| LEGAL
DISCLAIMER I am not a Tax Lawyer, Nor do I play Dan Evans on the internet. I am not a Certified Public Accountant, Nor do I play Paul Thomas on the internet. I am not an Enrolled Agent, Nor do I play Richard Macdonald on the internet. DO NOT TAKE MY WORD FOR ANYTHING ON THIS PAGE. Go look it up for yourself. |
This
page is a continuation from this
preceding page.
I won't hold my breath waiting for you to honestly answer these three questions. The following is assumed to have been posted by Mr. Rookard. Mr. Rookard says: "In order to determine income in its "constitutional sense" the Supreme Court looked to the common ordinary meaning ... they looked to your standard dictionaries" Yes Mr. Rookard, I agree... The Supreme Court LOOKED at the dictionaries. That point is meaningless unless they also incorporated that dictionary meaning. Just like interrogatories, I'll number my points so you don't miss any. 1. The word "INCOME" is used in the Constitution, 2. thus the meaning of the word "INCOME" as used in the Constitution is the "Constitutional meaning" of the word "INCOME". 3. The Supreme Court has defined and stated the meaning of the word "INCOME", as used in the Constitution. 4. Congress can NOT change that meaning of the word "INCOME" by legislative fiat. 5. Only the meaning as stated and defined by the Supreme Court can be used by Congress. With that said, I quote Eisner:
Returning briefly to your "dictionary meaning" mis-direction: Since ONLY the Supreme Court's definition of "income" counts, what the Supreme Court looked at is meaningless unless you can cite where the Supreme Court actually stated the dictionary definition. Repeating the passage you have cited, with the citation numbers removed for readability (readers can refer to your post above for cites omitted) and my emphasis added: "After examining dictionaries in common use, we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 (Stratton's Independence v. Howbert; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,' provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle Case" As I stated, the Supreme Court of that day looked at the dictionaries of the day, but it doesn't matter what those dictionaries stated unless those definitions are stated by the Supreme Court as being the meaning of the word "income". "we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases". means they "added little" if anything at all "to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909." In order to understand that "succinct definition" we need to look at the Merchants’ Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, case decided a year after Eisner. Merchant's states: "When to this we add that in Eisner v. Macomber, supra, a case arising under the same Income Tax Act of 1916 which is here involved, the definition of 'income' which was applied was adopted from Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, supra, arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, with the addition that it should include 'profit gained through sale or conversion of capital assets,' there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act, and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court." In the parlance of automobile sales, the meaning of the word "income" in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909 is the base model of the meaning of the word. Subsequent court cases have added upgrade packages which can only modify the base model, not change the base model into a different base model. Regardless of the upgrade packages, unless you look to the meaning of the word income in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, you are just playing word games. I'll hold here until you admit or deny the following three statements and then I will continue to respond to your post. Admit or deny: 1. there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act [of 1909], Admit or deny: 2. and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court." Admit or deny: 3. Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution,
Uh, Mr. Rookard ... read the quote again ... there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act ... thus, the meaning of income in the Amendment is that "given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act" It's hard to believe Mr. Rookard is actually trying to deny the plain language of the court. But of course, Mr. Rookard is also the one who can't read section 6151's prerequisite to activation. But hey, Mr. Rookard's got an agenda ... and you can't let the facts get in the way of that agenda. Admit or deny: 1. there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act [of 1909], Admit or deny: 2. and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court." Admit or deny: 3. Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution,
Mr. Rookard must do everything to exclude the Constitutional meaning of income ... Because he knows he loses otherwise. Admit or deny: 1. there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act [of 1909], The next two interrogatory questions have been removed after the posting of this page's link. Like the easily overloaded neuron system of a common house fly, I figure Mr. Rookard's inability to admit or deny the multiple statements is caused by too many things for him to think about at once-- Thus I'll just leave ONE statement for Mr. Rookard to admit or deny.
