Economy
See other Economy Articles
Title: So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.n ... alink/CHAS-89LPZ9?OpenDocument
Published: Sep 25, 2010
Author: David Cay Johnston
Post Date: 2010-09-25 13:13:21 by Skip Intro
Keywords: None
Views: 146216
Comments: 184
The 2008 income tax data are now in, so we can assess the fulfillment of the Republican promise that tax cuts would produce widespread prosperity by looking at all the years of the George W. Bush presidency. Just as they did in 2000, the Republicans are running this year on an economic platform of tax cuts, especially making the tax cuts permanent for the richest among us. So how did the tax cuts work out? My analysis of the new data, with all figures in 2008 dollars: Total income was $2.74 trillion less during the eight Bush years than if incomes had stayed at 2000 levels. That much additional income would have more than made up for the lack of demand that keeps us mired in the Great Recession. That would mean no need for a stimulus, although it would not have affected the last administration's interfering with market capitalism by bailing out irresponsible Wall Streeters instead of letting the market determine their fortunes. In only two years was total income up, but even when those years are combined they exceed the declines in only one of the other six years. Even if we limit the analysis by starting in 2003, when the dividend and capital gains tax cuts began, through the peak year of 2007, the result is still less income than at the 2000 level. Total income was down $951 billion during those four years. Average incomes fell. Average taxpayer income was down $3,512, or 5.7 percent, in 2008 compared with 2000, President Bush's own benchmark year for his promises of prosperity through tax cuts. Had incomes stayed at 2000 levels, the average taxpayer would have earned almost $21,000 more over those eight years. That's almost $50 per week. The changes in average and total incomes are detailed on the next page in Table 1, the first of four tables analyzing the whole data. Now that we have looked at the whole eight-year period, what does the new data show about 2008, the worst recession ear since the 1930s, show when compared to the peak year of 2007, when the average taxpayer made $63,096, which was 2.5 percent more than in 2000. In only two of the eight Bush years, 2006 and 2007, were average incomes higher than in 2000, but the gains were highly concentrated at the top. Of the total increase in income in 2007 over that in 2005, nearly 30 percent went to taxpayers who made $1 million or more. Now surely some will say that it is not fair to saddle George W. Bush and those who supported his tax cuts with the economic figures from 2001 and 2008. The first would be on the theory that President Clinton should be charged for that year (just as Bush should be charged with 2009, the first year of the Obama administration). The second is on less solid ground, but let's consider it for the sake of argument. Just measuring the second through seventh years we find that total income was still nearly $2 trillion lower than if 2000 level income continued. Stacking the deck in President George W. Bush's favor does not change the awful performance or even soften it much. The tax cuts cost $1.8 trillion in the first eight years, according to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, whose reliability the last administration went out of its way to praise. Those cuts were heavily weighted toward the people candidate George W. Bush famously called "haves and the have-mores . . . some people call you the elite. I call you my base." In the two years since 2008, the cuts' total cost grew to $2.3 trillion, the Tax Policy Center estimated. One of every eight dollars of the tax cuts went to the 1 in 1,000 taxpayers in the top tenth of 1 percent, the annual threshold for which was in the $2 million range throughout the last administration. The only other large beneficiary was parents with children under 17 who make enough to pay income taxes, thanks to the $1,000-per-child tax credit Republicans started championing in the mid-1990s. Now let's look at wages, the source of most people's income. In 2008 the average taxpayer made $58,000. That was $5,100 less than in 2007, a decline of 8.1 percent. The number of taxpayers reporting any wages in 2008 was 1.26 million fewer than in 2007, a scary figure when you consider that most people do not expect to be out of work for an entire year and that the population grew by more than a percentage point. In August 42 percent of the unemployed -- 6.2 million people -- had been out of work for 27 weeks or more, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said. The average for all jobless workers was 33.6 weeks of unemployment, the equivalent of going from New Year's Day through August 23 without a paycheck. The number of taxpayers with incomes below $100,000 with any wage income fell in 2008 by 1.8 million. Because married couples file many tax returns, this means more than 2 million people who worked in 2007 earned no wages in 2008. Total wages in 2008 fell by nearly 4 percent, compared with a year earlier, for the 87 percent of Americans whose total income was less than $100,000. Since 2000, population grew more than wages. Those reporting negative incomes quadrupled from less than 600,000 in 2000 to nearly 2.5 million in 2008. Their losses worsened slightly from -$64,000 on average to -$66,000. The number of workers earning $500,000 or more in total income also fell, by just under 100,000 (or nearly 12 percent), but their average wage of $718,000 