[thestein51]

Here’s another one:
12) a lower court decide that: “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.”
MURPHY v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, DC Cir. No. 05-5139 (2006)

[thestein51]

Wikipedia claims he was not an abolitionist. And only softened when he proposed his ‘New Departure’ Democratic party platform right before his accidental death by his own hand.

[thestein51]

I think it is important to mention the extent to which the conditions (rules to exercise the privilege) of government employment go. For two and half centuries of Common Law one of those conditions has been that the exercise of government privilege of whatever sort or fashion (employment, officeholding, contracting, etc.) can be taxed. This privilege or excise tax is generally always measured by the gain, profit or income that the privilege produces. Blackstone’s ninth excise and Sections 86 and 90 of the 1862 internal revenue act are excellent examples of this privilege tax or excise. Most of the States utilize this tax via their personal income tax acts, as do the Feds, since 1862.

[thestein51]

The distinction is that it is mandatory to whom it applies and voluntary to whom it does not apply.
Employee: “The term specifically includes officers and employees whether elected or appointed, of the United States, a State, Territory, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing.”

The law simply does not apply to private sector individuals, because if it did it would be unconstitutional. But private sector individuals can voluntarily step into the federal jurisdiction, to the government’s glee, and be treated just as if they were federal “employees.” This the legal vehicle that the constitutionally frustrated FDR capitalized upon. The Feds can’t step into the private sector, so for the benefit of the individual, during tough times, they’ll now let him step into theirs under the sworn to fiction that they are a government “employee” receiving, or a government “employer” paying, “wages”.

Of course, the game the government plays here is that it gives common words in popular general usage very limited definitions, like the above example for “Employee.” Then it releases official statements like: Social Security is mandatory for all “employees” and their “employers.” Which is perfectly true when the true definition of “employee” and “employer” is known and the federal government’s limited jurisdiction is understood. So the unwary are led to the lair by the oldest trick in the book: Surreptitiously changing the meaning of words. I use surreptitious not in the sense that government is intentionally hiding the new definition, but in the sense that it willfully makes such statements knowing full well that the average joe will never take the time to find the real meaning and instead just rely on the common meaning and some supposed expert’s opinion.

The government has no requirement and definitely no desire to tell you what the definition of “employee” is, other than through the written law. The SS reg cited above, which clearly defines the term, is proper notice. That’s all they legally have to do. The task for a citizen committed to the rule of law and liberty is to 1) find the written law, 2) understand the limited jurisdiction context in which it is written 3) use discernment in evaluating the barrage of political propaganda that will more than likely be contrary to the written law, 4) apply the law as written. Evidently not an easy task for the depression weary citizen or the generations following.

If all this is as thick as mud, it just so happens that Social Security is just another form of income tax and when one understands the income tax he by default understands Social Security. So read my latest post: ‘Blackstone and Dowell: The Income Excise Revealed’ in the Constitutional History forum for a discussion of the evolution of the income tax.

You said: “An amendment was proposed making it optional…” Yes, for government “employees” or “employers”, because that’s the only class that the Feds have jurisdiction over in regards to a social insurance ponzi scheme. They can say ‘its your choice’ or ‘you have no choice’, but only for government “employees” and “employers”. The reason FDR objected vehemently to optionality is that it would seriously frustrate the mandatory-myth misapplication to private sector individuals.

For an excellent and concise discussion of SSN’s go here:
http://losthorizons.com/Documents/SSNs.htm

[thestein51]

No offense intended, but unfortunately its probably true. Luckily ignorance can be fixed, stupidity not. And stupid you are surely not! Heck, I and thousands of other freedom seeking Americans have overcome the very same propaganda from which you now suffer. The extra steeping that you have received makes it harder for you to except that 1) you missed the lie yourself, 2) that your trusted and revered mentors and colleagues did so also. You are certainly intelligent and open-minded enough to overcome that mind game. Yet, on the other hand, you and every other libertarian will properly contend that for limited government to advance its powers beyond those granted it must necessarily lie to do so. Only, the income tax is given a oh-I- better-not-look-there pass, satisfied with the mountain of fear-based BS that has driven you into that pragmatic position in the first place.
Have you read Blackstone?
See my new post in Constitutional History: Blackstone and Dowell: The Income Excise Revealed for a discussion of Blackstone and his follow-up reporter Dowell in relation to the evolution of the income tax.

[thestein51]

The definitions of “wages” and “employer”, as found in the codified law, 26 USC, are compound definitions and rely upon the definition of “employee.” As laid out in the Federal Register published on Tuesday, September 7, 1943 in response to the adoption of the Current Tax Payment Act of 1943 we find the first regulatory expression of that definition in the Social Security regs:
§404.104 Employee. The term “employee” includes every individual performing services if the relationship between him and the person for whom he performs such services is the legal relationship of employer and employee. The term specifically includes officers and employees whether elected or appointed, of the United States, a State, Territory, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing.

