Stupid Pet Peeves

[Harold Ballz]

Elk meat is by far my favorite. I tried antelope for the first time here in Utah at my uncles house and it tasted like **** on a cracker. Elk and deer (white tail) is where its at. I've never tried mule deer, is there a difference?

 

[Jamezz]

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



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.

Interesting read, as it was to see that Utah rejected the amendment without ever ratifying it. What's also interesting is that the article doesn't mention anything about the Eisner v. Macomber case, where income is defined (from a corporate activity standpoint) as "the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, including profit gained through sale or conversion of capital."

And even if we took it from an individual standpoint, what's considered gain? In other words, if I work 40 hours/week how is my wage justified as gain versus the amount of money equivalent to the time and energy I've put into my labor. Is my wage more than I should get, is it less? In any event it's an agreement I reached with my employer when I was hired. You can sign it if you think the amount is fair or walk away if you think that the physical or mental effort you need to put into your job is not worth what you're getting paid for.

The problem here comes with social compliance. If a certain Amendment is not clear let's have a public debate. As a self declared right winger (understanding that the right wing advocates for smaller government - heh, it's been a while since this has been the case hasn't it), I have more respect for a liberal who is open to argue about relevant issues like how the Constitution must be interpreted than for a bone headed conservative who thinks he knows the ultimate truth about everything. The problem is that nobody brings it up. The Constitution is not perfect by any means, let's put our minds together and make it more beneficial for everyone than it currently is. Don't blame this on any political party, specific politician etc... blame it on ourselves as a People for being compliant.

 

[bigb]

Elk meat is by far my favorite. I tried antelope for the first time here in Utah at my uncles house and it tasted like **** on a cracker. Elk and deer (white tail) is where its at. I've never tried mule deer, is there a difference?

I ate a moose steak and caribou sausage in Alaska. The moose was delicious but I wasn't a big fan of the caribou. Might have just been the way it was made though.

 

[RandyForRubio]

Elk meat is by far my favorite. I tried antelope for the first time here in Utah at my uncles house and it tasted like **** on a cracker. Elk and deer (white tail) is where its at. I've never tried mule deer, is there a difference?

White tail is typically better than a muley. Like I said, a lot depends on how it was killed and what it was eating. I'll take a good antelope over a good elk.

 

[VINYLONE]

Slow mergers both on city streets as well as the freeway. **** you, slow merger.

 

[colton]

Interesting read, as it was to see that Utah rejected the amendment without ever ratifying it. What's also interesting is that the article doesn't mention anything about the Eisner v. Macomber case, where income is defined (from a corporate activity standpoint) as "the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, including profit gained through sale or conversion of capital."

I appreciate you elucidating your opinion a bit. I suspect the article on the 16th amendment doesn't mention Eisner v. Macomber because Eisner v. Macomber was largely made irrelevant by subsequent decisions by the Court. Or so the Wikipedia article on that decision explains: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisner_v._Macomber#Aftermath. I recommend you read that section, and also the following section that goes into how Eisner v. Macomber is often misapplied or misunderstood by anti-tax activists. Wikipedia is of course not the final word but my experience is that it gets things like this correct nearly 100% of the time.

And even if we took it from an individual standpoint, what's considered gain? In other words, if I work 40 hours/week how is my wage justified as gain versus the amount of money equivalent to the time and energy I've put into my labor. Is my wage more than I should get, is it less? In any event it's an agreement I reached with my employer when I was hired. You can sign it if you think the amount is fair or walk away if you think that the physical or mental effort you need to put into your job is not worth what you're getting paid for.

The term in the 16th amendment is "income", and as the Wikipedia article states, "An important principle taken from Eisner v. Macomber is that the word "income" in the Sixteenth Amendment is generally given its ordinary plain English meaning." So yes, your income from your job is the amount of money your employer has agreed to pay you. Or customers, I suppose, if you own a business. By the very definition of currency that is exactly how the time and energy you've put into your labor is valued.

The problem here comes with social compliance. If a certain Amendment is not clear let's have a public debate.

But that Amendment is perfectly clear.

...The Constitution is not perfect by any means, let's put our minds together and make it more beneficial for everyone than it currently is. Don't blame this on any political party, specific politician etc... blame it on ourselves as a People for being compliant.

Arguing to change the Constitution is very different than you saying that income tax is unconstitutional, which is where this discussion began. If you want to get into reasons why you feel the 16th Amendment should be changed/revoked, we can do that (in a different thread, preferably). But in my opinion you shouldn't claim that income tax is unconstitutional when it clearly is. That just weakens any other arguments you might have.

 

[Jamezz]

I appreciate you elucidating your opinion a bit. I suspect the article on the 16th amendment doesn't mention Eisner v. Macomber because Eisner v. Macomber was largely made irrelevant by subsequent decisions by the Court. Or so the Wikipedia article on that decision explains: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisner_v._Macomber#Aftermath. I recommend you read that section, and also the following section that goes into how Eisner v. Macomber is often misapplied or misunderstood by anti-tax activists. Wikipedia is of course not the final word but my experience is that it gets things like this correct nearly 100% of the time.



The term in the 16th amendment is "income", and as the Wikipedia article states, "An important principle taken from Eisner v. Macomber is that the word "income" in the Sixteenth Amendment is generally given its ordinary plain English meaning." So yes, your income from your job is the amount of money your employer has agreed to pay you. Or customers, I suppose, if you own a business. By the very definition of currency that is exactly how the time and energy you've put into your labor is valued.



But that Amendment is perfectly clear.



Arguing to change the Constitution is very different than you saying that income tax is unconstitutional, which is where this discussion began. If you want to get into reasons why you feel the 16th Amendment should be changed/revoked, we can do that (in a different thread, preferably). But in my opinion you shouldn't claim that income tax is unconstitutional when it clearly is. That just weakens any other arguments you might have.

You're right, I shouldn't have said it's unconstitutional the way that Amendment is written today.

 

[moevillini]

this thread is just all over the place!!!

Here's something fun from yesterday's newspaper:

 

[Gameface]

When people continue to turn my all time favorite thread ever into a debate about the constitutionality of the income tax.

Come on guys. Get that **** out of here.

 

[bigb]

When the fast food joint doesn't salt the fries and I don't realize it until I'm on the freeway

 

[fishonjazz]

When people continue to turn my all time favorite thread ever into a debate about the constitutionality of the income tax.

Come on guys. Get that **** out of here.

When the fast food joint doesn't salt the fries and I don't realize it until I'm on the freeway

Much better.
Thanks for getting this thread back on track

 

[fishonjazz]

Meatball subs.

I love them but they are too messy, the meatballs always try fall out of the bread, there are too many meatball-less bites (bread and sauce only), and often the meatballs are so big that it's hard to even open my mouth wide enough to get a good bite.

I think someone should make a meatball sub with lots of little meatballs (think whopper, like the candy, size) in it rather than just a few huge meatballs. I bet it would be really good....... Sigh. A guy can only dream