is still more than the average American earns in a decade at 2008 levels. The number of people reporting incomes of $200,000 or more but legally paying no federal income taxes skyrocketed in the second Bush term. A decade ago it was fewer than 1,500 taxpayers; in 2000 it was about 2,300. This high-income, tax-free group jumped to more than 11,000 in 2007 and then doubled in 2008 to more than 22,000. In 2008 nearly 1 in every 200 high-income taxpayers paid no federal income tax, up from about 1 in 1,500 in 1998. The share of high incomes that were untaxed increased more than sevenfold to one dollar of every $166. The Statistics of Income data on tax-free, high incomes severely understate economic reality because they exclude deferral accounts, including those of hedge fund managers with billion-dollar incomes who can legally report no current income and borrow against their untaxed gains to live tax free. Table 1. 2008 Average Incomes Fell Well Below 2000 Level The one bright spot in the SOI data at Table 1.4 was that the number of people making $100,000 to $200,000 grew significantly between 2007 and 2008. Their ranks increased by 393,465, or 3 percent, to more than 13.8 million taxpayers. This truly is good news, because most of the increase had to be people who worked their way up into six-figure incomes from 2007 to 2008. We know this because fewer than 160,000 taxpayers fell out of the $200,000-and-up income groups. Even if we assume that every one of them fell into the $100,000-$200,000 class, that still leaves 233,000 taxpayers who joined this income group. These 233,000 taxpayers must be people who increased their incomes enough to get them above the $100,000 line. And we know that they did it mostly through becoming more valuable workers, because this group relies on paychecks for more than 77 percent of its income. But despite that one sliver of good news about low six-figure incomes, the data show overwhelmingly that the Republican-sponsored tax cuts damaged our nation. Examining performance against the promises, what do we find? Overwhelming evidence that the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 made us much worse off. Table 2. More Taxpayers, Less Revenue Ignore the cynics who say the Republican leaders on Capitol Hill, in Wasilla, and on the airwaves care only about the rich. I don't believe that. I think they are captive to economic theories few of them understand and that are simplistic in the extreme. I take them at their word, that they truly believe their policies will produce broad benefits for all, but accepting that does not diminish the fact that the policies these Republicans promote also produce massive tax savings for the superrich who finance their campaigns. The question to ask is whether their policies worked as promised. Have they even come close? Where is the prosperity -- and where was it in the Bush years, when massive increases in both military and discretionary spending provided a chronic stimulus to the economy? Table 3. 2007 to 2008: Fewer Jobs, Less Money (Mostly) The hard, empirical facts: The tax cuts did not spur investment. Job growth in the George W. Bush years was one-seventh that of the Clinton years. Nixon and Ford did better than Bush on jobs. Wages fell during the last administration. Average incomes fell. The number of Americans in poverty, as officially measured, hit a 16-year high last year of 43.6 million, though a National Academy of Sciences study says that the real poverty figure is closer to 51 million. Food banks are swamped. Foreclosure signs are everywhere. Americans and their governments are drowning in debt. And at the nexus of tax and healthcare, Republican ideas perpetuate a cruel and immoral system that rations healthcare -- while consuming every sixth dollar in the economy and making businesses, especially small businesses, less efficient and less profitable. This is economic madness. It is policy divorced from empirical evidence. It is insanity because the policies are illusory and delusional. The evidence is in, and it shows beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts failed to achieve the promised goals. So why in the world is anyone giving any credence to the insistence by Republican leaders that tax cuts, more tax cuts, and deeper tax cuts are the remedy to our economic woes? Why are they not laughingstocks? It is one thing for Fox News to treat these policies as successful, but what of the rest of what Sarah Palin calls with some justification the "lamestream media," who treat these policies as worthy ideas? The Republican leadership is like the doctors who believed bleeding cured the sick. When physicians bled George Washington, he got worse, so they increased the treatment until they bled him to death. Our government, the basis of our freedoms, is spewing red ink, and the Republican solution is to spill ever more. Those who ignore evidence and pledge blind faith in policy based on ideological fantasy are little different from the clerics who made Galileo Galilei confess that the sun revolves around the earth. The Capitol Hill and media Republicans differ only in not threatening death to those who deny their dogma. How much more evidence do we need that we made terrible and costly mistakes in 2001 and 2003? Figure 1. High-Income Paying Zero Tax 1998-2008 The number of individual income tax returns showing adjusted gross income of $200,000 or more, but no income tax liability, has been rising rapidly in recent years. Table 4. 2008: Fewer Jobs, Lower Pay (With Exceptions in Bold)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-47) not displayed.