I hope everyone appreciates the significance of the use above of the word “specifically” and will endeavor to honestly answer the question: Is social security mandatory for private sector persons? Or have we just ignorantly volunteered into it based upon lies that it is mandatory?

[thestein51]

For those who have not taken the time to read Blackstone, his ninth excise reads as follows:
“The ninth and last branch of the king’s extraordinary perpetual revenue is the duty upon offices and pensions; consisting in an annual payment of 1s. in the pound (over and above all other duties)(k) out of all salaries, fees, and perquisites, of offices and pensions payable by the crown, exceeding the value of 100l. per annum. This highly popular taxation was imposed by statute 31 Geo. II. c. 22, and is under the direction of the commissioners of the land tax.”
Footnote (k): “Previous to this, a deduction of 6d. in the pound was charged on all pensions and annuities, and all salaries, fees and wages of all offices of profit granted by or derived from the crown, in order to pay interest at the rate of three per cent. on one million, which was raised for discharging the debts on the civil list, by statutes 7 Geo. I. st. 1, c. 27; 11 Geo. I. c. 17; and 12 Geo.I. c. 2. …”

Of course this tax, or more accurately, this excise, did not go to the grave with Blackstone. Stephen Dowell in his 1888 ‘A History Of Taxation and Taxes in England’, Vol. III, pg. 90 discusses the further evolution of the Office Duty:
“That part of the old land tax which was collected from public offices and employment–’in respect of any public office, or employment, or any salaries, gratuities, bounty monies, rewards, fees, profits, perquisites or advantages therefrom’–had been extended, by Pitt, to ‘persons receiving annuities, pensions, stipends and other yearly payments charged upon the exchequer or any branch of the revenue, or secured to be paid by any person or persons otherwise than as a charge on lands,’ and, as thus extended, had been formed into a separate tax.”
He is discussing the office duty as expressed in Pitt’s Property and Income Tax, 1799-1802.

Dowell continues the story with Addington’s Property and Income Tax, 1803-06, beginning at pg. 99. The old office duty, now a part of a comprehensive property and income tax statute, was expressed in Schedules C and E. (It should be noted that Schedules A, B and D, were without question general direct taxes.) Dowell summarized them:

“Schedule C, the tax on fundholders, in respect of profits arising from annuities payable out of any public revenues…”

“Schedule E contained the charge on persons deriving income from any public office or employment of profit, and included also persons receiving any annuity, pension or stipend payable by the Crown or out of public revenue. The plan of this schedule was to make responsible for the payment of the tax those who paid the salary, annuity, pension or stipend, who in their turn, were to deduct the amount on paying the person entitled. This provision effectually prevented evasions, and therefore a wide sweep was given to the net, and by definition, the term ‘public office or employment’ was extended so as to include all offices in public institutions, and public foundations under any trustees or guardians of any county or municipal fund, tolls, or duties; those held under any corporation or any company or society, corporate or not corporate; and, generally, every other public office or employment of profit of a public nature.”

Is it just a coincidence that the American 1862 income excise tax on the exercise of federal government privilege was expressed in two statutes: Sec. 86 which mirrored Schedule E and Sec. 90 which mirrored Schedule C?
To see these statute sections of 1862 American tax law go here:

http://losthorizons.com/Newsletter/MythBusters/Pagesfrom1939IRCode.pdf

Dowell then proceeds to review the income tax recently in force in England for the periods 1879-80 and 1884-5. These mirror those of the Addington period.

“Schedule C: The third branch, termed schedule C, touches income from any public revenue, imperial, colonial, or foreign, and under this schedule the amount received is charged. The assessment, as regards dividends from the Funds and other imperial revenue, is made by commissioners for the purpose, from information derived from official documents in their possession; and the tax is deducted from the dividends or other payments and paid into the Bank to the account of the revenue. As regards income from investments in colonial or foreign government securities, the plan of the tax is to require all persons entrusted with the payment of the income in this country to deliver accounts to the SPECIAL COMMISSIONERS–in order that they may make out the assessments and raise a charge.”

“Schedule E. A fourth branch, termed schedule E, touches persons in the employment of the state, or in other public employments of profit. The assessment and collection is easily effected, ad unguem, as regards official incomes in the strict sense of the term, in the departments concerned; while as regards other employments of profit in public corporations or companies, the treasurer or other such officer is required to do all acts requisite for the assessment of the officers of the corporation or company. The increase in the number of public companies renders this a growing schedule.”

There should now be no misunderstanding as to what an excise on the exercise of government privilege consists of and how it operates. You can be sure that nineteenth and early twentieth century American legislators and lawyers understood it and would not confuse it with a direct tax or wish to abandon it for one. That’s why the Pollack decision received so much derision, because it ignored over 150 years of precedent. And why the purpose of the sixteenth amendment was to overturn that decision to return to Congress the power to tax privileged incomes, from whatever source derived, that it had utilized all through the 1862-1872 era.

For the most accurate and concise discussion of the 16th Amendment ever written go here:

http://losthorizons.com/Documents/TheTruthAboutThe16thAmendment.pdf

[thestein51]

I wholeheartedly agree. But the idea that “the Founders” were all exponents of classical liberalism is not. Hamilton was on the fringe definitely, but still a proud proponent of the main tenet of liberalism: private property as the means of production. Did Hamilton ever suggest or support that the federal government had a power to establish minimum wage laws upon the people generally? Probably not. Or upon its employees, only? Maybe. Did he establish minimum wage guidelines for the Treasury Dept. when he was there? Maybe. Did he suggest or support that New York establish minimum wage laws generally upon the people of that state? Probably not. Or upon its employees, only? Possibly. Did he established a minimum wage for the employees of his law firm? Possibly. We’ll probably never know the answers for sure because we don’t care to look. But my hunch is that Hamilton understood the key jurisdictional issues involved with the minimum wage and never ventured into the general authority realm because the power simply doesn’t exist under a liberal system.

[thestein51]

Since this vitally important information about the income tax is probably new to you it is undoubtedly you who have the questions. My only question would be when is the truth about the income tax going to be included in the otherwise fabulous lectures?

[thestein51]

Pete Hendrickson has recently posted the most concise and accurate discussion of the Sixteenth Amendment ever written:
http://losthorizons.com/Documents/TheTruthAboutThe16thAmendment.pdf

[thestein51]

Undoing a lifetime of brainwashing is not an easy task. Especially at your level of indoctrination. Like Mark Twain said: “It’s not what we don’t know that harms us; it’s what we do know that ain’t so.” Face it, the government and its myriad of interested camp followers have lied to you your whole life about the income tax. It has been since the Civil War and is today an excise on the exercise of federal privilege. Are you engaged in the exercise of federal privilege? Probably not! Then why do you declare that you are each and every year? Because you have been lied to. Only now you know the truth or at least a little of it. Is it really like mastering the literature on the Kennedy assassination? If you get into it you’ll find it infinitely more liberating. In fact you’ll find that the income excise tax is actually the most libertarian of all forms
of taxation. See Blackstone’s ninth excise.

[thestein51]

If one desires answers to these questions I suggest Pete Hendrickson’s latest:

losthorizons.com/Documents/TheTruthAboutThe16thAmendment.pdf

[thestein51]

From the point of view of classical liberalism, of which the Founder’s were proud espousers, the power to determine what was a fair minimum wage was solely an individual’s power. To grant to government such a power would constitute such a gross violation of property and contract rights that to just consider such a grant of power would constitute lunacy. But of course the individual right was well recognized not just for natural persons but for entities of all kinds, including governments. For example the Federal government can require that its officers and employees will never be paid less than a certain minimum wage. It can require that companies that contract with it to abide by its minimum wage guidelines or, for that matter, its prevailing wage guidelines. It can also require that its employees, officers and contractors participate in a social insurance ponzi scheme. Or a corrupt medical insurance program! The States could adopt these guidelines for themselves and their employees and contractors, as well. Private companies which have no federal or state connections could also adopt these guidelines. But nowhere, here in America, has a grant of power been given to governments to determine what the minimum wage is for private sector individuals or companies. Or to require them to participate in Social Security or Obamacare. We are outside of their jurisdiction, but we can ignorantly enter it voluntarily. Big oppressive governments like it when we do.

[thestein51]

Vincent, try Murray Rothbard’s “An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought” both volumes. I’m sure you could find it online at mises.org.

[thestein51]

Mises wrote in “Liberalism” (first published in 1927 in German): “The philosophers, sociologists, and economists of the eighteenth and the early part of the nineteenth century formulated a political program that served as a guide to social policy first in England and the United States, then on the European continent, and finally in the other parts of the inhabited world as well. Nowhere was this program ever completely carried out. Even in England, which has been called the homeland of liberalism and the model liberal country, the proponents of liberal policies never succeeded in winning all their demands. In the rest of the world only parts of the liberal program were adopted, while others, no less important, were either rejected from the very first or discarded after a short time. Only with some exaggeration can one say that the world once lived through a liberal era. Liberalism was never permitted to come to full fruition.

Nevertheless, brief and all too limited as the supremacy of liberal ideas was, it sufficed to change the face of the earth. A magnificent economic development took place. The release of man’s productive powers multiplied the means of subsistence many times over. On the eve of the World War (which was itself the result of a long and bitter struggle against the liberal spirit and which ushered in a period of still more bitter attacks on liberal principles), the world was incomparably more densely populated than it had ever been, and each inhabitant could live incomparably better than had been possible in earlier centuries.”

Read the rest at Mises.org.

[Author]

Posts