That is an assertion. (as·ser·tion n. 1. The act of asserting. 2. Something declared or stated positively, often with no support or attempt at proof.) The only thing you have proven is that the court LOOKED at the common meaning. Is there a reason for your stonewalling? I have asked for this particular statement to be admitted or denied by you FOUR (4) TIMES. Admit or deny: 1. there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act [of 1909],
Mr. Rookard says: "the court clearly stated that in order to determine the meaning of income in the amendment they [the court] had to have a defintion of income in common speech." Parsing Mr. Rookard's attempt to substitute the meaning of income in the amendment with what he wants the reader to believe the common meaning of the day was: "in order to determine the meaning of income in the amendment" "the court clearly stated" that THE COURT "had to have a defintion of income in common speech" Does that statement not make the point that THE COURT is going to "determine the meaning of income in the amendment"? The court is going to "determine the meaning of income in the amendment" and STATE THE MEANING OF INCOME IN THE AMENDMENT. In fact, what follows in this response is just that, the meaning the court has defined to be the meaning of income in the 16th. Amendment. Mr. Rookard: 1. Admit or deny that the Eisner v. Macomber court, hereinafter called the EMC, stated: Congress was at liberty under the amendment to tax as income, without apportionment, everything that became income, in the ordinary sense of the word, after the adoption of the amendment, including dividends received in the ordinary course by a stockholder from a corporation... "This was so clearly laid out that only an idiot could deny it." Say thank you Mr. Rookard. I highlighted that for you. 2. Admit or deny that the EMC stated: In order, therefore, that the clauses cited from article 1 of the Constitution may have proper force and effect, save only as modified by the amendment, and that the latter also may have proper effect, it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not 'income,' as the term is there used, and to apply the distinction, as cases arise, according to truth and substance, without regard to form. "This was so clearly laid out that only an idiot could deny it." 3. Admit or deny that the EMC stated: Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised. "This was so clearly laid out that only an idiot could deny it." (Yes, I'm still awaiting you to admit this or be an idiot.) 4. In other words, Admit or deny that Congress can not change the meaning of the word "income". "This was so clearly laid out that only an idiot could deny it." Next up: A couple of Mr. Rookard's quotes. 5. Admit or deny that the EMC stated: For the present purpose we require only a clear definition of the term 'income,' as used in common speech, in order to determine its meaning in the amendment, and, having formed also a correct judgment as to the nature of a stock dividend, we shall find it easy to decide the matter at issue. "This was so clearly laid out that only an idiot could deny it." 6. Admit or deny that the EMC stated: After examining dictionaries in common use (Bouv. L. D.; Standard Dict.; Webster's Internat. Dict.; Century Dict.), we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 (Stratton's Independence v. Howbert; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co.), 'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,' provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle Case. "This was so clearly laid out that only an idiot could deny it." Next up, Present and Previous dictionary meanings. 7. Admit or deny that the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines "derive" to mean: "from Latin derivare, literally, to draw off "; "to take, receive, or obtain especially from a specified source" "This was so clearly laid out that only an idiot could deny it." 8. Admit or deny that the Century Dictionary Online defines "derive" to mean: "lead, turn, or draw off"; "to turn aside or divert ... from its natural course or channel"; "To draw or receive, as from a source or origin"; "This was so clearly laid out that only an idiot could deny it." 9. Admit or deny that the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines "gain" to mean: "resources or advantage acquired or increased : PROFIT"; "This was so clearly laid out that only an idiot could deny it." 10. Admit or deny that the Century Dictionary Online defines "gain" to mean: "To profit; make gain; get advantage; benefit." "This was so clearly laid out that only an idiot could deny it." 11. Admit or deny that the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines "profit" to mean: "a valuable return : GAIN"; "the excess of returns over expenditure in a transaction or series of transactions; especially : the excess of the selling price of goods over their cost"; "the compensation accruing to entrepreneurs for the assumption of risk in business enterprise as distinguished from wages or rent" "This was so clearly laid out that only an idiot could deny it." 12. Admit or deny that the Century Dictionary Online defines "profit" to mean: "Specifically, the advantage or gain resulting to the owner of capital from its employment in any undertaking"; "As used in political economy, profit means what is left of the product of industry after deducting the wages, the price of raw materials, and the rent paid in the production, and is considered as being composed of three parts-- interest, risk or insurance, and wages of superintendence." "This was so clearly laid out that only an idiot could deny it." 13. Admit or deny that the EMC stated: The fundamental relation of 'capital' to 'income' has been much discussed by economists, the former being likened to the tree or the land, the latter to the fruit or the crop; the former depicted as a reservoir supplied from springs, the latter as the outlet stream, to be measured by its flow during a period of time. "This was so clearly laid out that only an idiot could deny it." 14. Admit or deny that the citation of the EMC in point 13 above, is on point with the various quotes cited in points 7 through 12 inclusive. "This was so clearly laid out that only an idiot could deny it." Time to get to the actual meaning of income as stated by the EMC. 15. Admit or deny that the EMC stated: 'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,' provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle Case. Brief as it is, it indicates the characteristic and distinguishing attribute of income essential for a correct solution of the present controversy. The government, although basing its argument upon the definition as quoted, placed chief emphasis upon the word 'gain,' which was extended to include a variety of meanings; while the significance of the next three words was either overlooked or misconceived. 'Derived-from- capital'; 'the gain-derived-from-capital,' etc. Here we have the essential matter: not a gain accruing to capital; not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value, proceeding from the property, severed from the capital, however invested or employed, and coming in, being 'derived'-that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal- that is income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description. "This was so clearly laid out that only an idiot could deny it." 16. Admit or deny that the EMC stated: Brief as it is, it indicates the characteristic and distinguishing attribute of income ... Here we have the essential matter: ... a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value, proceeding from the property, severed from the capital ... Nothing else answers the description. "This was so clearly laid out that only an idiot could deny it." 17. Admit or deny that "Nothing else answers the description"; Income is a gain, a profit, ... severed from the capital. "This was so clearly laid out that only an idiot could deny it." The Century Dictionary Online defines under the definition of "profit" has these examples: "The revenue derived from labour is called wages; that derived from stock, by the person who manages or employes it, is called profit. Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, 1.7."; "The gross profit from capital ... must afford a sufficient equivalent of abstinence, indemnity for risk, and remuneration for the labour and skill required for superintendence. J.S. Mill, Pol. Econ., II. xv. § 1." And a few final points in regard to Eisner v. Macomber before I move on: 18. Admit or deny that the EMC states: This case presents the question whether, by virtue of the Sixteenth Amendment, Congress has the power to tax, as income of the stockholder and without apportionment, a stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith against profits accumulated by the corporation since March 1, 1913. "This was so clearly laid out that only an idiot could deny it." 19. Admit or deny that the Century Dictionary Online defines "dividend" to mean: "A sum to be divided into equal parts, or one to be distributed proportionately."; "Particularly-- A sum to be divided as profits among the shareholders of a stock company, or persons jointly interested in an enterprise."; "Stock dividend, a division of profits, actual or anticipated, payable in reserved or additional stock instead of cash." "This was so clearly laid out that only an idiot could deny it." 20. Admit or deny that the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines "dividend" to mean: "an individual share of something distributed: a share in a pro rata distribution (as of profits) to stockholders" "This was so clearly laid out that only an idiot could deny it." 21. In other words, Admit or deny that corporate profits paid to a stockholder is the "income" in question in the Eisner v. Macomber case. "This was so clearly laid out that only an idiot could deny it." It should be pointed out that in some dictionaries, the common meaning of the word "income" has drifted over time. It is important to Mr. Rookard that the casual reader believe the common meaning of the word "income" is the meaning of the word "income" in the 16th. Amendment. That way, when the casual reader looks up the present day common meaning of income, the casual reader will get something like this: "The amount of money or its equivalent received during a period of time in exchange for labor or services, from the sale of goods or property, or as profit from financial investments. 2. The act of coming in; entrance." In other words, Mr. Rookard WANTS the casual reader to believe "income" is "everything that comes in". 22. Admit or deny that the Southern Pacific v. Lowe Court states: We must reject in this case, as we have rejected in cases arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909 (cites omitted), the broad content on submitted in behalf of the government that all receipts-everything that comes in-are income within the proper definition of the term 'gross income,' and that the entire proceeds of a conversion of capital assets, in whatever form and under whatever circumstances accomplished, should be treated as gross income. Certainly the term 'income' has no broader meaning in the 1913 act than in that of 1909, and for the present purpose we assume there is no difference in its meaning as used in the two acts. "This was so clearly laid out that only an idiot could deny it." 23. Admit or deny that "not everything that comes in is income." "This was so clearly laid out that only an idiot could deny it." 24. Admit or deny that Merchants’ Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, stated: It is obvious that these decisions in principle rule the case at bar if the word 'income' has the same meaning in the Income Tax Act of 1913 that it had in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, and that it has the same scope of meaning was in effect decided in Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, where it was assumed for the purposes of decision that there was no difference in its meaning as used in the act of 1909 and in the Income Tax Act of 1913. There can be no doubt that the word must be given the same meaning and content in the Income Tax Acts of 1916 and 1917 that it had in the act of 1913. When to this we add that in Eisner v. Macomber, supra, a case arising under the same Income Tax Act of 1916 which is here involved, the definition of 'income' which was applied was adopted from Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, supra, arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, with the addition that it should include 'profit gained through sale or conversion of capital assets,' there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act, and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court. "This was so clearly laid out that only an idiot could deny it." And for the FIFTH (5) time: 25. Admit or deny that: the word [income] must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act [of 1909], "This was so clearly laid out that only an idiot could deny it." To make it easy for you to admit or deny, I have done you the courtesy of setting up the following text so that you can copy and paste it into the trial logs box. Then all you have to do is double click the word opposite of your answer, punch your keyboard delete button, and move to the next answer. 1. Admit deny . 2. Admit deny . 3. Admit deny . 4. Admit deny . 5. Admit deny . 6. Admit deny . 7. Admit deny . 8. Admit deny . 9. Admit deny . 10. Admit deny . 11. Admit deny . 12. Admit deny . 13. Admit deny . 14. Admit deny . 15. Admit deny . 16. Admit deny . 17. Admit deny . 18. Admit deny . 19. Admit deny . 20. Admit deny . 21. Admit deny . 22. Admit deny . 23. Admit deny . 24. Admit deny . 25. Admit deny .
I believe you were spouting something about the common meaning of the word income? I finally gave you that common meaning and you went away for five days? After being gone for five days you come back and do personal attacks... Ignoring your off topic spew and getting back to the issue you tried to hide: You said: "Here's what the 1913 edition says: That gain which proceeds from labor, business, property, or capital of any kind, as the produce of a farm, the rent of houses, the proceeds of professional business, the profits of commerce or of occupation, or the interest of money or stock in funds, etc.; revenue; receipts; salary; especially, the annual receipts of a private person, or a corporation, from property; as, a large income." How is that different
than
the one I used? .... ....
Other than mine has a substantiating link? http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/income
Main Entry: in·come 2 : a gain or recurrent benefit usually measured in money that derives from capital or labor; also: the amount of such gain received in a period of time' Key words are, "gain which proceeds from" and
"a gain or recurrent
benefit...that derives from".
Perhaps there is a reason you have chosen to ignore certain questions above.... 9.
Admit or deny that the Merriam-Webster
Online Dictionary defines "gain"
to mean:
"resources or advantage acquired or increased : PROFIT"; "This was so clearly laid out that only an idiot could deny it." 10. Admit or deny that the Century Dictionary Online defines "gain" to mean: "To profit; make gain; get advantage; benefit." "This was so clearly laid out that only an idiot could deny it." Highlighting the word "salary" which was addressed once already is very disingenuous of you Mr. Rookard. The post you ignored said the following:
You cited Lucas: "There is no doubt that the [income tax] statute could tax salaries to those who earned them ...." Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111" ONLY the salaries of public officials were included in gross income. Those are the only persons "who earned them" to which the Lucas v. Earl case applied. And for the SIXTH (6) time: 25. Admit or deny that: the word [income] must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act [of 1909], "This was so clearly laid out that only an idiot could deny it." The reader is invited to notice this specific question has not yet been addressed by Mr. Rookard. And the reason why Mr. Rookard will NEVER admit item 25 is found on my numbered pages 4 through 10, questions Q1 throught Q74. Link
Perhaps there is a reason you have chosen to ignore certain questions.... After all your whining about the common meaning of the word, now you don't want to address it...9. Admit or deny that the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines "gain" to mean: And for the SEVENTH (7) time: 25. Admit or deny that: the word [income] must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act [of 1909], "This was so clearly laid out that only an idiot could deny it."
"Dale changes positions faster than a two-bit whore." Interesting discussion technique you have there. It doesn't change my focus, it doesn't substantiate any assertion of yours, if doesn't refute any assertion of mine, but it does expose what you are to the lurkers. Getting back on point: Mr. Rookard states: "Dale, I posted the definition of "income" from the 1913 definition in Websters!!!!!" That is what you "asserted" without a substantiating link. "Here's the link: http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-....sh? WORD=income" Thank you. You will learn scholarly ways of bibliographies and reference citations yet. Now since you have posted the source of the definition you previously posted, to wit:
I can use that same source to find the definition of gain
and profit.
"You were the one trying to weasel out of looking at the common definition of "income" with this "the court only 'looked' to it" crap. Now, you're a convert." Mr. Rookard. I've given you your meaning. Now you wish to ignore it and attack me because it doesn't say what you want everybody to believe it says. You wish to make an issue out of things that I have given you, so that you can distract from the fact that I have given you exactly what you insisted... The common meaning of income is gain or profit. In fact, wasn't this something you quoted above? For the present purpose we require only a clear definition of the term 'income,' as used in common speech, in order to determine its meaning in the amendment, and, having formed also a correct judgment as to the nature of a stock dividend, we shall find it easy to decide the matter at issue. After examining dictionaries in common use (Bouv. L. D.; Standard Dict.; Webster's Internat. Dict.; Century Dict.), we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 (Stratton's Independence v. Howbert; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co.), 'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,' provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle Case. I am asking for the EIGHTH (8) time: 25. Admit or deny that: the word [income] must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act [of 1909],
"Dale's "response" skips right over the word "salary"" No more than the 8 times your "response" has skipped over my request for you to admit or deny the truth of the following statement. I am asking for the NINTH (9) time: 25. Admit or deny that: the word [income] must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act [of 1909],
Parsing Mr. Rookard's statement to close the door on another slimy lawyer bait and switch tactic: "Thus, under the 1913 [dictionary] definition you can read "salary" as "income."" To support your dictionary definition whereby you attempt to make a "salary" into "Constitutional Income" you cited Lucas v. Earl. You have yet to admit you even read what I posted. That can only mean you are deliberately ignoring what I posted because it also eviscerates your lie. So here it is again: Highlighting the word "salary"
which was
addressed once already
is very
disingenuous of you Mr. Rookard. The post you ignored said the
following:
You cited Lucas:
"There is no doubt that the [income tax] statute could tax salaries to those who earned them ...." Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111" ONLY
the salaries of public officials
were included in gross income. Those are the only persons "who earned them" to which the
Lucas v. Earl case applied.