.
.
.
#48. To: Capitalist Eric (#45)
That saying tax cuts increase revenue without stating a reason to think we are above the revenue maximizing rate is silly. In all likelihood we are below the maximizing rate. The Bush tax cuts showed no increase in revenue, only drops. It's very likely tax increases will increase revenue. Supply side is a relic of the 1980's. Most economists don't agree with it. Austrian Economics is a relic of a past century. Empiricism FTW.
You need to get it through your empty skull, that the government is broke. They're like a parasite, that has sucked so much life out of the host, that the host is now dying... (the host, BTW, is us) The government is broke. Which is why we need higher tax rates. They should be raised slowly over time as to not shock the economy. But when the economy recovers so the tax rates should continue to climb.
You're a good little socialist, rhino.
You're a good little socialist, rhino. You can't support spending like a socialist, and then call me a socialist for trying to pay for it. You'll pretend you didn't support spending, but the republican parties history is undeniable.
Let me dictate and you'll see spending and waste cut to the bone, socialist.
Let me dictate and you'll see spending and waste cut to the bone, socialist. Irrelevant if you support people who don't.
I don't support people like your socialist Illinois US Senators and Obama.
I don't support people like your socialist Illinois US Senators and Obama. You supported Bush who signed massive budgets into law.
I did? Please provide links or admit you're just blowing socialist smoke again.
www.libertypost.org
That's the best you can do, socialist bullshitter? You expect to be taken seriously?
... The only way we- the hosts- will survive, is to cast off, or BURN off, the parasites. They will starve and die; we will survive. It's them or us. I choose to make them starve, so we can possibly survive. What's your choice? Government actually does provide services for its citizens - the relationship is not parasitic but rather symbiotic. Destroy what you call the parasites and you could well destroy the host too.
There is a glaring, fatal flaw in your position: the economy has been steadily declining, as manufacturing capabilities have been off-shored over the last 10+ years, in accordance with alphabet-soup list of trade pacts (all in the name of "globalization," don't'cha know...). The GDP #'s have been significantly distorted, to *not* reflect this, due to the bubble-economies of Greenspan and (now) Bernanke. Without their easy-money policies, you'd have seen a huge drop in GDP, and also seen higher revenues (as a percentage of REAL GDP). Wishful thinking on your part. Austrian Economics predicted our situation perfectly. Keynesianism is DEAD. Live with it or not- I really don't give a shit... your arguments remind me of Jim Cramar, of "Mad Money.". Great sound and fury, signifying nothing. You chose your name well.
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
There is a glaring, fatal flaw in your position: the economy has been steadily declining, as manufacturing capabilities have been off-shored over the last 10+ years, in accordance with alphabet-soup list of trade pacts (all in the name of "globalization," don't'cha know...). The GDP #'s have been significantly distorted, to *not* reflect this, due to the bubble-economies of Greenspan and (now) Bernanke. Without their easy-money policies, you'd have seen a huge drop in GDP, and also seen higher revenues (as a percentage of REAL GDP). And none of that had anything to do with tax policy. You should read your posts. Austrian economics is dead, has been for a long time. Anyone school that doesn't embrace empiricism is a joke.
And your basis for this opinion is... What? As an economist trained (or should I say indoctrinated?) on Keynes, I had to find Mises on my own. I know better. Clearly, you don't. If you actually mattered, I'd put forth some modicum of effort to refute your claims. But you don't. Like Nebbie, you know just enough to be dangerous. And you're just as boring.
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
It makes sense, if you understand macroecon. Thanks for proving my point. LOL.
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
The government plays "Robin Hood." It takes money from those that work, and gives it to those that won't. The government motto: "From each according to abilities, to each according to his needs." Of course, that is straight Karl Marx. PROVE me wrong.
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
In fact, most of the money it takes is from those who work and given to people who do work under government cpontracts or who hold the debt. Prove ME wrong.
Does the part of your brain that holds the above statement to be true communicate with the part of your brain that notes employment rates correlate with the health of the economy? Do you ever wonder why more people "won't" work at this particular point in time than in April 2001? Repeat a lie often enough and people begin to accept it as truth. The government motto: "From each according to abilities, to each according to his needs." Of course, that is straight Karl Marx. Sounds Biblical to me: There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need. That's straight from the Book of Acts.
Why aren't capital gains taxed at the same rate as income from work?
Because it's "risk" money serving an economic good.
Seems risk money has become very risk adverse.
Yep.
Nonsensical question. The government actively interferes in the market, at ALL levels. They do this through taxation. Now, with the actual TOTAL tax rate at something like 60%, the natural result is low productivity, low manufacturing, high unemployment and high debt. Sounds Biblical to me... You're an idiot. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs) is a slogan popularized by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program.[1] The phrase summarizes the principles that, under a communist system, every person should contribute to society to the best of his or her ability and consume from society in proportion to his or her needs. In the Marxist view, such an arrangement will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a developed communist society will produce; the idea is that there will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs.[2][3] Copied from http://www.criminalgovernment.com/docs/planks.html TEN PLANKS OF THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO Could this be happening in America? If so, how? Our "elected representatives" have passed laws implementing these anti-freedom concepts. The communists have achieved a de facto FEDERAL SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT in America. In 1848 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels wrote a book outlining a political ideology, titled "The Communist Manifesto". Marxism's basic theme is that the proletariat (the "exploited" working class of a capitalistic society) will suffer from alienation and will rise up against the "bourgeoisie" (the middle class) and overthrow the system of "capitalism." After a brief period of rule by "the dictatorship of the proletariat" the classless society of communism would emerge. In his Manifesto Marx described the following ten steps as necessary steps to be taken to destroy a free enterprise society!! Notice how many of these conditions, foreign to the principles that America was founded upon, have now, in 1997, been realized by the concerted efforts of socialist activists? Remember, government interference in your daily life and business is intrusion and deprivation of our liberties! First Plank: Abolition of property in land and the application of all rents of land to public purposes. (Zoning - Model ordinances proposed by Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover widely adopted. Supreme Court ruled "zoning" to be "constitutional" in 1921. Private owners of property required to get permission from government relative to the use of their property. Federally owned lands are leased for grazing, mining, timber usages, the fees being paid into the U.S. Treasury.) Second Plank: A heavy progressive or graduated incometax. (Corporate Tax Act of 1909. The 16th Amendment, allegedly ratified in 1913. The Revenue Act of 1913, section 2, Income Tax. These laws have been purposely misapplied against American citizens to this day.) Third Plank: Abolition of all rights of inheritance. (Partially accomplished by enactment of various state and federal "estate tax" laws taxing the "privilege" of transfering property after death and gift before death.) Fourth Plank: CONFISCATION OF THE PROPERTY OF ALL EMIGRANTS AND REBELS. (The confiscation of property and persecution of those critical - "rebels" - of government policies and actions, frequently accomplished by prosecuting them in a courtroom drama on charges of violations of non-existing administrative or regulatory laws.) Fifth Plank: Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. (The Federal Reserve Bank, 1913- -the system of privately-owned Federal Reserve banks which maintain a monopoly on the valueless debt "money" in circulation.) Sixth Plank: Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State. (Federal Radio Commission, 1927; Federal Communications Commission, 1934; Air Commerce Act of 1926; Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938; Federal Aviation Agency, 1958; becoming part of the Department of Transportation in 1966; Federal Highway Act of 1916 (federal funds made available to States for highway construction); Interstate Highway System, 1944 (funding began 1956); Interstate Commerce Commission given authority by Congress to regulate trucking and carriers on inland waterways, 1935-40; Department of Transportation, 1966.) Seventh Plank: Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. (Depart-ment of Agriculture, 1862; Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1933 -- farmers will receive government aid if and only if they relinquish control of farming activities; Tennessee Valley Authority, 1933 with the Hoover Dam completed in 1936.) Eighth Plank: Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies especially for agriculture. (First labor unions, known as federations, appeared in 1820. National Labor Union established 1866. American Federation of Labor established 1886. Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 placed railways under federal regulation. Department of Labor, 1913. Labor-management negotiations sanctioned under Railway Labor Act of 1926. Civil Works Administration, 1933. National Labor Relations Act of 1935, stated purpose to free inter-state commerce from disruptive strikes by eliminating the cause of the strike. Works Progress Administration 1935. Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, mandated 40- hour work week and time-and-a-half for overtime, set "minimum wage" scale. Civil Rights Act of 1964, effectively the equal liability of all to labor.) Ninth Plank: Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country. (Food processing companies, with the co-operation of the Farmers Home Administration foreclosures, are buying up farms and creating "conglomerates.") Tenth Plank: Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production. (Gradual shift from private education to publicly funded began in the Northern States, early 1800's. 1887: federal money (unconstitutionally) began funding specialized education. Smith-Lever Act of 1914, vocational education; Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 and other relief acts of the 1930's. Federal school lunch program of 1935; National School Lunch Act of 1946. National Defense Education Act of 1958, a reaction to Russia's Sputnik satellite demonstration, provided grants to education's specialties. Federal school aid law passed, 1965, greatly enlarged federal role in education, "head- start" programs, textbooks, library books.
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
Please provide the definition of "income," as established by SCOTUS, over 100 years ago. Please provide the specific law that says the money we earn from work (aka wages or salaries) are considered "income."
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
26 U.S.C. § 61 You're welcome. Also...to a lesser extend under Titile 42 § 409 as it gives examples of when wages can be exluded or must be included for the purpose of reporting "gross income" on your tax return.
Ha ha If it isn't an LP tax kook taking his act on the road.
Just curious and don't want to look it up. Paste it please if you have time.
Gross Income Defined (a) General definition (1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
Nice try. Unfortunately, the IRS code is several thousand pages long. Cite page. Paragraph. Provide the exact quote, and a direct link. Until then, shut your fucking yap, you piece of shit government shill.
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
PROVE ME WRONG.
Until then, shut your fucking yap, you piece of shit government shill. Chuckles...you really are an asshole...look at the post above your piece of shit response...
He's being his normal duplicitous self. There IS no place, where an individual is required to pay "income" taxes. In fact, "income" is legally defined as "profit," separated from the underlying source. That is to say, what we call "capital gains," is legally defined as profit. Income tax is an excise tax on the profit from ones' investments. This can only occur as a corporation, NOT as an individual... Wages and salaries are an equitable trade for work, thus no profit, thus no "income," and no "income tax" is due. Throughout 26 U.S.C. § 61, it says "anyone who is liable to pay income taxes" (paraphrasing here, as it's been about 20 years since I studied this), should do thus-and-such. "Liable" means legally required. When you add it all together, you find that the IRS code, the income taxes, ALL of it.... is an illegal scam. Just one more hoodwinking of the American public. Nowhere in the IRS code will you find where it specifically defines "income." Nowhere in the IRS code will you find where it specifically says an individual is liable for income taxes. war is a government shill. That's his job. And he'll fight all-out on this point, but after all the smoke-and-mirrors, he STILL won't post anything of substance.
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
I am aware of the arguments on both sides. Bottom line is we have an illegal government and we better pay or they will come and kill us or take all our stuff away and imprison us.
Wages, under case law, have long been deemed compensation for a personal service. When the 16th amendment eliminated apportionment as a requirment for direct taxes, everyone knew that this meant wages were going to be taxed. It's in the debates.
And yet during the last two years of the Clinton administration unemployment was lower, taxes were higher, and the debt was lower than they are today - go figure. Sounds Biblical to me... You're an idiot. How so? Copied from http://www.criminalgovernment.com/docs/planks.html Could one say that the above site has a certain bias?
(a) General definition Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items: (a) General definition Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items........ You cited the Internal Revenue Code. CITE the page, paragraph, and provide a LINK to that page of the code. ANYTHING ELSE IS BULLSHIT. A good summary, lifted from http://www.afreecountry.com/tpcs/irs/income.php The term income is defined nowhere in Title 26 of the US Code, which is the law that relates to the "income" tax. The term "income" has repeatedly been held by the courts to indicate "gain on capital" and not receipts, wages or a fee received in exchange for selling an item of property. Since a tax on property would be a direct, unapportioned tax that the US Constitution does not allow, even selling a house for more than you paid for it would be a direct tax on property. As you will see below, the US Supreme Court has ruled, not just once, but repeatedly, that the federal governmnet cannot levee a tax on your property, and ultimately, your labor. It should also be noted by the reader that a Supreme Court ruling stands forever unless it is specifically overturned by the Supreme Court itself. The legislature cannot legislate law to change the US Constitution and any laws that are passed by the legislative branch that are not within the constraints of the Constitution are null and void as they relate to sovereign Citizens. The reason there are so many unconstitutional laws is because there are two United States and these laws apply in the federal government's version of the United States. Some people who want to pass laws outside the constraints of the US Constitution try to claim that it is a "living breathing" document that has to have a new interpretation as time passes. This mode of thinking would simply deem the act of writing the Constitution fruitless. Why bother writing a Constitution if its meaning will change depending on who is reading it this year. Anyone who rises to power could simply rule as a dictator and ignore the Constitution, since he could simply state he doesn't read it that way. The 16th Amendment did not increase the federal government taxing power to new subjects. '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.' As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income. Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 The Supreme Court said the Legislature could not change the Constitution Title 26 of the US Code does not define income. As such, the US Supreme Court defined income. It is obvious that these decisions in principle rule the case at bar if the word 'income' has the same meaning in the Income Tax Act of 1913 that it had in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, and that it has the same scope of meaning was in effect decided in Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, 335, 38 S. Sup. Ct. 540, where it was assumed for the purposes of decision that there was no difference in its meaning as used in the act of 1909 and in the Income Tax Act of 1913 (38 Stat. 114). There can be no doubt that the word must be given the same meaning and content in the Income Tax Acts of 1916 and 1917 that it had in the act of 1913. When to this we add that in Eisner v. Macomber, supra, a case arising under the same Income Tax Act of 1916 which is here involved, the definition of 'income' which was applied was adopted from Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, supra, arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, with the addition that it should include 'profit gained through sale or conversion of capital assets,' there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act, and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court. In determining the definition of the word 'income' thus arrived at, this Court has consistently refused to enter into the refinements of lexicographers or economists, and has approved, in the definitions quoted, what it believed to be the commonly understood meaning of the term which must have been in the minds of the people when they adopted the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185, 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467; Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206, 207 S., 40 Sup. Ct. 189, 9 A. L. R. 1570. (See Above) Notwithstanding the full argument heard in this case and in the series of cases now under consideration, we continue entirely satisfied with that definition, and, since the fund here taxed was the amount realized from the sale of the stock in 1917, less the capital investment as determined by the trustee as of March 1, 1913, it is palpable that it was a 'gain or profit' 'produced by' or 'derived from' that investment, and that it 'proceeded' and was 'severed' or rendered severable from it by the sale for cash, and thereby became that 'realized gain' which has been repeatedly declared to be taxable income within the meaning of the constitutional amendment and the acts of Congress. Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co. and Eisner v. Macomber, supra. It is elaborately argued in this case, in No. 609, Eldorado Coal & Mining Co. v. Harry W. Mager, Collector, etc., submitted with it, and in other cases since argued, that the word 'income' as used in the Sixteenth Amendment and in the Income Tax Act we are considering does not include the gain from capital realized by a single isolated sale of property, but that only the profits realized from sales by one engaged in buying and selling as a business-a merchant, a real estate agent, or broker- constitute income which may be taxed. It can be very easily ascertained that the meaning of income did not change after the passage of the 16th amendment. The meaning was decided by the Supreme Court to be the same even after the federal government had passed three separate acts in 1913 (the addition of the 16th Amendment,) 1916 and 1917. Even though the government repeatedly attempted to expand the scope of the word 'income', the Supreme Court repeatedly ruled its meaning was the same. It is also obvious by the last paragraph in bold in the last case above, that selling one's house for more money than for which it was purchase cannot be construed as gain on capital or capital gains. Even for those who fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government who also sell a house at a later date than it was purchased, do not have to pay a capital gains tax on said house. Just to repeat the specific decision above. Only when you know the truth and act on the truth will you be free of enslavement. Knowing is nothing without action.
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
Could one say that the above site has a certain bias? Aha. I understand, now. YOU LOVE THE GOVERNMENT... BTW, I really like your pic... Which one are YOU? The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
The Constitution gives government the right to tax income derived from work (wages). Please provide the definition of "income," as established by SCOTUS, over 100 years ago. How about you provide it and then we can both start on the same page.
YOU LOVE THE GOVERNMENT... I thought you were smarter than that.
I cited the Internal Revenue Code as it exists in US Code. M. Randolph Hamilton Who the fuck is he? A blogger? The term income is defined nowhere in Title 26 of the US Code, which is the law that relates to the "income" tax. Even your blogger agrees that I cited US Code. a tax on property would be a direct, unapportioned tax that the US Constitution does not allow The 16th amendment removed the apportionment requirement for direct taxes. None of the cases that you cited were wage cases.
Comments (89 - 184) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestOf course. Which, of course, the Laffer curve perfectly illustrates. What's your point?
LOL.
#49. To: Capitalist Eric (#47)
#50. To: Rhino (#49)
why we need higher tax rates.
#51. To: Ibluafartsky (#50)
#52. To: Rhino (#51)
You can't support spending like a socialist
#53. To: Ibluafartsky (#52)
#54. To: Rhino (#53)
Irrelevant if you support people who don't.
#55. To: Ibluafartsky (#54)
#56. To: Rhino (#55)
You supported Bush who signed massive budgets into law.
#57. To: Ibluafartsky (#56)
#58. To: Rhino (#57)
(Edited)
www.libertypost.org
#59. To: Capitalist Eric (#47)
As we, the hosts, lose energy, and our lives fade, the parasite gets less nourishment, and starts to suck harder, to keep itself fat and happy, with no regard to the fact that the host is now critical.
#60. To: Rhino (#48)
your point... That saying tax cuts increase revenue without stating a reason to think we are above the revenue maximizing rate is silly. In all likelihood we are below the maximizing rate. The Bush tax cuts showed no increase in revenue, only drops. It's very likely tax increases will increase revenue.
Austrian Economics is a relic of a past century.
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#61. To: Capitalist Eric (#60)
your arguments remind me of Jim Cramar, of "Mad Money.". Great sound and fury, signifying nothing.
#62. To: Rhino (#61)
Austrian economics is dead, has been for a long time. Anyone school that doesn't embrace empiricism is a joke.
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#63. To: Rhino (#61)
And none of that had anything to do with tax policy.
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#64. To: lucysmom (#59)
Government actually does provide services for its citizens - the relationship is not parasitic but rather symbiotic.
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#65. To: Capitalist Eric (#64)
The government plays "Robin Hood." It takes money from those that work, and gives it to those that won't.
#66. To: Capitalist Eric (#64)
The government plays "Robin Hood." It takes money from those that work, and gives it to those that won't.
#67. To: war (#65)
In fact, most of the money it takes is from those who work and given to people who do work under government cpontracts or who hold the debt.
#68. To: lucysmom (#67)
Why aren't capital gains taxed at the same rate as income from work?
#69. To: war (#68)
Because it's "risk" money serving an economic good.
#70. To: lucysmom (#69)
Seems risk money has become very risk adverse.
#71. To: lucysmom (#66)
Does the part of your brain that holds the above statement to be true communicate with the part of your brain that notes employment rates correlate with the health of the economy? Do you ever wonder why more people "won't" work at this particular point in time than in April 2001?
The government motto: "From each according to abilities, to each according to his needs."
Part of a series on Marxism
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#72. To: lucysmom (#67)
Why aren't capital gains taxed at the same rate as income from work?
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#73. To: Capitalist Eric (#72)
(Edited)
Please provide the specific law that says the money we earn from work (aka wages or salaries) are considered "income."
#74. To: Capitalist Eric (#72)
#75. To: war (#73)
#76. To: A K A Stone (#75)
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items: (a) General definition Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities;
(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust. (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;
(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities;
(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.
#77. To: war (#73)
26 U.S.C. § 61
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#78. To: Capitalist Eric (#77)
Nice try.
#79. To: Capitalist Eric (#77)
(Edited)
Cite page. Paragraph. Provide the exact quote, and a direct link.
#80. To: A K A Stone (#75)
Just curious and don't want to look it up. Paste it please if you have time.
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#81. To: Capitalist Eric (#80)
#82. To: A K A Stone (#81)
#83. To: Capitalist Eric (#71)
The government actively interferes in the market, at ALL levels. They do this through taxation. Now, with the actual TOTAL tax rate at something like 60%, the natural result is low productivity, low manufacturing, high unemployment and high debt.
#84. To: war (#76)
To: A K A Stone Gross Income Defined
The US Supreme Court Definition of Income
by M. Randolph Hamilton
updated 10/15/2008
Afterwards, and evidently in recognition of the limitation upon the taxing power of Congress thus determined, the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted, in words lucidly expressing the object to be accomplished:
Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.
The government, although basing its argument upon the definition as quoted, placed chief emphasis upon the word 'gain,' which was extended to include a variety of meanings; while the significance of the next three words was either overlooked or misconceived. 'Derived-from- capital'; 'the gain-derived-from-capital,' etc. Here we have the essential matter: not a gain accruing to capital; not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value, proceeding from the property, severed from the capital, however invested or employed, and coming in, being 'derived'-that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal- that is income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description.
Yet it is plain, we think, that by the true intent and meaning of the act the entire proceeds of a mere conversion of capital assets were not to be treated as income. Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of 'income,' it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities.
We must reject in this case, as we have rejected in cases arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909 (Doyle, Collector, v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U.S. 179, 38 Sup. Ct. 467, 62 L. Ed. --, and Hays, Collector, v. Gauley Mountain Coal Co., 247 U.S. 189, 38 Sup. Ct. 470, 62 L. Ed. --, decided May 20, 1918), the broad content submitted in behalf of the government that all receipts- everything that comes in-are income within the proper definition of the term 'gross income,' and that the entire proceeds of a conversion of capital assets, in whatever form and under whatever circumstances accomplished, should be treated as gross income. Certainly the term 'income' has no broader meaning in the 1913 act than in that of 1909 (see Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 416, 417 S., 34 Sup. Ct. 136), and for the present purpose we assume there is no difference in its meaning as used in the two acts.
Conclusion
the word 'income' as used in the Sixteenth Amendment and in the Income Tax Act we are considering does not include the gain from capital realized by a single isolated sale of property,
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#85. To: lucysmom (#83)
Copied from http://www.criminalgovernment.com/docs/planks.html
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#86. To: Capitalist Eric (#72)
Please provide the specific law that says the money we earn from work (aka wages or salaries) are considered "income."
#87. To: Capitalist Eric (#85)
Aha. I understand, now.
#88. To: Capitalist Eric (#84)
You cited the Internal Revenue Code.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]