Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 7 Share on Twitter 1 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds    H3'ed 10/28/16

What is an "income" tax and where did it come from? NOT the 16th Amendment!

By       (Page 4 of 6 pages) Become a premium member to see this article and all articles as one long page. (View How Many People Read This)   14 comments
Author 506832
Message Jeff Maehr
Consider this to better understand the scam; If "gains, profit and income" are synonymous with "wages, salary or compensation for services"... i.e., "wages" equal "gains, profit and income", as the IRS claims, then how do YOU "derive" any "income" FROM "wages", which is allegedly the same thing? Why make the distinction in the code? Because that is the law, but it doesn't make your wage an "income."

The ONLY possible way "gain, profit or income" can be "derived from" ("to take or get (something) from (something else)" ) wages is if someone takes what may be left of his or her wage and invests it, or in some other way creates (derives) a "gain or profit" FROM the wages, such as interest or other "gain/profit/increase." There can be no other reasonable way to "derive" "income" from "wages, salary or compensation for service", otherwise, the IRS is claiming that all our labor is completely free to us, and thus, "all" wages are pure "profit" and "gain", and there are ZERO costs related to the ability to provide labor to make a living.

Does it cost YOU anything to be able to work for a wage? Do you have to eat, sleep, have a place to live, pay for heat and other utilities, have a vehicle to drive, gas, insurance, recreation, etc? Are there any "costs" related to all those things or are they all free? If it costs you $2000 a month to survive and be able to work, and you receive $2000 as a wage that month, how is that a "gain" or "profit" to you? Now, if it costs you $2000 a month to be able to exist and be able to work, and you receive a wage for $3000, and you take that extra $1000 of the wage and invest it (and don't invest it in your own home, or kids, or life...) into something, and you "derive" a "gain" or "profit" FROM that wage, then you have received a gain or profit... "income", or unearned wealth. Any business has expenses to be able to create a "gain, profit or income" from the business. All expenses paid, all salaries... all "costs" to be able to produce something that is above all costs of doing business. THAT is the "gain, profit or income".

Income" is also "derived from" investment capital, net "gain" from a rental property and other "derived" means for producing "income". There are many ways to "derive" gain or profit or income FROM other sources. Using capital (or investing wages) is the ONLY way Americans can even think about getting ahead and yet our government is purposefully deceiving us about this issue, and we are barely surviving, even often with two jobs in the family. Does that seem right to you that we Americans willingly placed such a tyrannical tax on our very lives?

Realize that you are merely selling your labor like you would sell goods in any business...

"In principle, there can be no difference between the case of selling labor and the case of selling goods." Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. at 558.

Remember the previous case cite...

"Labor is property, and as such merits protection. The right to make it available is next in importance to the rights of life and liberty. It lies to a large extent the foundation of most other forms of property, and of all solid individual and national prosperity." Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, at 127 (1873).

The sale of one's labor constitutes selling personal property and from which you can use the proceeds to acquire "other forms of property" which may produce a "gain, profit and income" for you. You agree to the price you want to sell your labor for. It is an even exchange. The IR Code specifically provides that only the amount received in EXCESS of the fair market value of personal property upon its sale constitutes "gain." (26 U.S.C. Sections 1001, et seq.) Why would it be any different for a wage, although, if you agree to exchange your labor for a certain wage, that is the fair market value for it, is it not?

Isn't it slavery to hold that your labor is NOT your property and is owned by someone else? As a slave, your labor can produce a profit to the slave master, and costs you, personally, nothing, IF the slave master is paying to feed and cloth and house you and pay all your related expenses to work as the slave. The scam that took hold forcing American's wages to be something it is not was a masterful design and implementation.

The conclusion by the IRS that the "income" tax was authorized by the 16th Amendment is erroneous and frivolous...

Frivolous; "An answer or plea is called 'frivolous' when it is clearly insufficient on its face, and does not controvert the material points of the opposite pleading,.." Ervin v. Lowery, 64 N. C. 321; See also Strong v. Sproul, 53 N. Y. 499; Gray v. Gidiere, 4 Strob. (S. C.) 442; Peacock v. Williams, 110 Fed. 910. Liebowitz v. Aimexco Inc., Colo.App., 701 P.2d 140, 142; Cottrill v. Cramer, 40 Wis. 558. (Emphasis Added).

The question that needs to be addressed is exactly who has the "frivolous" responses to these issues... We, the People, with U.S. Supreme Court cases, and other evidence, or the IRS with no real evidence other than hearsay and presumption? Who has the actual evidence in fact that is being ignore by the IRS and labeled as frivolous without any rebuttal and evidence of record? The IRS often states that the courts have routinely ruled that such claims are frivolous, but the actual evidence was never presented in these courts for the court to make such a ruling. In addition, look what the "Internal Revenue Manual: (01-01-2006) Importance of Court Decisions" states;

1. Decisions made at various levels of the court system are considered to be interpretations of tax laws and may be used by either examiners or taxpayers to support a position.

2. Certain court cases lend more weight to a position than others. A case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court becomes the law of the land and takes precedence over decisions of lower courts. The Internal Revenue Service must follow Supreme Court decisions. For examiners, Supreme Court decisions have the same weight as the Code.

3. Decisions made by lower courts, such as Tax Court, District Courts, or Claims Court, are binding on the (IR) Service only for the particular taxpayer and the years litigated... (Emphasis added).

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6


Must Read 2   Valuable 1  
Rate It | View Ratings

Jeff Maehr Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Jeff Maehr has been in the health and wellness field for 43 years. Over the last 14, he has been thrust into the political and constitutional law and liberty arena, and is very active in educating others (and himself) in the growing database of (more...)
Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

What is an "income" tax and where did it come from? NOT the 16th Amendment!

To View Comments or Join the Conversation: