income taxation of wages, etc.

The courts have interpreted the Sixteenth Amendment as standing for the rule that the Amendment allows a direct tax on "wages, salaries, commissions, etc. without apportionment."

The Penn Mutual case

Although the Sixteenth Amendment is often cited as the "source" of the Congressional power to tax incomes, at least one court has reiterated the point made in Brushaber and other cases that the Sixteenth Amendment itself did not grant the Congress the power to tax incomes (a power the Congress has had since 1789), but only removed the requirement, if any, that any income tax be apportioned among the states according to their respective populations. In the Penn Mutual Indemnity case, the United States Tax Court stated:

In dealing with the scope of the taxing power the question has sometimes been framed in terms of whether something can be taxed as income under the Sixteenth Amendment. This is an inaccurate formulation [ . . . ] and has led to much loose thinking on the subject. The source of the taxing power is not the Sixteenth Amendment; it is Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution.

In that same Penn Mutual Indemnity case, on appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit agreed, stating:

It did not take a constitutional amendment to entitle the United States to impose an income tax. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U. S. 429, 158 U. S. 601 (1895), only held that a tax on the income derived from real or personal property was so close to a tax on that property that it could not be imposed without apportionment. The Sixteenth Amendment removed that barrier. Indeed, the requirement for apportionment is pretty strictly limited to taxes on real and personal property and capitation taxes.

It is not necessary to uphold the validity of the tax imposed by the United States that the tax itself bear an accurate label. Indeed, the tax upon the distillation of spirits, imposed very early by federal authority, now reads and has read in terms of a tax upon the spirits themselves, yet the validity of this imposition has been upheld for a very great many years.

It could well be argued that the tax involved here [an income tax] is an "excise tax" based upon the receipt of money by the taxpayer. It certainly is not a tax on property and it certainly is not a capitation tax; therefore, it need not be apportioned. We do not think it profitable, however, to make the label as precise as that required under the Food and Drug Act. Congress has the power to impose taxes generally, and if the particular imposition does not run afoul of any constitutional restrictions then the tax is lawful, call it what you will.

The Murphy case

On December 22, 2006, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated its own unanimous August 2006 opinion in Murphy v. Internal Revenue Service and United States.  The original three judge panel then agreed to rehear the case itself. In its original August 2006 decision, the Court had ruled that 26 U.S.C. § 104(a)(2) was unconstitutional under the Sixteenth Amendment to the extent that the statute purported to tax, as income, a recovery for a non-physical personal injury for mental distress and loss of reputation not received in lieu of taxable income such as lost wages or earnings.

Because the August 2006 opinion was vacated, the full court did not hear the case en banc.

On July 3, 2007, the Court (through the original three-judge panel) ruled (1) that the taxpayer's compensation was received on account of a non-physical injury or sickness; (2) that gross income under section 61 of the Internal Revenue Codedoes include compensatory damages for non-physical injuries, even if the award is not an "accession to wealth," (3) that the income tax imposed on an award for non-physical injuries is an indirect tax, regardless of whether the recovery is restoration of "human capital," and therefore the tax does not violate the constitutional requirement of Article I, section 9, that capitations or other direct taxes must be laid among the states only in proportion to the population; (4) that the income tax imposed on an award for non-physical injuries does not violate the constitutional requirement of Article I, section 8, that all duties, imposts and excises be uniform throughout the United States; (5) that under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the Internal Revenue Service may not be sued in its own name.

The Court stated that "[a]lthough the 'Congress cannot make a thing income which is not so in fact,' [ . . . ] it can label a thing income and tax it, so long as it acts within its constitutional authority, which includes not only the Sixteenth Amendment but also Article I, Sections 8 and 9." The court ruled that Ms. Murphy was not entitled to the tax refund she claimed, and that the personal injury award she received was "within the reach of the congressional power to tax under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution" -- even if the award was "not income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment". See also the Penn Mutual case cited above.

On April 21, 2008, the Supreme Court declined to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.

 

What's unclear about this?

propamanda's picture
propamanda
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 17 2008
Posts: 61
Re: Chris M. "... not on board with Obama – or humanity ...