Note that in the case of these public officials and public employees, their salary is NOT income. It passes from being a salary directly to being "gross income" by way of the statutory definition. The statutes do not support your version that anybody other than a public employee or public official is taxed on their "salary". This is still true today and this is shown in the present day section 3401. Next point. It is quite obvious that you are trying to over-ride the clear Constitutional definition of "income" that the Supreme Court gave us, by using the "common" (read DICTIONARY) meanings. If you don't use the proper meanings, you don't get the proper results. A little reductio ad absurdum is in order here.
"You were the one trying to weasel out of looking at the common definition of "income" with this "the court only 'looked' to it" crap. " Yes, Mr. Rookard, the Eisner court "looked" at your common meanings. Now YOU "look" at the court's words. Words YOU posted in the first place:
The common meaning was looked at, and the court found "little to add to the succinct definition" that would be the "succinct definition" that was already defined by the Supreme Court in, at minimum, two other (cited) court cases. We've looked at your dictionary definition of "income". You've had your fun with your distractions and lies. Now it is time for you to accept the "succinct definition" that the Supreme Court has stated as the Constitutional meaning of "income".
No matter how you dance and obfuscate, the meaning of the word income as used in the 1909 tax act is the controlling meaning. I'll pause here to allow you some time to post some more of your lies, then I'm going to show all the lurkers WHAT that 1909 definition is that you don't want them to see. Here's the post by A2 that does so well covering the dictionary meaning. It is included so that other readers of this page will have more complete knowledge of this... uh, this... uh... Discussion of income.
Emphasis mine. A2 again fields Mr. Rookard's post.
Thank you Mr. Rookard. "But even
then, salary is the gain
from labor" Emphasis mine.
"If income
is the gain
from labor, then salary is the gain
from labor because it is income."
Emphasis mine.Again, Mr. Rookard conveniently drops a word to change the meaning of his context. Correcting Mr. Rookard's slimy lawyer bait and switch tactic: "But even
then, salary is the gain [derived] from labor"
"If income is the gain [derived] from labor, then salary is the gain [derived] from labor because it is income." And substantiating the correction: Stratton court:
Doyle court:
Eisner court:
Returning to your corrected statement since your uncorrected statement is a lie, and we all know you would never deliberately post a lie: "But even
then, salary is the gain [derived] from labor"
"If income is the gain [derived] from labor, then salary is the gain [derived]from labor because it is income." As you are forced to admit, (or tip your hand as to what a liar you are) Income is GAIN DERIVED. To fully understand what income is, we need to be clear on what GAIN is, and what it means to DERIVE gain. Quite conveniently, I already covered the meaning of derive in an earlier post. (which you ignored, your typical debate technique.) Copied from above: 7.
Admit or deny that the Merriam-Webster
Online Dictionary defines "derive"
to mean:
"from Latin derivare, literally, to draw off "; "to take, receive, or obtain especially from a specified source" "This was so clearly laid out that only an idiot could deny it." 8.
Admit or deny that the Century Dictionary Online defines "derive" to mean:
"lead, turn, or draw off"; "to turn aside or divert ... from its natural course or channel"; "To draw or receive, as from a source or origin"; "This was so clearly laid out that only an idiot could deny it." Beefing up the support on "derive" is this from Eisner:
In other words for those of you struggling to keep up with the ... uh, discussion: The apple tree is the capital, the apple is the gain, the profit, the income when severed from the tree. The reservoir is the capital, the fish is the gain, the profit, the income when severed from the reservoir. (More about severence below.) "income" can ONLY be GAIN.... But not just any gain...
"income" can ONLY be GAIN.... But not just any gain... it must be gain "severed from the capital". If a person (corporate or natural) takes money (property) and "invests" it by purchasing shares in a "corporation, joint stock company, or association organized for profit and having a capital stock represented by shares", Then that person is entitled to a share of the profit. That profit is NOT income until it is "severed from the capital". It is to be noted that severing the profit from the capital DOES NOT DIMINISH the capital. The tax is on the gain. Taxing the gain DOES NOT DIMINISH the capital. This is a key point. I'm posting it twice. Mr. Rookard TAKE NOTICE : Severing the gain or profit from
the
capital DOES NOT
DIMINISH
the capital.
The tax is on the gain. Taxing the gain DOES NOT DIMINISH the capital. In the above example, the money invested by purchasing shares is utilized as the corporation, joint stock company, or association organized for profit and having a capital stock represented by shares chooses and sees fit to utilize that money.
The company can use that money to purchase equipment (capital improvements) or the company can use that money to purchase labor (Human resources) or the company can purchase both equipment and labor. The company can even use that money to invest in another corporation, joint stock company, or association organized for profit and having a capital stock represented by shares. ('Income
may be defined as the gain
derived from
capital, from
labor, or from
both combined,'-- Eisner)
A person with money can invest that money in a savings account, a CD (certificate of Deposit), or other interest bearing instrument, wait for the instrument to mature, and then collect the gain derived from that capital (investment). In this case the new value (NV) minus the original capital investment (C) equals the GAIN. GAIN
= NV - C
The tax is imposed upon the gain, this DOES NOT DIMINISH the capital. Or, A person with money can invest that money in property purchased wholesale (C) and sold retail (R). GAIN
= R - C
The tax is imposed upon the gain, this DOES NOT DIMINISH the capital. Or, A person with money can invest that money in labor purchased wholesale (C) and sold retail (SR) (also Shop Rate). GAIN
= SR - C
The tax is imposed upon the gain, this DOES NOT DIMINISH the capital. For example, an auto repair garage can purchase 4 hours of a mechanic's labor (C) at $25 per hour. That auto repair garage then turns around and sells that labor for the shop labor rate (SR) of $75 per hour. The GAIN is calculated thus: GAIN
= SR ($300) - C ($100)
The tax is imposed upon the gain, this DOES NOT DIMINISH the capital which is the original $100 invested in purchasing the labor. No "gain" no "income". You have admitted as much by this statement: "If income is the
gain from labor, then
salary is
the gain from labor..."
You want to confuse the dictionary meaning with what the Supreme Court in Eisner has clearly stated as "the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 (Stratton's Independence v. Howbert; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co.)" It is now time to get a handle on "labor". Labor is Property. This was noticed by the Supreme Court all the way back in 1884.
And in 1915 the Supreme Court took notice that labor (property per Butchers above) and services (labor) are EXCHANGED for money and other forms of property.
An "EXCHANGE" of labor (which is property) for money (which is property) merely changes the form of the property, not its essence. Whether money or labor, property is the wealth of the individual that owns that property.
The Supreme Court took notice that converting capital (property) to money did not change its essence in 1918.
Labor is property. Property is wealth. Wealth is capital. Time is your
total capital, and the minutes of your life are painfully few.
-- Robert A. Heinlein a.k.a. Lazarus Long "Of course, since you have no COST basis in your labor, everything you receive in exchange for your labor is gain to you." Mr. Rookard is asserting that compensation for labor = FMV - $0 (cost basis) = gain In other words, Mr. Rookard is asserting that labor (property itself) has no value until EXCHANGED for other property; In other words, Mr. Rookard is asserting that converting your property into another form is what gives it value. In order to follow Mr. Rookard's line of thought, one would have to ignore these Supreme Court words in the Eisner case:
The key point is the word derived. 'Income
may be defined as the gain
derived from
capital, from
labor, or from
both combined,
Remember Mr. Rookard's assertion: GAIN = the exchange value of labor - $0 cost basis. In other words, the entire value of labor is being taxed as gain. How does one sever the GAIN from the labor and leave the labor (property, wealth, capital) value intact with Mr. Rookard's view of the world? Now Mr. Rookard, you go ahead and jerk everyone around some more, by ignoring this again: I am asking for the TENTH (10) time: 25. Admit or deny that: the word [income] must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act [of 1909], Dear reader, I hope by now you are starting to wonder what it is about this specific interrogatory that keeps Mr. Rookard from an honest reply. |