[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[NOISE] Re: "Gentlemen do not read each other's mail"



On Fri, 26 Jan 1996, Alan Horowitz wrote:

> > In fact, before FDR, wage income was taxed; however, it was one large 
> > check at the end of the yeraar (or the beginning of the next, really).
> 
>   I think this wrong. Read the definition of "income" before the WWII. 
> Wages were considered to be an equal exchange for labor services 
> rendered, not a "gain" (income).

I think you've been reading too many tax protester pamphlets without 
enough fresh air. Try posting the above to misc.taxes or misc.legal and 
you'll get several detailed responses.

Unfortunately, several will be wrong, because most knowledgeable people 
are turned off by the drivel, and the .moderated groups will reject 
postings on subjects that were long ago beaten to death.

> > The high cost of WW II made it a necessity for the gvm't to have more 
> > money at a particular moment, and not wait for year-end.
> 
>     Not so. Govt has been able to print fiat money at will since the Fed 
> Reserve was founded in 1913.

Er, yes, and fiat money means inflation. Real value takes real money.

> > the income tax was passed; however, the income tax (and wage income was 
> > most certainly taxed) was AFAIK implemented by the end of the 19th century.
> 
>      That income tax was overthrown by the Supreme Court as not being 
> apportioned amongst the states, as required by the Constitution.

And as a result, there was the 16th Amendment.

>      Technically, the income tax is an excise, not a tax. They aren't the 
> same.

?

Nevermind.

-rich