In all seriousness, though, and returning to the original topic at hand -

 Anyone who puts forth his views to the public will likely face
scrutiny sooner or later.  This is definitely true of President Obama, and
it is also true of Chris Martenson.  I think we can all agree that it
would be great if the economy would get back on track.  We just have a lot
of disagreements about what should be done to get it there.  I am under
the strong impression that most people, Obama included, lack a real
understanding of exactly what the problem is.  I hear a lot about
liquidity, liquidity, liquidity and very little about insolvency.  If one
approaches the problem assuming that a lack of liquidity is the only force
holding back the economy, I can understand WHY Obama would believe that paying mortgages
and insuring that more mortgages happen soon would clean things up.  Get
that money moving again and never mind the conditions. 

Unfortunately, the plan doesn't address the insolvency issue at all -

not on a consumer level("why did these people take out mortgages they
couldn't afford?

nor on a corporate level ("why were the banks making these bad loans in
the first place?")

nor on a government level ("how can we as a nation afford to pay off
all of this debt that we are taking on to fund the crisis?").

 

I agree with Chris's post that Obama's plan punishes responsible parties
because, frankly, it does.  Every one of these bailout measures punishes
responsible parties and reinforces irresponsible decision makers.  For
people like me, that sucks.  But I am increasingly getting the impression
that I am going to have to shoulder the burden of a society that, as a whole,
made a lot of really bad decisions.  Whether we like it or not, we're in
this country together. 

What really baffles me though, is that there is so much rage over the $75
billion promised directly to consumers, but I hear little complaint over the
$200 billion being given directly to the banks that issued these ridiculous
mortgages!  The $75 billion pales in comparison to the money being doled
out to the people who knowingly and purposefully constructed the system that is
becoming our downfall.  Why is that?  Is it because we can identify
with the people who bought too big of a house and we can say "I wouldn't
have done that!, " but it is harder for us to envision ourselves in the
place of the bankers?  I don't know.  I think the $75 billion is a
mere distraction from the disgraceful amount of money being passed to these
banks.   

 I know I'm inviting ridicule on this site for
saying this, but I really do like Obama - I believe that he was a symbol of
hope and change for us as a nation at a time when we needed that kind of
thing.  I also really do think that he wants to make a positive difference
in people's lives.  However, I think he has no idea what he's doing. 
Thus far, his policies are void of any real promise.  He offers plans that
seek simply to "stabilize" rather than heal.  He is taking
drastic steps to maintain the status quo rather than to take the opportunity to
improve.  In his defense, he has been handed an impossible problem and
been told to fix it.  Every time I read the news about the latest stimulus
nonsense, I can really feel my heart breaking at the thought of what is
happening to our country and what we have handed this guy in charge.

Amanda

strabes's picture
strabes
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 7 2009
Posts: 1032
Re: Chris M. "... not on board with Obama – or humanity ...
propamanda wrote:

Unfortunately, the plan doesn't address the insolvency issue at all -

Right on.  This is purely about solvency and an already insolvent government can do nothing to save an insolvent industry.  Short-term liquidity problems can be addressed.  Fundamental insolvency is hopeless.  All this money is being thrown away...just a huge wealth transfer from taxpayers to super-rich banksters.

 

propamanda wrote:

What really baffles me though, is that there is so much rage over the $75 billion promised directly to consumers, but I hear little complaint over the $200 billion being given directly to the banks that issued these ridiculous mortgages!

That's what I've been screaming and screaming and screaming about until I lost my voice on Chris' blog.  I'm glad you took over until I get my voice back.  Cool  But it's way more than $200 billion.  It's $10 trillion...possibly even more given that a lot of what the Fed does is kept secret.  This is the biggest mafia shakedown in history with the banks shaking down all 350,000,000 of us.  We need to stick together as 350,000,000 serfs fighting the elite rather than fighting each other about who's getting some meager help on their individual mortgage.

propamanda wrote:

However, I think he has no idea what he's doing.

