What's new

Stupid Pet Peeves

When my favorite thread turns into a debate thread.

NAOS lured me into it with his comment about the Jews. I should know better than engaging in a conversation with a classless individual like him, as proven in his latest post.

@Colton, define income. To me work is nothing but a trade like any other.
 
NAOS lured me into it with his comment about the Jews. I should know better than engaging in a conversation with a classless individual like him, as proven in his latest post.

@Colton, define income. To me work is nothing but a trade like any other.

we didn't debate anything. not surprised by your confusion, though.
 
@Colton, define income. To me work is nothing but a trade like any other.

Why would I need to define it? I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court has already determined what it means in the context of the 16th amendment, which states: "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."

So again, I think if you're claiming that income tax is unconstitutional then the onus is pretty much square on your shoulders to explain why your views don't conflict with the 16th amendment. Which is *in* the Constitution, by the way, and seemingly makes income tax constitutional by definition.
 
Why would I need to define it? I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court has already determined what it means in the context of the 16th amendment, which states: "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."

So again, I think if you're claiming that income tax is unconstitutional then the onus is pretty much square on your shoulders to explain why your views don't conflict with the 16th amendment. Which is *in* the Constitution, by the way, and seemingly makes income tax constitutional by definition.

Why wouldn't you need to define it? It affects all the working US citizens, we have a right to know under what premise we are taken money away from us for our labor.
 
Why wouldn't you need to define it? It affects all the working US citizens, we have a right to know under what premise we are taken money away from us for our labor.

Take a step back and read it again. It is defined within the 16th amendment, so why would Colton have to define it?
 
Why wouldn't you need to define it? It affects all the working US citizens, we have a right to know under what premise we are taken money away from us for our labor.

tumblr_lnsvpd4Ow51qm5ieto1_500.gif
 
Why wouldn't you need to define it?

Because my opinion on what the word means is irrelevant. It's the Supreme Court's opinion that counts.

It affects all the working US citizens, we have a right to know under what premise we are taken money away from us for our labor.

Then I recommend you read this article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution, and perhaps some of the references therein. The "Case law" section in particular goes into various court decisions where the term "income" was defined in this context.

Now will you answer my question? Please explain why your views don't conflict with the 16th amendment, which is constitutional by definition.
 
All the talk about Costco earlier and nobody mentioned milk. Skim was $2.99 for two gallons this week, 1% $3.39, 2% 3.69 for two gallons. Cheapest I can find it at any other store is about $2/gallon if I'm lucky.
My family drinks a ton of milk, so that's a big deal.
 
Back
Top