America Freedom to Fascism

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,291
19,310
146
Originally posted by: destrekor
Originally posted by: Cygnus X1
Originally posted by: wazzledoozle
Originally posted by: fishface313
All conspiracy threads should result in permaBAN!

Why? Makes you think too hard? Maybe distracts from neffing...

:laugh: LOL Thanks man. What's up with all these sheeple that feel the need to post on my thread. I'm trying to help promote transpancy within our system. You should be helping me in anyway you can.

you are trying to change something you apparently know nothing about beyond that of what a video 'taught' you.
taxes and their role in the country are much more complicated.

That seems to be his problem with everything he hears. If it's what he wants to hear, he runs with it and does no critical thinking and no checks of validity.
 

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
btw:
http://www.archives.gov/national-archiv...ers/constitution_amendments_11-27.html
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/16th_Amendment_Pg1of1_AC.jpg

and 38 states ratified the amendment in 1913, 4 years after it was introduced in congress (1909).

the below is from here:
http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst/amend.html
Amendment XVI.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Proposal and Ratification

The sixteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the Sixty-first Congress on the 12th of July, 1909, and was declared, in a proclamation of the Secretary of State, dated the 25th of February, 1913, to have been ratified by 36 of the 48 States. The dates of ratification were: Alabama, August 10, 1909; Kentucky, February 8, 1910; South Carolina, February 19, 1910; Illinois, March 1, 1910; Mississippi, March 7, 1910; Oklahoma, March 10, 1910; Maryland, April 8, 1910; Georgia, August 3, 1910; Texas, August 16, 1910; Ohio, January 19, 1911; Idaho, January 20, 1911; Oregon, January 23, 1911; Washington, January 26, 1911; Montana, January 30, 1911; Indiana, January 30, 1911; California, January 31, 1911; Nevada, January 31, 1911; South Dakota, February 3, 1911; Nebraska, February 9, 1911; North Carolina, February 11, 1911; Colorado, February 15, 1911; North Dakota, February 17, 1911; Kansas, February 18, 1911; Michigan, February 23, 1911; Iowa, February 24, 1911; Missouri, March 16, 1911; Maine, March 31, 1911; Tennessee, April 7, 1911; Arkansas, April 22, 1911 (after having rejected it earlier); Wisconsin, May 26, 1911; New York, July 12, 1911; Arizona, April 6, 1912; Minnesota, June 11, 1912; Louisiana, June 28, 1912; West Virginia, January 31, 1913; New Mexico, February 3, 1913.

Ratification was completed on February 3, 1913.

The amendment was subsequently ratified by Massachusetts, March 4, 1913; New Hampshire, March 7, 1913 (after having rejected it on March 2, 1911).

The amendment was rejected (and not subsequently ratified) by Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Utah.


Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: destrekor
Originally posted by: Cygnus X1
Originally posted by: wazzledoozle
Originally posted by: fishface313
All conspiracy threads should result in permaBAN!

Why? Makes you think too hard? Maybe distracts from neffing...

:laugh: LOL Thanks man. What's up with all these sheeple that feel the need to post on my thread. I'm trying to help promote transpancy within our system. You should be helping me in anyway you can.

you are trying to change something you apparently know nothing about beyond that of what a video 'taught' you.
taxes and their role in the country are much more complicated.

That seems to be his problem with everything he hears. If it's what he wants to hear, he runs with it and does no critical thinking and no checks of validity.

you know, not to mention the fact that the Federal Court has basically stated in numerous cases (including this one: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g...y=search&court=US&case=/us/240/1.html), that Congress has had the power to tax since it came into being, and that the Amendment basically sets out to change that power in that taxes don't have to be apportioned to the states.
(i summarized wikipedia's summary of that article linked above on the BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO case, of which was mentioned in the wiki article on the 16th amendment)
 

wazzledoozle

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2006
1,814
0
0
Ok well here is the issue at hand-

*16th amendment "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."

*Read the 3rd clause (not very long)

The problem is that an income tax is a direct tax, and the amendment states that it will not be apportioned among the states, contrary to section 2 of the US constitution.

Now, you might say, "But doesnt the amendment overrides the base constitution?"

Yes, and no. The definition of a direct tax is "a direct tax is one paid directly to the government by the persons (legal or natural) on whom it is imposed ". The issue that people bring up over the amendment is that it does not define incomes, and they claim that supreme court trials have interpreted income as not including property, which would make it impossible to collect the income tax. Every IRS law is based upon the assumption that you can directly tax income without apportion, and there are supreme court cases that nullify their ability to tax income on the basis that it is property.

It does not seem anyone could make a strong case against income tax because if their case went to the supreme court, they could simply state that an income is not property and taxable under the 16th amendment. Until then, you would have to count on an intelligent jury to let you off.
 

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
Originally posted by: wazzledoozle
Ok well here is the issue at hand-

*16th amendment "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."

*Read the 3rd clause (not very long)

The problem is that an income tax is a direct tax, and the amendment states that it will not be apportioned among the states, contrary to section 2 of the US constitution.

Now, you might say, "But doesnt the amendment overrides the base constitution?"

Yes, and no. The definition of a direct tax is "<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbar...//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_tax</a>">a direct tax is one paid directly to the government by the persons (legal or natural) on whom it is imposed </a>". The issue that people bring up over the amendment is that it does not define incomes, and they claim that supreme court trials have interpreted income as not including property, which would make it impossible to collect the income tax. Every IRS law is based upon the assumption that you can directly tax income without apportion, and there are supreme court cases that nullify their ability to tax income on the basis that it is property.

It does not seem anyone could make a strong case against income tax because if their case went to the supreme court, they could simply state that an income is not property and taxable under the 16th amendment. Until then, you would have to count on an intelligent jury to let you off.

from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_...ment_to_the_United_States_Constitution, in regards to the Brushaber case I mentioned above:
In Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad,[8], the Supreme Court indicated that the Sixteenth Amendment did not give the Congress a new power to tax incomes, as Congress already had that power. Although an income tax on income from property had been deemed (under Pollock, above) to be a direct tax, and an income tax on wages, etc., had been deemed to be an indirect tax (an excise), the Court in Brushaber decided that, after the Sixteenth Amendment, the Constitution allows Congress to tax any incomes without apportionment among the states by population (and without regard to any census or enumeration) regardless of the source of the income -- that is, regardless of whether the particular income tax is deemed direct (such as a tax on income from property) or indirect (i.e., an excise, such as a tax on income from labor). The Sixteenth Amendment made the distinction between a direct tax and an indirect tax constitutionally irrelevant with respect to the apportionment of income taxes by removing the apportionment requirement for income taxes. In Brushaber, the Court upheld the validity of the Federal income tax statute under the U.S. Constitution as amended by the Sixteenth Amendment.

income taxes are considered indirect, and the amendment removes the apportionment requirement by removing the difference between direct and indirect taxation.
 

wazzledoozle

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2006
1,814
0
0
Originally posted by: destrekor
Originally posted by: wazzledoozle
Ok well here is the issue at hand-

*16th amendment "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."

*Read the 3rd clause (not very long)

The problem is that an income tax is a direct tax, and the amendment states that it will not be apportioned among the states, contrary to section 2 of the US constitution.

Now, you might say, "But doesnt the amendment overrides the base constitution?"

Yes, and no. The definition of a direct tax is "<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbar....wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_tax----</a>"><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbar...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_tax--</a></a>
><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbar...//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_tax</a></a>
>a direct tax is one paid directly to the government by the persons (legal or natural) on whom it is imposed </a>". The issue that people bring up over the amendment is that it does not define incomes, and they claim that supreme court trials have interpreted income as not including property, which would make it impossible to collect the income tax. Every IRS law is based upon the assumption that you can directly tax income without apportion, and there are supreme court cases that nullify their ability to tax income on the basis that it is property.

It does not seem anyone could make a strong case against income tax because if their case went to the supreme court, they could simply state that an income is not property and taxable under the 16th amendment. Until then, you would have to count on an intelligent jury to let you off.

from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_...ment_to_the_United_States_Constitution, in regards to the Brushaber case I mentioned above:
In Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad,[8], the Supreme Court indicated that the Sixteenth Amendment did not give the Congress a new power to tax incomes, as Congress already had that power. Although an income tax on income from property had been deemed (under Pollock, above) to be a direct tax, and an income tax on wages, etc., had been deemed to be an indirect tax (an excise), the Court in Brushaber decided that, after the Sixteenth Amendment, the Constitution allows Congress to tax any incomes without apportionment among the states by population (and without regard to any census or enumeration) regardless of the source of the income -- that is, regardless of whether the particular income tax is deemed direct (such as a tax on income from property) or indirect (i.e., an excise, such as a tax on income from labor). The Sixteenth Amendment made the distinction between a direct tax and an indirect tax constitutionally irrelevant with respect to the apportionment of income taxes by removing the apportionment requirement for income taxes. In Brushaber, the Court upheld the validity of the Federal income tax statute under the U.S. Constitution as amended by the Sixteenth Amendment.

income taxes are considered indirect, and the amendment removes the apportionment requirement by removing the difference between direct and indirect taxation.

Well that's quite contrary to the purpose of the original lines in the 2nd section of the constituion, you could call the 16th amendment unconstitutional IMO.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,398
8,568
126
Originally posted by: sadguy

So why have numerous people been found innocent for not filing income taxes? Answer that :)

Actually, the film does a great job in explaining why they were found innocent. There is no law.

criminal law has this little thing called 'mens rea'

what is means is 'criminal state of mind.'

if you don't have a criminal state of mind, you can't be convicted of any crime with a mens rea requirement, including not filing your taxes.

that is why so many people were found 'not guilty' (not 'innocent', there is no 'innocent' verdict).

i think you should leave this one to people who know more than you. if you can't even grasp the fact that the verdict is 'not guilty' you won't be able to grasp the higher nuances of the law.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,398
8,568
126
Originally posted by: Amused
Amendment XVI
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.

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/consteng.htm

actually, this is the law:
Sec. 1. Tax imposed
TITLE 26, Subtitle A, CHAPTER 1, Subchapter A, PART I, Sec. 1.
STATUTE

(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of -

(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, and
(2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)), a tax determined in accordance with the following table: If taxable income is: The tax is:

Not over $36,900 15% of taxable income.
Over $36,900 but not over $5,535, plus 28% of the excess over
$89,150 $36,900.
Over $89,150 but not over $20,165, plus 31% of the excess
$140,000 over $89,150.
Over $140,000 but not $35,928.50, plus 36% of the excess
over $250,000 over $140,000.
Over $250,000 $75,528.50, plus 39.6% of the
excess over $250,000.

(b) Heads of households
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every head of a household (as defined in section 2(b)) a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
If taxable income is: The tax is:

Not over $29,600 15% of taxable income.
Over $29,600 but not over $4,440, plus 28% of the excess over
$76,400 $29,600.
Over $76,400 but not over $17,544, plus 31% of the excess
$127,500 over $76,400.
Over $127,500 but not $33,385, plus 36% of the excess
over $250,000 over $127,500.
Over $250,000 $77,485, plus 39.6% of the excess
over $250,000.

(c) Unmarried individuals (other than surviving spouses and heads
of households)
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual (other than a surviving spouse as defined in section 2(a) or the head of a household as defined in section 2(b)) who is not a married individual (as defined in section 7703) a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
If taxable income is: The tax is:

Not over $22,100 15% of taxable income.
Over $22,100 but not over $3,315, plus 28% of the excess over
$53,500 $22,100.
Over $53,500 but not over $12,107, plus 31% of the excess
$115,000 over $53,500.
Over $115,000 but not $31,172, plus 36% of the excess
over $250,000 over $115,000.
Over $250,000 $79,772, plus 39.6% of the excess
over $250,000.

(d) Married individuals filing separate returns
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who does not make a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
If taxable income is: The tax is:

Not over $18,450 15% of taxable income.
Over $18,450 but not over $2,767.50, plus 28% of the excess
$44,575 over $18,450.
Over $44,575 but not over $10,082.50, plus 31% of the excess
$70,000 over $44,575.
Over $70,000 but not over $17,964.25, plus 36% of the excess
$125,000 over $70,000.
Over $125,000 $37,764.25, plus 39.6% of the
excess over $125,000.

(e) Estates and trusts
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of -

(1) every estate, and
(2) every trust, taxable under this subsection a tax determined in accordance with the following table: If taxable income is: The tax is:

Not over $1,500 15% of taxable income.
Over $1,500 but not over $225, plus 28% of the excess over
$3,500 $1,500.
Over $3,500 but not over $785, plus 31% of the excess over
$5,500 $3,500.
Over $5,500 but not over $1,405, plus 36% of the excess over
$7,500 $5,500.
Over $7,500 $2,125, plus 39.6% of the excess
over $7,500.

(f) Phaseout of marriage penalty in 15-percent bracket; adjustments
in tax tables so that inflation will not result in tax increases

(1) In general
Not later than December 15 of 1993, and each subsequent calendar year, the Secretary shall prescribe tables which shall apply in lieu of the tables contained in subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) with respect to taxable years beginning in the succeeding calendar year.
(2) Method of prescribing tables
The table which under paragraph (1) is to apply in lieu of the table contained in subsection (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e), as the case may be, with respect to taxable years beginning in any calendar year shall be prescribed -

(A) except as provided in paragraph (8), by increasing the minimum and maximum dollar amounts for each rate bracket for which a tax is imposed under such table by the cost-of-living adjustment for such calendar year,
(B) by not changing the rate applicable to any rate bracket as adjusted under subparagraph (A), and
(C) by adjusting the amounts setting forth the tax to the extent necessary to reflect the adjustments in the rate brackets.

(3) Cost-of-living adjustment
For purposes of paragraph (2), the cost-of-living adjustment for any calendar year is the percentage (if any) by which -

(A) the CPI for the preceding calendar year, exceeds
(B) the CPI for the calendar year 1992.

(4) CPI for any calendar year
For purposes of paragraph (3), the CPI for any calendar year is the average of the Consumer Price Index as of the close of the 12-month period ending on August 31 of such calendar year.
(5) Consumer Price Index
For purposes of paragraph (4), the term "Consumer Price Index" means the last Consumer Price Index for all-urban consumers published by the Department of Labor. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the revision of the Consumer Price Index which is most consistent with the Consumer Price Index for calendar year 1986 shall be used.
(6) Rounding

(A) In general
If any increase determined under paragraph (2)(A), section 63(c)(4), section 68(b)(2) or section 151(d)(4) is not a multiple of $50, such increase shall be rounded to the next lowest multiple of $50.
(B) Table for married individuals filing separately
In the case of a married individual filing a separate return, subparagraph (A) (other than with respect to sections 63(c)(4) and 151(d)(4)(A)) shall be applied by substituting "$25" for "$50" each place it appears.

(7) Special rule for certain brackets

(A) Calendar year 1994
In prescribing the tables under paragraph (1) which apply with respect to taxable years beginning in calendar year 1994, the Secretary shall make no adjustment to the dollar amounts at which the 36 percent rate bracket begins or at which the 39.6 percent rate begins under any table contained in subsection (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e).
(B) Later calendar years
In prescribing tables under paragraph (1) which apply with respect to taxable years beginning in a calendar year after 1994, the cost-of-living adjustment used in making adjustments to the dollar amounts referred to in subparagraph (A) shall be determined under paragraph (3) by substituting "1993" for "1992".

(8) Phaseout of marriage penalty in 15-percent bracket

(A) In general
With respect to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2002, in prescribing the tables under paragraph (1) -

(i) the maximum taxable income in the 15-percent rate bracket in the table contained in subsection (a) (and the minimum taxable income in the next higher taxable income bracket in such table) shall be the applicable percentage of the maximum taxable income in the 15-percent rate bracket in the table contained in subsection (c) (after any other adjustment under this subsection), and
(ii) the comparable taxable income amounts in the table contained in subsection (d) shall be 1/2 of the amounts determined under clause (i).

(B) Applicable percentage
For purposes of subparagraph (A), the applicable percentage shall be determined in accordance with the following table: For taxable years beginning The applicable in calendar year - percentage is - 2003 and 2004 200 2005 180 2006 187 2007 193 2008 and thereafter 200.
(C) Rounding
If any amount determined under subparagraph (A)(i) is not a multiple of $50, such amount shall be rounded to the next lowest multiple of $50.

(g) Certain unearned income of minor children taxed as if parent's
income

(1) In general
In the case of any child to whom this subsection applies, the tax imposed by this section shall be equal to the greater of -

(A) the tax imposed by this section without regard to this subsection, or
(B) the sum of -

(i) the tax which would be imposed by this section if the taxable income of such child for the taxable year were reduced by the net unearned income of such child, plus
(ii) such child's share of the allocable parental tax.

(2) Child to whom subsection applies
This subsection shall apply to any child for any taxable year if -

(A) such child has not attained age 14 before the close of the taxable year, and
(B) either parent of such child is alive at the close of the taxable year.

(3) Allocable parental tax
For purposes of this subsection -

(A) In general
The term "allocable parental tax" means the excess of -

(i) the tax which would be imposed by this section on the parent's taxable income if such income included the net unearned income of all children of the parent to whom this subsection applies, over
(ii) the tax imposed by this section on the parent without regard to this subsection. For purposes of clause (i), net unearned income of all children of the parent shall not be taken into account in computing any exclusion, deduction, or credit of the parent.

(B) Child's share
A child's share of any allocable parental tax of a parent shall be equal to an amount which bears the same ratio to the total allocable parental tax as the child's net unearned income bears to the aggregate net unearned income of all children of such parent to whom this subsection applies.
(C) Special rule where parent has different taxable year
Except as provided in regulations, if the parent does not have the same taxable year as the child, the allocable parental tax shall be determined on the basis of the taxable year of the parent ending in the child's taxable year.

(4) Net unearned income
For purposes of this subsection -

(A) In general
The term "net unearned income" means the excess of -

(i) the portion of the adjusted gross income for the taxable year which is not attributable to earned income (as defined in section 911(d)(2)), over
(ii) the sum of -

(I) the amount in effect for the taxable year under section 63(c)(5)(A) (relating to limitation on standard deduction in the case of certain dependents), plus
(II) the greater of the amount described in subclause (I) or, if the child itemizes his deductions for the taxable year, the amount of the itemized deductions allowed by this chapter for the taxable year which are directly connected with the production of the portion of adjusted gross income referred to in clause (i).

(B) Limitation based on taxable income
The amount of the net unearned income for any taxable year shall not exceed the individual's taxable income for such taxable year.

(5) Special rules for determining parent to whom subsection
applies
For purposes of this subsection, the parent whose taxable income shall be taken into account shall be -

(A) in the case of parents who are not married (within the meaning of section 7703), the custodial parent (within the meaning of section 152(e)) of the child, and
(B) in the case of married individuals filing separately, the individual with the greater taxable income.

(6) Providing of parent's TIN
The parent of any child to whom this subsection applies for any taxable year shall provide the TIN of such parent to such child and such child shall include such TIN on the child's return of tax imposed by this section for such taxable year.
(7) Election to claim certain unearned income of child on
parent's return

(A) In general
If -

(i) any child to whom this subsection applies has gross income for the taxable year only from interest and dividends (including Alaska Permanent Fund dividends),
(ii) such gross income is more than the amount described in paragraph (4)(A)(ii)(I) and less than 10 times the amount so described,
(iii) no estimated tax payments for such year are made in the name and TIN of such child, and no amount has been deducted and withheld under section 3406, and
(iv) the parent of such child (as determined under paragraph (5)) elects the application of subparagraph (B), such child shall be treated (other than for purposes of this paragraph) as having no gross income for such year and shall not be required to file a return under section 6012.

(B) Income included on parent's return
In the case of a parent making the election under this paragraph -

(i) the gross income of each child to whom such election applies (to the extent the gross income of such child exceeds twice the amount described in paragraph (4)(A)(ii)(I)) shall be included in such parent's gross income for the taxable year,
(ii) the tax imposed by this section for such year with respect to such parent shall be the amount equal to the sum of -

(I) the amount determined under this section after the application of clause (i), plus
(II) for each such child, 10 percent of the lesser of the amount described in paragraph (4)(A)(ii)(I) or the excess of the gross income of such child over the amount so described, and

(iii) any interest which is an item of tax preference under section 57(a)(5) of the child shall be treated as an item of tax preference of such parent (and not of such child).

(C) Regulations
The Secretary shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of this paragraph.

(h) Maximum capital gains rate

(1) In general
If a taxpayer has a net capital gain for any taxable year, the tax imposed by this section for such taxable year shall not exceed the sum of -

(A) a tax computed at the rates and in the same manner as if this subsection had not been enacted on the greater of -

(i) taxable income reduced by the net capital gain; or
(ii) the lesser of -

(I) the amount of taxable income taxed at a rate below 25 percent; or
(II) taxable income reduced by the adjusted net capital gain;

(B) 5 percent (0 percent in the case of taxable years beginning after 2007) of so much of the adjusted net capital gain (or, if less, taxable income) as does not exceed the excess (if any) of -

(i) the amount of taxable income which would (without regard to this paragraph) be taxed at a rate below 25 percent, over
(ii) the taxable income reduced by the adjusted net capital gain;

(C) 15 percent of the adjusted net capital gain (or, if less, taxable income) in excess of the amount on which a tax is determined under subparagraph (B);
(D) 25 percent of the excess (if any) of -

(i) the unrecaptured section 1250 gain (or, if less, the net capital gain), over
(ii) the excess (if any) of -

(I) the sum of the amount on which tax is determined under subparagraph (A) plus the net capital gain, over
(II) taxable income; and

(E) 28 percent of the amount of taxable income in excess of the sum of the amounts on which tax is determined under the preceding subparagraphs of this paragraph.

(2) Net capital gain taken into account as investment income
For purposes of this subsection, the net capital gain for any taxable year shall be reduced (but not below zero) by the amount which the taxpayer takes into account as investment income under section 163(d)(4)(B)(iii).
(3) Adjusted net capital gain
For purposes of this subsection, the term "adjusted net capital gain" means the sum of -

(A) net capital gain (determined without regard to paragraph (11)) reduced (but not below zero) by the sum of -

(i) unrecaptured section 1250 gain, and
(ii) 28-percent rate gain, plus

(B) qualified dividend income (as defined in paragraph (11)).

(4) 28-percent rate gain
For purposes of this subsection, the term "28-percent rate gain" means the excess (if any) of -

(A) the sum of -

(i) collectibles gain; and
(ii) section 1202 gain, over

(B) the sum of -

(i) collectibles loss;
(ii) the net short-term capital loss; and
(iii) the amount of long-term capital loss carried under section 1212(b)(1)(B) to the taxable year.

(5) Collectibles gain and loss
For purposes of this subsection -

(A) In general
The terms "collectibles gain" and "collectibles loss" mean gain or loss (respectively) from the sale or exchange of a collectible (as defined in section 408(m) without regard to paragraph (3) thereof) which is a capital asset held for more than 1 year but only to the extent such gain is taken into account in computing gross income and such loss is taken into account in computing taxable income.
(B) Partnerships, etc.
For purposes of subparagraph (A), any gain from the sale of an interest in a partnership, S corporation, or trust which is attributable to unrealized appreciation in the value of collectibles shall be treated as gain from the sale or exchange of a collectible. Rules similar to the rules of section 751 shall apply for purposes of the preceding sentence.

(6) Unrecaptured section 1250 gain
For purposes of this subsection -

(A) In general
The term "unrecaptured section 1250 gain" means the excess (if any) of -

(i) the amount of long-term capital gain (not otherwise treated as ordinary income) which would be treated as ordinary income if section 1250(b)(1) included all depreciation and the applicable percentage under section 1250(a) were 100 percent, over
(ii) the excess (if any) of -

(I) the amount described in paragraph (5)(B); over
(II) the amount described in paragraph (5)(A).

(B) Limitation with respect to section 1231 property
The amount described in subparagraph (A)(i) from sales, exchanges, and conversions described in section 1231(a)(3)(A) for any taxable year shall not exceed the net section 1231 gain (as defined in section 1231(c)(3)) for such year.

(7) Section 1202 gain
For purposes of this subsection, the term "section 1202 gain" means the excess of -

(A) the gain which would be excluded from gross income under section 1202 but for the percentage limitation in section 1202(a), over
(B) the gain excluded from gross income under section 1202.

(8) Coordination with recapture of net ordinary losses under
section 1231
If any amount is treated as ordinary income under section 1231(c), such amount shall be allocated among the separate categories of net section 1231 gain (as defined in section 1231(c)(3)) in such manner as the Secretary may by forms or regulations prescribe.
(9) Regulations
The Secretary may prescribe such regulations as are appropriate (including regulations requiring reporting) to apply this subsection in the case of sales and exchanges by pass-thru entities and of interests in such entities.
(10) Pass-thru entity defined
For purposes of this subsection, the term "pass-thru entity" means -

(A) a regulated investment company;
(B) a real estate investment trust;
(C) an S corporation;
(D) a partnership;
(E) an estate or trust;
(F) a common trust fund;
(G) a foreign investment company which is described in section 1246(b)(1) and for which an election is in effect under section 1247; and
(H) a qualified electing fund (as defined in section 1295).

(11) Dividends taxed as net capital gain

(A) In general
For purposes of this subsection, the term "net capital gain" means net capital gain (determined without regard to this paragraph) increased by qualified dividend income.
(B) Qualified dividend income
For purposes of this paragraph -

(i) In general
The term "qualified dividend income" means dividends received during the taxable year from -

(I) domestic corporations, and
(II) qualified foreign corporations.

(ii) Certain dividends excluded
Such term shall not include -

(I) any dividend from a corporation which for the taxable year of the corporation in which the distribution is made, or the preceding taxable year, is a corporation exempt from tax under section 501 or 521,
(II) any amount allowed as a deduction under section 591 (relating to deduction for dividends paid by mutual savings banks, etc.), and
(III) any dividend described in section 404(k).

(iii) Coordination with section 246(c)
Such term shall not include any dividend on any share of stock -

(I) with respect to which the holding period requirements of section 246(c) are not met (determined by substituting in section 246(c)(1) "60 days" for "45 days" each place it appears and by substituting "120-day period" for "90-day period"), or
(II) to the extent that the taxpayer is under an obligation (whether pursuant to a short sale or otherwise) to make related payments with respect to positions in substantially similar or related property.

(C) Qualified foreign corporations

(i) In general
Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the term "qualified foreign corporation" means any foreign corporation if -

(I) such corporation is incorporated in a possession of the United States, or
(II) such corporation is eligible for benefits of a comprehensive income tax treaty with the United States which the Secretary determines is satisfactory for purposes of this paragraph and which includes an exchange of information program.

(ii) Dividends on stock readily tradable on United States
securities market
A foreign corporation not otherwise treated as a qualified foreign corporation under clause (i) shall be so treated with respect to any dividend paid by such corporation if the stock with respect to which such dividend is paid is readily tradable on an established securities market in the United States.
(iii) Exclusion of dividends of certain foreign corporations
Such term shall not include any foreign corporation which for the taxable year of the corporation in which the dividend was paid, or the preceding taxable year, is a foreign personal holding company (as defined in section 552), a foreign investment company (as defined in section 1246(b)), or a passive foreign investment company (as defined in section 1297).
(iv) Coordination with foreign tax credit limitation
Rules similar to the rules of section 904(b)(2)(B) shall apply with respect to the dividend rate differential under this paragraph.

(D) Special rules

(i) Amounts taken into account as investment income
Qualified dividend income shall not include any amount which the taxpayer takes into account as investment income under section 163(d)(4)(B).
(ii) Extraordinary dividends
If an individual receives, with respect to any share of stock, qualified dividend income from 1 or more dividends which are extraordinary dividends (within the meaning of section 1059(c)), any loss on the sale or exchange of such share shall, to the extent of such dividends, be treated as long-term capital loss.
(iii) Treatment of dividends from regulated investment
companies and real estate investment trusts
A dividend received from a regulated investment company or a real estate investment trust shall be subject to the limitations prescribed in sections 854 and 857.

(i) Rate reductions after 2000

(1) 10-percent rate bracket

(A) In general
In the case of taxable years beginning after December 31, 2000 -

(i) the rate of tax under subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d) on taxable income not over the initial bracket amount shall be 10 percent, and
(ii) the 15 percent rate of tax shall apply only to taxable income over the initial bracket amount but not over the maximum dollar amount for the 15-percent rate bracket.

(B) Initial bracket amount
For purposes of this paragraph, the initial bracket amount is -

(i) $14,000 ($12,000 in the case of taxable years beginning after December 31, 2004, and before January 1, 2008) in the case of subsection (a),
(ii) $10,000 in the case of subsection (b), and
(iii) 1/2 the amount applicable under clause (i) (after adjustment, if any, under subparagraph (C)) in the case of subsections (c) and (d).

(C) Inflation adjustment
In prescribing the tables under subsection (f) which apply with respect to taxable years beginning in calendar years after 2000 -

(i) except as provided in clause (ii), the Secretary shall make no adjustment to the initial bracket amounts for any taxable year beginning before January 1, 2009,
(ii) there shall be an adjustment under subsection (f) of such amounts which shall apply only to taxable years beginning in 2004, and such adjustment shall be determined under subsection (f)(3) by substituting "2002" for "1992" in subparagraph (B) thereof,
(iii) the cost-of-living adjustment used in making adjustments to the initial bracket amounts for any taxable year beginning after December 31, 2008, shall be determined under subsection (f)(3) by substituting "2007" for "1992" in subparagraph (B) thereof, and
(iv) the adjustments under clauses (ii) and (iii) shall not apply to the amount referred to in subparagraph (B)(iii). If any amount after adjustment under the preceding sentence is not a multiple of $50, such amount shall be rounded to the next lowest multiple of $50.

(D) Coordination with acceleration of 10 percent rate bracket
benefit for 2001
This paragraph shall not apply to any taxable year to which section 6428 applies.

(2) Reductions in rates after June 30, 2001
In the case of taxable years beginning in a calendar year after 2000, the corresponding percentage specified for such calendar year in the following table shall be substituted for the otherwise applicable tax rate in the tables under subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e).
The corresponding percentages shall be substituted
for
the following percentages:
28% 31% 36% 39.6%

2001 27.5% 30.5% 35.5% 39.1%
2002 27.0% 30.0% 35.0% 38.6%
2003 and thereafter 25.0% 28.0% 33.0% 35.0%

(3) Adjustment of tables
The Secretary shall adjust the tables prescribed under subsection (f) to carry out this subsection.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,398
8,568
126
Originally posted by: wazzledoozle
Well that's quite contrary to the purpose of the original lines in the 2nd section of the constituion, you could call the 16th amendment unconstitutional IMO.

it's part of the constitution. it can't be unconstitutional.
 

wazzledoozle

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2006
1,814
0
0
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: wazzledoozle
Well that's quite contrary to the purpose of the original lines in the 2nd section of the constituion, you could call the 16th amendment unconstitutional IMO.

it's part of the constitution. it can't be unconstitutional.

Well it is anti-american then, in the sense that it nullified a key concept of the revolutionary war, "taxation without representation". Our states do have representation, but we pay out all this money which solely goes to the federal government, to be spent on federal things. Any ideas on what income taxes go to? I dont really buy that it all goes to pay off the interest on the national debt.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,398
8,568
126
Originally posted by: wazzledoozle
Well it is anti-american then, in the sense that it nullified a key concept of the revolutionary war, "taxation without representation". Our states do have representation, but we pay out all this money which solely goes to the federal government, to be spent on federal things. Any ideas on what income taxes go to? I dont really buy that it all goes to pay off the interest on the national debt.

linky for j00

linky for j00

linky for j00

the states are no longer represented

honestly, have you taken civics class? i'm genuinely interested.
 

wazzledoozle

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2006
1,814
0
0
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: wazzledoozle
Well it is anti-american then, in the sense that it nullified a key concept of the revolutionary war, "taxation without representation". Our states do have representation, but we pay out all this money which solely goes to the federal government, to be spent on federal things. Any ideas on what income taxes go to? I dont really buy that it all goes to pay off the interest on the national debt.

linky for j00

linky for j00

the states are no longer represented

honestly, have you taken civics class? i'm genuinely interested.

Nope, and as far as I know my HS doesnt offer one. Trying to take as much history+english as possible though.
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: wazzledoozle
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: wazzledoozle
Well it is anti-american then, in the sense that it nullified a key concept of the revolutionary war, "taxation without representation". Our states do have representation, but we pay out all this money which solely goes to the federal government, to be spent on federal things. Any ideas on what income taxes go to? I dont really buy that it all goes to pay off the interest on the national debt.

linky for j00

linky for j00

the states are no longer represented

honestly, have you taken civics class? i'm genuinely interested.

Nope, and as far as I know my HS doesnt offer one. Trying to take as much history+english as possible though.

The true conspiracy...right there.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
lol how does the video go from personal income tax is illegal to patriot act is bad lolz
 

Cygnus X1

Senior member
Sep 5, 2005
812
0
71
Originally posted by: JS80
lol how does the video go from personal income tax is illegal to patriot act is bad lolz

You have to use your mind. Give it a try once in a while.
 

fitzov

Platinum Member
Jan 3, 2004
2,477
0
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: fitzov
Any ideas on what income taxes go to?

I believe most of our federal expenditures are military, but I'm going to check on that.

edit: check out the following link for a simple pie chart
http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm

Come on now, you could have picked a more honest, less biased source couldn't you?

I guess, but what statistic do you find fault with?
 

sadguy

Member
Jun 27, 2005
157
0
0
"The 16th Amendment does not justify the taxation of persons or things previously immune. It was intended only to remove all occasions for any apportionment of income taxes among the states. It does not authorize a tax on a salary"
Evans V. Gore, 253 U.S. 245


"Income means gains/profit from property severed from capitol, however invested or employed. Income is not a wage or compensation for any type of labor"
Stapler v. United States, 21 F.Supp 737 at 739