I agree he was a real symbol of hope.  The way he dealt with the race issue was inspiring...a 3rd way guy who transcended the boring left/right paradigm.  But I equally agree he has no clue (or possibly he was just faking the hope stuff and he's part of the elite conspiracy and the Bilderberg/CFR types...he filled his presidency with Clinton types so he wasn't being honest during the campaign).  And that's kinda the important part eh?  to know what one is doing...... 

 

 

Set's picture
Set
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 26 2008
Posts: 112
Re: Chris M. "... not on board with Obama – or humanity ...

I thought Chris's analysis of the bail out plan was an excellent example of critical thinking applied to the usually misleading main stream media.  I would guess that most people don't have nearly the degree of critical thinking skills as Chris and this was a sort of mini lesson in critical thinking.  It was also the truth as seen by most educated and rational people. 

If more people were to develop their critical thinking skills to the level that Chris has, the corporate owned media would be less able to fool the vast majority into a complacency or false sense of security the way they seem to have so successfully done.  Here is a link to a great documentary about our media that everyone should watch

.http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=orwell+rolls+in+his+grave&hl=en&emb=0&aq=1&oq=orwell#

To imply that it is wrong or unpatriotic to criticize our government is pure ignorance at its highest level.  The government is supposed to represent and address the wants and needs of the majority.  The government is not supposed to act like parents to their children and expect unconditional obedience and respect, especially in light of the fact that they have done such a poor job of representing us.  It is not only the right, but the duty of “we the people” to voice our opinions about any and all policies or laws that the government imposes on us. 

The link between politics and the three E’s is obvious and anyone who is unable to see this is blind.  It is not unpatriotic to criticize our elected representatives.  It is unpatriotic to stand by and say nothing as the hard earned freedoms and rights that we used to enjoy are slowly stripped away from people who don’t deserve our respect.  They must earn it like everyone else.     

 

hucklejohn's picture
hucklejohn
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 13 2008
Posts: 281
Re: Chris M. "... not on board with Obama – or humanity ...

Excellent post by Set.

stan.chucks's picture
stan.chucks
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 2 2008
Posts: 21
Re: Chris M. "... not on board with Obama – or humanity ...

I agree Mike,

Mike wrote:

Far from promoting the notion that each person should only "save themselves" at all costs, I think Chris is urging prudence:

1) We must make ourselves viable before we're even capable of helping
others. We will be a burden to others if we can't address our needs
first. The stronger each person is as an individual, the more they are
able to help others when there are bumps in the road. If our nation is
insolvent, there seem to be barriers to helping anyone with anything.
Maybe the government should clean its house first.

2) The Obama housing bailout not only won't work but is also not fair to others for the simple reason that it forces
responsible people to bailout the irresponsible. If fewer handouts were
given in our system, each person would likely feel more willing to
voluntarily help others.

We are reminded of this every time we fly when the atendant goes through the safety drill - "....first apply the oxygen mask to yourself and then to your child....." On hearing this I still feel a sense of unease but on reflection the sense of it is clear. The "soft" option in life is not generally the best option.

Stan 

grl's picture
grl
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 30 2008
Posts: 188
Re: Chris M. "... not on board with Obama – or humanity ...
propamanda wrote:

What really baffles me though, is that there is so much rage over the $75 billion promised directly to consumers, but I hear little complaint over the $200 billion being given directly to the banks that issued these ridiculous mortgages!  The $75 billion pales in comparison to the money being doled out to the people who knowingly and purposefully constructed the system that is becoming our downfall.  Why is that?  Is it because we can identify with the people who bought too big of a house and we can say "I wouldn't have done that!, " but it is harder for us to envision ourselves in the place of the bankers?  I don't know.  I think the $75 billion is a mere distraction from the disgraceful amount of money being passed to these banks.   

 

For some reason that quote finally clicked with me. I could not figure out why there were so many posts jumping all over Chris and those of us who agreed with him that the recent $75 billion for irresponsible (yes, irresponsible) mortgage holders was a very bad development. Why all the wrath? I conjectured that perhaps it was because Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives jumped on this bandwagon and thus it was just a knee-jerk partisan reaction from those who aren't fond of Rush and his ilk. (I also am not fond of them just btw) But didn't you all see that Chris and just about everyone else on this site was equally disgusted with all the other bailouts, including those that happened pre-Obama, when maybe the conservatives were on board? I don't think Chris or most anyone else here were singling out the "homeowner bailout."  Still there is no denying that this latest "bailout" caused more reaction than any other, no doubt it was disproportionate to the amount of the bailout and its effect.

