Vicarious Realization | Being Taxed On Someone Else's Income | Moore v US

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 ธ.ค. 2024

ความคิดเห็น • 11

  • @Liberty-fi7mg
    @Liberty-fi7mg 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    This Supreme Court made this ruling, I believe, because they did not want to "rock the boat." They did not want to make a major disruption in Tax Policy that would invalidate multiple statutes in the Tax Code which would also cause TRILLIONS in dollars of lost revenue for the US Government. Is there evidence in the decision for my statement? Absolutely! On page 21 of their decision, the court says, "In short, the Moores cannot meaningfully distinguish the MRT from similar taxes such as taxes on partnerships, on
    S corporations, and on subpart F income.6 The upshot is that the Moores’ argument, taken to its logical conclusion, could render vast swaths of the Internal Revenue Code unconstitutional. "
    The court follows with this statement, "And those tax provisions, if suddenly eliminated, would deprive the U. S. Government and the American people of TRILLIONS in lost tax revenue. The logical implications of the Moores’ theory would therefore require Congress to either drastically cut critical national programs or significantly increase taxes on the remaining sources available to it-
    including, of course, on ordinary Americans. The Constitution does not require that fiscal calamity."
    Clearly, the majority of this court wanted an "escape route" so that the US Government could still tax and receive TRILLIONS of dollars. The court did not want to be responsible for causing such a major disruption in law and revenue. The court even admits on page 21 that it does not address the contention by the Moore's that "realization" is required for an income tax. On page 22 the court says regarding Realization, "We do not decide that question today." Then why even take this case!!! lol
    If you haven't read Justice Clarence Thomas's dissent, I highly recommend doing so. His dissent is eloquent and persuasive. Thomas is very critical of the majority's decision, particularly with the majority's seeming motivation to justify their ruling based on the deprivation of TRILLIONS of dollars for the government if they ruled for the Moore's:
    Page 32 of Thomas's dissent says:
    "The majority is not ashamed to lay bare the consequentialist heart of its opinion. Because it wrongly concludes that the Moores’ constitutional argument would invalidate
    not only the MRT but also other longstanding taxes, the majority frets that the Moores would “deprive the U. S. Government and the American people of trillions in lost tax revenue” and “require Congress to either drastically cut critical national programs or significantly increase [other] taxes.” Ante, at 21. “The Constitution does not require that
    fiscal calamity,” the majority proclaims. Ibid. I agree. But, if Congress invites calamity by building the tax base on constitutional quicksand, “[t]he judicial Power” afforded to this
    Court DOES NOT include the power to fashion an emergency escape. Art. III, §1, cl. 1.

    Clearly, this Supreme Court does not understand or refuses to acknowledge Congress's Tax Authority under our US Constitution. On page 6 of their decision, the court says regarding Direct Taxes, "So if Congress imposed a property tax on every American homeowner, the citizens of a State with five percent of the population would pay five percent of the total property tax, even if the value of their combined property added up to only three percent of the total value of homes in the United States." This displays ignorance by the court. Congress CANNOT impose a property tax on every American homeowner! That would be a Direct tax. Article 1, section 2 only allows Congress to tax the States. The States then collect the tax requested as they see fit, according to the States laws. This has occured 4 times in US History. Plus, how could Congress even know the property of every American home owner? They can't. Clearly, the Supreme Court does not understand Congress's taxing authority. Congress has laid 4 taxes in US History. In every case, Congress decided on a dollar amount, and sent to each state. In no scenario did Congress send a property tax bill to every American homeowner. Congress doesn't have the knowledge of every American homeowner, nor do they have the authority to lay that type of tax.
    Also, on page 6, the court states," indirect taxes are the familiar federal taxes imposed on activities or transactions. That category of taxes includes duties, imposts, and excise taxes, as well as
    income taxes." The court pretends that an "income" tax is a distinct tax from those other taxes in Article 1, section 8. That is an incorrect declaration. The tax referred to in the 16th Amendment is not some new type of tax, or a tax on compensation, it is a tax on "income." The Supreme Court ruled in Brushaber vs Union Pacific Railroad that the tax referred to in the 16th Amendment is not some new hybrid "unapportioned direct tax," but that the federal income tax is an "excise." Excise taxes are "privilege taxes." Working and getting paid for your services is a fundamental right that Congress cannot tax as a privilege. And Flint vs Stone Tracy Supreme Court ruled that an "excise" tax is a tax on commodities. Your compensation for your labor is not a commodity.
    On page 7, the court again makes an incorrect conclusion. The court contends that the 16th Amendment allows Congress to tax the income from property, which is exactly what the Pollock case ruled was a Direct tax, "Therefore, the Sixteenth Amendment expressly confirmed what had been the understanding of the Constitution before Pollock: Taxes on income-including
    taxes on income from property-are indirect taxes that need not be apportioned." That is not the case. We know that is not the case for several reasons. One, the Supreme Court ruled in Stanton vs Baltic Mining, that the 16th Amendment provided "no new taxing power!" And two, Congress has not imposed any tax on Americans earnings from property. So the court got this wrong too.
    The Supreme Court ruling in the Moore's case is frivolous! Only Thomas got this right!

    • @irsmedic
      @irsmedic  3 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Thank you for a truly brilliant comment.
      Sickening.
      "Yeah there's a Constituion but we need your money for stuff."
      Which is why the real Constitution of the USA is whatever the IRS says taxes are.

    • @Liberty-fi7mg
      @Liberty-fi7mg 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      @@irsmedic thanks for the compliment! It is strange that the Supreme Court judges gave enough merit to this case to take the case, and yet decided overwhelmingly for the government. Very disappointing

    • @irsmedic
      @irsmedic  3 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      @@Liberty-fi7mg The Supreme Court is on the same team. Their direct deposit comes from the US Treasury just like everyone else in the federal government. It is impossible to get a fair hearing as more government is always in their best interest. They give us lip service here and there that they are independent. But they will always protect the syndicate. Unless they rule in my favor.Then they're great. LOL.

    • @loverboy4479
      @loverboy4479 28 วันที่ผ่านมา

      You are wrong, not only does this decision cause trillions of lost revenue, as far as the "income tax" goes it admits what the income tax truly is. The income tax is an indirect tax, under excise, duties, and impose. Meaning the majority of Americans pay are not "taxable income". This 16th Amendment was of no effect. All it did was bring investment income back into the scope of the tax which the Justice of the Pollock case erroneously took out due to the source argument. Brushaber set this issue straight. Read the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939 to really get insight on what happened. The IRS has been erroneously taking money from most private-sector workers for 80 years now. Working is a Right which can only be taxed by a Direct apportioned tax. Crazy how what Chief Justice White said in Brushaber v Union Pacific would happened literally happened if they allowed them to tax direct unapportioned. The states would go wild with the tax, and of course they did, you got states with no taxes, and states with taxes. The taxes are not uniform and not apportioned smh.

  • @jasonmiller7360
    @jasonmiller7360 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    Praying for a Trump Presidency, and eliminating citizenship based taxation.

    • @TheAhmedvienna
      @TheAhmedvienna 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Amen.

    • @dlukton
      @dlukton 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      To truly end it, the 16th Amendment would have to be "repealed & replaced". That being said, the Congress COULD... if it wanted... direct the IRS to refrain from taxing those Americans who had cut off all financial ties to the US. But any subsequent Congress would be able to reverse that.

    • @irsmedic
      @irsmedic  3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Trump is a boomer. That's his problem and our problem. Boomers are so programmed to believe all our institutions aren't corrupt when they are. He didn't do much good in his first term and he is now campaigning in 2024 with all the excitement of Jeb Bush, with an obvious CIA-asset as a running mate. I hope it is an act but its just a hope.

  • @sburn1919
    @sburn1919 5 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Great content but hard to listen to so much exasperated yelling

    • @irsmedic
      @irsmedic  3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Apologies. Hard not to get worked up when someone is taxed on someone else's income.