Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [LandCafe] LVT to be debated in Parliament?

Expand Messages
  • John David Kromkowski
    You are incorrect. The US federal government has ALWAYS been able to tax income from WAGES without apportionment and without the 16th amendment. There was
    Message 1 of 28 , Nov 13, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      You are incorrect.

      The US federal government has ALWAYS been able to tax "income" from WAGES without apportionment and without the 16th amendment.  There was an income tax on wages in the civil war. This is because taxing wages is an "indirect" tax because it is a tax on the transaction of getting paid for labor.

      For the non-US and may some of the US, an apportioned tax is required for "direct" taxes. Apportionment means that each state covers a portion of the revenue to be raised in proportion to its population. So a state with 10% of the population comes up with the 10% of the revenue.  

      There are basically only two types of taxes that are "direct" are a capitation (tax on being a person, a head tax) and a tax on Land (The SCt again noted this in dicta in the Health Care Act case.  A tax on land is a direct tax and must be apportioned.)

      If you are really interested in this topic.  I'd suggest reading these cases in this order

      Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796) (also first case challenging constitutionality of a law.)
      Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895), aff'd on reh'g, 158 U.S. 601 (1895)
      Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1 (1916)

      ___Jdk___

      PA rep from Pittsburgh, moritz, along with progressives thought the
      16th amendment would broaden the income tax (which prior thereto only
      applied to wages - not interest, divdends, and rent because those
      were considered incidences of property ownership and thus need to
      be apportioned) sufficient to get at unearned rent and the wealthy.
      -----
      SB:
      Not wages until the Public Employees Tax Act and FICA. It
      applies to the profits of federally chartered corporations.
      Perhaps you're thinking of lawyers fees, which may have
      been considered federal income as some sort of privilege?


      On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Scott Bergeson <scottb@...> wrote:
       

      Quoting JDKromkowski on Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:52:55 -0500:

      ___Jdk___
      PA rep from Pittsburgh, moritz, along with progressives thought the
      16th amendment would broaden the income tax (which prior thereto only
      applied to wages - not interest, divdends, and rent because those
      were considered incidences of property ownership and thus need to
      be apportioned) sufficient to get at unearned rent and the wealthy.
      -----

      Not wages until the Public Employees Tax Act and FICA. It
      applies to the profits of federally chartered corporations.
      Perhaps you're thinking of lawyers fees, which may have
      been considered federal income as some sort of privilege?




      --
      Very truly yours

      John D. Kromkowski
      6803 York Road -- Suite 207
      Baltimore, MD 21212

      Tel     410-377-6248
      Fax     410-372-0624
      Mobile  443-271-0500

      This communication, along with any documents, files or attachments, is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of any information contained in or attached to this communication is strictly prohibited.

      If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy the original communication and its attachments without reading, printing or saving  in any manner.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.