So Propamanda brings up the idea that maybe it is because we can identify with the people who irresponsibly got into mortgages while responsible individuals did not. I think there is much truth to that. If you think about it, the banks and the mortgage companies were irresponsible and greedy. But they are complex organizations with no one decision-maker pulling all the strings. It is hard to relate and get angry at the complexity of their irresponsibility and greed; it is hard to lay blame. I have friends who were on the low end of the feeding chain, mortgage brokers here at ground zero (Newport Beach, Ca) but it is hard for me to look at them and see them as irresponsible and greedy. They were just part of an organism on a feeding frenzy. On the other hand, I also have friends who got in over their heads on a mortgage. Why? Well, they definitely knew what they were doing but they wanted to believe, despite the simplest common sense otherwise, that housing prices always go up. They were irresponsible and greedy (yes, greedy!) all on their own - not part of an organization with a much simpler decision making process than all the thousands of people who contributed on the banking/mortgage side. For that reason, this latest bailout crossed a line.

cmartenson's picture
cmartenson
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 7 2007
Posts: 5754
Re: Chris M. "... not on board with Obama – or humanity ...

The latest blog on the front page is for you and others who weren't here a few months back....we have definitely been all over the situation for quite a while as LisaG noted....

If you want to find more just type "looting" into the search bar, grab a cup of coffee, and plan to spend some time reading.

Best,
Chris

caroline_culbert's picture
caroline_culbert
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 2 2008
Posts: 624
Re: Chris M. "... not on board with Obama – or humanity ...
Set wrote:

To imply that it is wrong or unpatriotic to criticize our government is pure ignorance at its highest level.  The government is supposed to represent and address the wants and needs of the majority.  

The government is not necessarily "supposed to represent and address the wants and needs of the majority".  It just happens that that is exactly what is being done now; at least that is what I see happening.

caroline_culbert's picture
caroline_culbert
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 2 2008
Posts: 624
Re: Chris M. "... not on board with Obama – or humanity ...
Lisa G wrote:
propamanda wrote:

What really baffles me though, is that there is so much rage over the $75 billion promised directly to consumers, but I hear little complaint over the $200 billion being given directly to the banks that issued these ridiculous mortgages!  The $75 billion pales in comparison to the money being doled out to the people who knowingly and purposefully constructed the system that is becoming our downfall.  Why is that?  Is it because we can identify with the people who bought too big of a house and we can say "I wouldn't have done that!, " but it is harder for us to envision ourselves in the place of the bankers?  I don't know.  I think the $75 billion is a mere distraction from the disgraceful amount of money being passed to these banks.   

 

For some reason that quote finally clicked with me. I could not figure out why there were so many posts jumping all over Chris and those of us who agreed with him that the recent $75 billion for irresponsible (yes, irresponsible) mortgage holders was a very bad development. Why all the wrath? I conjectured that perhaps it was because Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives jumped on this bandwagon and thus it was just a knee-jerk partisan reaction from those who aren't fond of Rush and his ilk. (I also am not fond of them just btw) But didn't you all see that Chris and just about everyone else on this site was equally disgusted with all the other bailouts, including those that happened pre-Obama, when maybe the conservatives were on board? I don't think Chris or most anyone else here were singling out the "homeowner bailout."  Still there is no denying that this latest "bailout" caused more reaction than any other, no doubt it was disproportionate to the amount of the bailout and its effect.

So Propamanda brings up the idea that maybe it is because we can identify with the people who irresponsibly got into mortgages while responsible individuals did not. I think there is much truth to that. If you think about it, the banks and the mortgage companies were irresponsible and greedy. But they are complex organizations with no one decision-maker pulling all the strings. It is hard to relate and get angry at the complexity of their irresponsibility and greed; it is hard to lay blame. I have friends who were on the low end of the feeding chain, mortgage brokers here at ground zero (Newport Beach, Ca) but it is hard for me to look at them and see them as irresponsible and greedy. They were just part of an organism on a feeding frenzy. On the other hand, I also have friends who got in over their heads on a mortgage. Why? Well, they definitely knew what they were doing but they wanted to believe, despite the simplest common sense otherwise, that housing prices always go up. They were irresponsible and greedy (yes, greedy!) all on their own - not part of an organization with a much simpler decision making process than all the thousands of people who contributed on the banking/mortgage side. For that reason, this latest bailout crossed a line.

Yes... I agree.

 

And... maybe, just maybe, somewhere in the near future the new administration will not say "go shopping" but start saying "save/ save more", or at least imply it.  I think this is the hope.  Give advice, not force, and "hope" that grown-ups make the right/wise decisions of their own will-- not someone's administrative plans.

 

Then... it's sad to advise people to "save" because that means you are not advocating shopping.  If you're not advocating increase spending habits then "you'll help a small business go bust". 

 

What do you do?  These are some of the things I'd be thinking about when addressing the nation; What in the heck do you advise people to do and hope for?  People, I think, genuinely WANT to help but what should they do?  I say let people start making decisions for themselves, aka critical thinking, and let them bear some responsibility.  If the gov. makes all the decisions and directives then they also take all the blame and burden.

 

Again... what do you do?  What a conundrum.

 

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
Re: Chris M. "... not on board with Obama – or humanity ...

Shortly after class, an economics student approaches his economics
professor and says, "I don't understand this
stimulus bill. Can you explain it to me?" The professor replied, "I
don't have any time to explain it at my office, but if you come over
to my house on Saturday and help me with my weekend project, I'll be
glad to explain it to you." The student agreed.

At the agreed-upon time, the student showed up at the professors house.

The professor stated that the weekend project involved his backyard
pool. They both went out back to the pool, and the professor handed
the student a bucket. Demonstrating with his own bucket, the
professor said, "First, go over to the deep end, and fill your
bucket with as much water as you can." The student did as he was
instructed. The professor then continued, "Follow me over to the
shallow end, and then dump all the water from your bucket into it."
The student was naturally confused, but did as he was told.

The professor then explained they were going to do this many more
times, and began walking back to the deep end of the pool. The
confused student asked, "Excuse me, but why are we doing this?" The
professor matter-of-factly stated that he was trying to make the
shallow end much deeper.

The student didn't think the economics professor was serious, but
figured that he would find out the real story soon enough. However,
after the 6th trip between the shallow end and the deep end, the
student began to become worried that his economics professor had
gone mad.

The student finally replied, "All we're doing is wasting valuable
time and effort on unproductive pursuits. Even worse, when this
process is all over, everything will be at the same level it was
before, so all you'll really have accomplished is the destruction of
what could have been truly productive action!"

The professor put down his bucket and replied with a smile,
"Congratulations. You now understand the stimulus bill."

strabes's picture
strabes
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 7 2009
Posts: 1032
Re: Chris M. "... not on board with Obama – or humanity ...

Love the pool analogy.  But it's even worse than that.  The bankers actually have a separate pool all to themselves and the buckets are being poured into that one while our big pool goes down.  And at the same time, given all the systemic interference and the breakdown of free markets as a result of the government bucket operation, cracks are forming in the pool's foundation and the water is starting to leak out.

The govt isn't just engaging in unproductive zero-sum action...it's destructive action. 

 

caroline_culbert's picture
caroline_culbert
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 2 2008
Posts: 624
Re: Chris M. "... not on board with Obama – or humanity ...

I think they've tainted the pool water by peeing in it.

Set's picture
Set
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 26 2008
Posts: 112
Re: Chris M. "... not on board with Obama – or humanity ...
caroline_culbert wrote:
Set wrote:

To imply that it is wrong or unpatriotic to criticize our government is pure ignorance at its highest level.  The government is supposed to represent and address the wants and needs of the majority.  

The government is not necessarily "supposed to represent and address the wants and needs of the majority".  It just happens that that is exactly what is being done now; at least that is what I see happening.

 

If the government is not supposed to represent the wants and needs of the majority then who are they supposed to represent?    Also, you say that is exactly what you see happening.  In what way are they addressing the wants and needs of the majority?  As I see it, the government is merely attempting to address the wants and needs of the elite and the irresponsible people whose greed and ignorance got us into the mess we now find ourselves, and whose population far from represents the majority.      

RussB's picture
RussB
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 9 2008
Posts: 101
Re: Chris M. "... not on board with Obama – or humanity ...

 

Quote:

 Caroline says

Regardless of what we see, I think there is a lot we don't see (that they(gov) sees). Also, there are a lot of people who seem very certain that what Obama is doing is "wrong". I didn't realize there were so many psychics in the world. We don't know if "it" will work, do we?

BTW: I do not support the bailout but I'm hoping I'm wrong and they know a little more than my speculative ideas.

Oh my. You and I agreed at one of the religion threads, but here I can't follow this statement of fundamentalist faith.

Exactly what got America into Iraq.

caroline_culbert's picture
caroline_culbert
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 2 2008
Posts: 624
Re: Chris M. "... not on board with Obama – or humanity ...
RussB wrote:

 

Quote:

 Caroline says

Regardless of what we see, I think there is a lot we don't see (that they(gov) sees). Also, there are a lot of people who seem very certain that what Obama is doing is "wrong". I didn't realize there were so many psychics in the world. We don't know if "it" will work, do we?

BTW: I do not support the bailout but I'm hoping I'm wrong and they know a little more than my speculative ideas.

Oh my. You and I agreed at one of the religion threads, but here I can't follow this statement of fundamentalist faith.

Exactly what got America into Iraq.

I'm sorry... I don't follow you.  Can you further your explanation please?

p.s.

It's very hard to make predictions.  I can't see into the future.  I'm taking everything at face value right now.  That's all I can do.  AND I'm not in a position to make any types of judements b/c I do not know enough.  Maybe you do; but I do not.  Perhaps if I were in Washington, gathering all the inside information and etc., then I might be able to make a decision based on the face value of the (better?) information.

caroline_culbert's picture
caroline_culbert
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 2 2008
Posts: 624
Re: Chris M. "... not on board with Obama – or humanity ...
Set wrote:
caroline_culbert wrote:
Set wrote:

To imply that it is wrong or unpatriotic to criticize our government is pure ignorance at its highest level.  The government is supposed to represent and address the wants and needs of the majority.  

The government is not necessarily "supposed to represent and address the wants and needs of the majority".  It just happens that that is exactly what is being done now; at least that is what I see happening.

 

If the government is not supposed to represent the wants and needs of the majority then who are they supposed to represent?    Also, you say that is exactly what you see happening.  In what way are they addressing the wants and needs of the majority?  As I see it, the government is merely attempting to address the wants and needs of the elite and the irresponsible people whose greed and ignorance got us into the mess we now find ourselves, and whose population far from represents the majority.      

I'm not an absolutist.  I usually don't determine, or say, that the gov. is "supposed" to do 'x'.  I do sometimes state opinons based on what actions I perform such as pay taxes and etc; but it's very hard for me to say that the gov. is "supposed to represent and address the wants and needs of the majority".

Here is where I'm coming from-- it's kind of complicated (and may seem contradictory).

1.  I don't like the State (but since I've never lived w/o the State it's hard for me to determine actions accordingly)

2.  I think the State could improve

3.  The State could be anything other than a non-state

4.  The State could/should represent the majority/minority (depending upon the position one's in)

5.  I can imagine living without the state (and imagine not paying taxes)

6.  The founding fathers of America left one State to create a new State

7.  I like having the services provided by the State

8.  I wonder what it would be like to live a community without the State

9.  I do not want to make this decision; I'm not comfortable doing this.

10.  So is the gov. representing the majority?  I think under the previous administration it was representing a particular minority; but now the gov. is transitioning into representing the majority.  I defend Obama only for his ability and not necessarily what is brought about by his ability esp. since I don't know what will be brought about (I am not psychic).

 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments