Paul Says Americans "Robbed" of their Wealth

[gonerail]

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke appeared before the Congressional Joint Economic Committee on November 8, but had to face criticism from Republican presidential candidate and Texas congressman Ron Paul.



Paul made accusations the Federal Reserve was stealing people’s money.



“There is a dollar crisis out and people’s money being stolen,” Paul said. “People who have saved, they’re being robbed. I mean, if you have a devaluation of the dollar at 10 percent, people have been robbed of 10 percent.”



Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke attempted to dispel the notion people were being “robbed” of their money by explaining the relativity of the dollar in a local economy.



“If somebody has their wealth in dollars and they’re going to buy consumer goods in dollars, then as a typical American … then the decline in the dollar – the only effect it has on their buying power is that it makes imported goods more expensive,” Bernanke replied.

Video at site : http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2007/20071108180311.aspx

[run4it]

Why is it that, in economic matters at least, I'm much more willing to believe the Chairmen of the Fed over a crackpot Texas OB/GYN who wants to return to the Gold Standard?

Let's take a look at qualifications:

Bernanke: Graduated Summa Cum Laude from Harvard w/ an BS in Economics
PhD Economics, MIT
Professor, Stanford School of Economics
Tenured Professor, Princeton
Lecturer, London School of Economics
Editor, American Economic Review
Fellow, Econometric Society

Dr. Pauls economic achievements:
................
.................
.................
...................
Well, he DID manage the Gettysburg College Coffee Shop for a year....


This is the sort of dispute that Paul supporters really shouldn't be bragging about.

[WNYresident]

run4it

As your money is worth less against a world market you end up getting less for your dollar. Takes more of them to get the same thing if the value goes lower which it is. Why wouldn't you believe that?

[run4it]

I understand the principles of inflation and price relativity. I just don't think Paul has a very good idea of what causes them and/or how they should be controlled. Apparently one of the foremost authorities in the world on economics agrees with me.

Again, there are some fights Rep. Paul shouldn't pick...this is one of them.

[Slim.fsp]

Why is it that, in economic matters at least, I'm much more willing to believe the Chairmen of the Fed over a crackpot Texas OB/GYN who wants to return to the Gold Standard?

Let's take a look at qualifications:

Bernanke: Graduated Summa Cum Laude from Harvard w/ an BS in Economics
PhD Economics, MIT
Professor, Stanford School of Economics
Tenured Professor, Princeton
Lecturer, London School of Economics
Editor, American Economic Review
Fellow, Econometric Society

Dr. Pauls economic achievements:
................
.................
.................
...................
Well, he DID manage the Gettysburg College Coffee Shop for a year....


This is the sort of dispute that Paul supporters really shouldn't be bragging about.

Ok Run this just shows you make not effort when writing a post. If you would go to wikipedia and look up Ron you would have seen that he has knowledge about the financial system and is a supporter of Austrian Economics (aka Free Market Economics) which Bernanke is a student of Keynesian Economics which redistributionists usually complement each other.

So lets list some of Ron Paul's qualifications

1. Was a OB/GYN doctor which means he ran his own medical practice and did not accept medicare or medicaid and would do work either probono or offer reduced prices.

2. Served on the House Banking Committee in the Congress

3. Authored "Gold, Peace, and Prosperity: The Birth of a New Economy" which is available on mises.org

4. Authored "The Case for Gold: a Minority Report of the U.S. Gold Commission" available on mises.org

5. Authored "Ten Myths About Paper Money"

6. Authored "Mises and Austrian Economics: A Personal View" available on mises.org

7. Authored "The Ron Paul Money Book"

As for your statement about the gold standard that standard was good enough for the economy until 1913 and you might realize that there was never a "Great Depression" until the Federal Reserve (which is a private company and is not part of the Federal government) took over regulating the money supply. If it is a crackpot idea that the money should have true value then you are calling the founders crackpots also since they knew from the "Continental Dollar" the problem of money that did not have real value.

[run4it]

The gold standard, among other things, provides wealth and value to groups who have no merit other than the possession of relatively useless shiny metal.

Price fluctuations prior to the abolishing of the Gold Standard often ranged over 100% in a year. While long term inflation may have been less, short term fluctuation made it almost impossible to form a "weekly/monthly budget" such as many of our paycheck-to-paycheckers must do today.

Senator Clinton serves on the Armed Forces committee, Committee on Budget, etc. I'm assuming you'll accept her as an expert on those subjects then, right?

You really don't think Paul has an office manager?

Paul wrote books? That's nice. You can write a book. I actually wrote a book one time. Doesn't mean they're really worth anything.

And I DID get my info from Wikipedia.

And oh yeah...Dr Paul subscribes to the Milton Friedman school. That's nice....Friedman said that the Fed didn't do ENOUGH to avert the Great Depression.

Oh yeah...and Friedman was a bit of an absolutism myopian anyway.

I can understand why people like a lot of Paul's ideas and politics, and certainly his personal ethics. That's fine. But the guy IS FAR FROM infallibility. He does have poor understandings of some subjects. Simply, he is not the Second Coming that many of his supporters are making him out to be.

[raoul duke]

If he is so dedicated to this cause, why has he caucused with the party largely responsible enabling it? I know about his lone votes in opposition, but doesn't there come a time when you realize the party you are affiliated with and a member of is earnestly working for what you believe to be utterly damaging to your country?

[Slim.fsp]

The gold standard, among other things, provides wealth and value to groups who have no merit other than the possession of relatively useless shiny metal.


LOL that has to be the funniest thing I have read in awhile thanks for the laugh. So gold is a useless shiny metal? I guess you have never heard of gold fillings, gold rings, gold chains, gold earrings, or gold medals? Maybe you mean products that use gold like electrical components (i.e. computers, ipods, connector cables), spark plugs, gold thread for embroidery, or used in glass for a red coloring. Maybe you mean as a medical treatment for example the isotope gold-198 which is used as a treatment for some cancers. Maybe you mean as decoration like gold flakes used in foods for decorations like gold flakes in drinks or maybe the in alcohol like goldschlager.

There are many reasons why gold has value it is malleable and ductile. Gold is also a great conductor of heat and electricity.

After that statement I really suspect anything you write or you are totally ignorant about the workings of the real world.

[raoul duke]

LOL that has to be the funniest thing I have read in awhile thanks for the laugh. So gold is a useless shiny metal? I guess you have never heard of gold fillings, gold rings, gold chains, gold earrings, or gold medals? Maybe you mean products that use gold like electrical components (i.e. computers, ipods, connector cables), spark plugs, gold thread for embroidery, or used in glass for a red coloring. Maybe you mean as a medical treatment for example the isotope gold-198 which is used as a treatment for some cancers. Maybe you mean as decoration like gold flakes used in foods for decorations like gold flakes in drinks or maybe the in alcohol like goldschlager.

There are many reasons why gold has value it is malleable and ductile. Gold is also a great conductor of heat and electricity.

After that statement I really suspect anything you write or you are totally ignorant about the workings of the real world.
You should look in the mirror. Comparing the tangible every-day uses of a metal resource vs. the backing of a currency based on the subjective value of said metal is non-sense. Gold as a currency standard is a completely different ball game than the gold in your fillings.

A side question: Wouldn't going to a gold standard cause inflation? How would Paul plan to deal with that?

[Slim.fsp]

You should look in the mirror. Comparing the tangible every-day uses of a metal resource vs. the backing of a currency based on the subjective value of said metal is non-sense. Gold as a currency standard is a completely different ball game than the gold in your fillings.

A side question: Wouldn't going to a gold standard cause inflation? How would Paul plan to deal with that?

Currency is only a medium for barter, anything could be a currency gold, silver, copper, bananas, cotton, beads. Gold as a standard would just force the government to be fiscally responsible because they would no longer be able to just print more cash and use that cash to purchase products and services. When the government prints more money and then puts that money in the economy it inflates the supply and reduces the value of the cash in your pocket. This is the reason why a dollar from 1920 would buy less then .10 of products today.

Also Ron Paul would like to see a gold standard but he would like to legalize competing currencies as a policy change and would remove the taxes from gold and silver so they could be used as currencies again.

[raoul duke]

Currency is only a medium for barter, anything could be a currency gold, silver, copper, bananas, cotton, beads. Gold as a standard would just force the government to be fiscally responsible because they would no longer be able to just print more cash and use that cash to purchase products and services. When the government prints more money and then puts that money in the economy it inflates the supply and reduces the value of the cash in your pocket. This is the reason why a dollar from 1920 would buy less then .10 of products today.
Well, in all honesty thats one of about a million reasons a 1920 dollar is worth less today (I'm pretty sure its actually worth less $.10) and not even a real contributing factor. You're right that simply printing more cash leads to inflation (look at Zimbabwe), but thats not how the monetary system necessarily works in this country. The economy is too big and complex to be brought under control by fixing our currency to a finite resource. Plus its a good way to end up in a war fighting for said resource.

Also Ron Paul would like to see a gold standard but he would like to legalize competing currencies as a policy change and would remove the taxes from gold and silver so they could be used as currencies again.
Sure, I can dig that. It's inevitable in my opinion. The Dollar, while still a benchmark currency, is losing ground fast to competing monies. Though good luck selling that concept to "red-blooded amerukans." I'm not sure they'll take that kindly to foreign currency having more and more influence over the almighty Benjamin.

[Dumbfounded]

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke appeared before the Congressional Joint Economic Committee on November 8, but had to face criticism from Republican presidential candidate and Texas congressman Ron Paul.



Paul made accusations the Federal Reserve was stealing people’s money.



“There is a dollar crisis out and people’s money being stolen,” Paul said. “People who have saved, they’re being robbed. I mean, if you have a devaluation of the dollar at 10 percent, people have been robbed of 10 percent.”



Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke attempted to dispel the notion people were being “robbed” of their money by explaining the relativity of the dollar in a local economy.



“If somebody has their wealth in dollars and they’re going to buy consumer goods in dollars, then as a typical American … then the decline in the dollar – the only effect it has on their buying power is that it makes imported goods more expensive,” Bernanke replied.

Video at site : http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2007/20071108180311.aspx


Ron Paul like Biden and Kucinich do not mince words;They have some SERIOUS bal-s and for that, they have my admiration.


You know what would take mega-bal-s from a Presidential candidate;ANY Federal politician?


To ask Congress & the GAO to investigate if the existence of the Federal Reserve is Constitutional, if the personal Income Tax is Constitutional-To shake up the system big time.

There is NOTHING "Federal" about the Federal Reserve;It was created by a few bankers in the early 1900's, Rockefeller being one of them.

The personal income tax is a joke as are almost every other of the 100+ taxes on private citizens.

Originally, corporations were supposed to be taxed.
Workers BARTERED their output-productivity in exchange for money.
There was NEVER supposed to be a personal income tax.
Its just another G-damned lie we're "used to" believing in.

Conspiracy junk? Uh uh. A few dozen people that were charged with not paying their income tax have successfully sued the I.R.S. on the grounds that it is unconstitutional



Let's see Ron Paul, Joseph Biden and Dennis (hot Redhead wife) Kucinich bring this "hide in plain sight" lie up.

[raoul duke]

Conspiracy junk? Uh uh. A few dozen people that were charged with not paying their income tax have successfully sued the I.R.S. on the grounds that it is unconstitutional
When does losing constitute success? No one has "successfully sued the I.R.S." on the grounds that income tax is illegal. Win an initial hearing or an appeal? Yeah. But the whole basis to the lawsuits are technical (the reason they win a battle in lower courts) and get tossed once the legality of the tax is argued.

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. - Amendment XVI

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, United States v. Thomas:
Thomas is a tax protester, and one of his arguments is that he did not need to file tax returns because the sixteenth amendment is not part of the constitution. It was not properly ratified, Thomas insists, repeating the argument of W. Benson & M. Beckman, The Law That Never Was (1985). Benson and Beckman review the documents concerning the states' ratification of the sixteenth amendment and conclude that only four states ratified the sixteenth amendment; they insist that the official promulgation of that amendment by Secretary of State Knox in 1913 is therefore void.

Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913. Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal instruments of ratification to the Secretary of State. (Minnesota notified the Secretary orally, and additional states ratified later; we consider only those Secretary Knox considered.) Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. The text Congress transmitted to the states was: "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." Many of the instruments neglected to capitalize "States," and some capitalized other words instead. The instrument from Illinois had "remuneration" in place of "enumeration"; the instrument from Missouri substituted "levy" for "lay"; the instrument from Washington had "income" not "incomes"; others made similar blunders.

Thomas insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and — taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems — advised the Secretary that he was authorized to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so.

Although Thomas urges us to take the view of several state courts that only agreement on the literal text may make a legal document effective, the Supreme Court follows the "enrolled bill rule." If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted. Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 36 L.Ed. 294, 12 S.Ct. 495 (1892). The principle is equally applicable to constitutional amendments. See Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 66 L.Ed. 505, 42 S.Ct. 217 (1922), which treats as conclusive the declaration of the Secretary of State that the nineteenth amendment had been adopted. In United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d. 457, 462-463, n.6 (7th Cir. 1986), we relied on Leser, as well as the inconsequential nature of the objections in the face of the 73-year acceptance of the effectiveness of the sixteenth amendment, to reject a claim similar to Thomas's. See also Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 83 L. Ed. 1385, 59 S. Ct. 972 (1939) (questions about ratification of amendments may be nonjusticiable). Secretary Knox declared that enough states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary's decision is not transparently defective. We need not decide when, if ever, such a decision may be reviewed in order to know that Secretary Knox's decision is now beyond review.

[Slim.fsp]

That response from Raoul and other is why I no longer argue the legality of the income tax. I will say it MAYBE legal but I oppose it on moral grounds. We all know that laws can be fallible but morals have a much harder foundation.

For example back in the 1800's it was legal to own another person and if you found a escaped slave it would be illegal to assist them. I oppose slavery because it is immoral to me. You may say it was 200 years ago well right now some people are made in to criminals just because they choose to engage in a practice that some people think were so bad for example prostitution, drugs, and guns.

Now back to the moral argument of income taxes I believe it is immoral to steal money from your neighbors even if that money is used to help out the downtrodden of society which most taxes are not used for, most taxes are used to pay middle class bureaucrats who are nothing more then a parasite on the economy.

I personally do not know if there is a law that taxes your labor but I would think that if there was a law it would contradict the 13th amendment to the constitution. If someone takes 100% of your income by force they are your master, if someone takes 1% of your income they are 1% your master, that makes you 1% a slave. Also the IRS forces you to fill out paperwork which is literally involuntary servitude.

[raoul duke]

That response from Raoul and other is why I no longer argue the legality of the income tax. I will say it MAYBE legal but I oppose it on moral grounds. We all know that laws can be fallible but morals have a much harder foundation.
It's not "maybe" legal, it's "fo' sho'" legal. The whole anti-income taxe argument is based on syntax errors minor typos contained in the versions ratified by 30-some states. The court has consistantly ruled (by "consistantly," I mean 100% of the time) that the meaning of the amendment was never contextually affected by these discrepancies.

For example back in the 1800's it was legal to own another person and if you found a escaped slave it would be illegal to assist them. I oppose slavery because it is immoral to me. You may say it was 200 years ago well right now some people are made in to criminals just because they choose to engage in a practice that some people think were so bad for example prostitution, drugs, and guns.
What does any of this have to do with the governments right to collect taxes?

Now back to the moral argument of income taxes I believe it is immoral to steal money from your neighbors even if that money is used to help out the downtrodden of society which most taxes are not used for, most taxes are used to pay middle class bureaucrats who are nothing more then a parasite on the economy.
Do your roads pave themselves? Police officers work for free? Buiding inspector donates his time? There is bloat and waste in government, dont' get me wrong. Some of it is intentional on the part of the framers and some of it is the result of humans and their natural flaws. Either way, to broadly label every "middle class bureaucrat" as a parasite is ignorant. Remember that the next time you need a police officer.

I personally do not know if there is a law that taxes your labor but I would think that if there was a law it would contradict the 13th amendment to the constitution. If someone takes 100% of your income by force they are your master, if someone takes 1% of your income they are 1% your master, that makes you 1% a slave. Also the IRS forces you to fill out paperwork which is literally involuntary servitude.
Thats an incredible stretch of logic.

[Sock Puppet]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/R1eMwmriO2E&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/R1eMwmriO2E&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[Sock Puppet]

It's not "maybe" legal, it's "fo' sho'" legal. The whole anti-income taxe argument is based on syntax errors minor typos contained in the versions ratified by 30-some states. The court has consistantly ruled (by "consistantly," I mean 100% of the time) that the meaning of the amendment was never contextually affected by these discrepancies.

I doesn't matter what the courts rule. The constitution is the higher authority. Taxation on income is not constitution as defined by the Pollock case.

[Sock Puppet]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QCSrdQRX19g&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QCSrdQRX19g&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[raoul duke]

I doesn't matter what the courts rule. The constitution is the higher authority. Taxation on income is not constitution as defined by the Pollock case.
Huh? The 16th Amendment overturned the Pollack vs. Farmers' Loan and Trust Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollock_v._Farmers'_Loan_&_Trust_Co.) case. So you're right, the Constitution is "the higher authority." In fact it is "higher" than the decision in the Pollack case.

[run4it]

LOL that has to be the funniest thing I have read in awhile thanks for the laugh. So gold is a useless shiny metal? I guess you have never heard of gold fillings, gold rings, gold chains, gold earrings, or gold medals? Maybe you mean products that use gold like electrical components (i.e. computers, ipods, connector cables), spark plugs, gold thread for embroidery, or used in glass for a red coloring. Maybe you mean as a medical treatment for example the isotope gold-198 which is used as a treatment for some cancers. Maybe you mean as decoration like gold flakes used in foods for decorations like gold flakes in drinks or maybe the in alcohol like goldschlager.

There are many reasons why gold has value it is malleable and ductile. Gold is also a great conductor of heat and electricity.

After that statement I really suspect anything you write or you are totally ignorant about the workings of the real world.

Seriously...you're demonstrating the usefulness of gold by pointing towards it's decorative value?

In that case I guess bronze age should never have ended...:rolleyes:

[Slim.fsp]

It's not "maybe" legal, it's "fo' sho'" legal. The whole anti-income taxe argument is based on syntax errors minor typos contained in the versions ratified by 30-some states. The court has consistantly ruled (by "consistantly," I mean 100% of the time) that the meaning of the amendment was never contextually affected by these discrepancies.


I am not saying it is legal because I have not read all the laws and I really doubt that you have because it is physically impossible to read all the laws. If you can point out the exact law I believe there is a 1 million dollar reward for anyone who can point out the law but you did not respond to the point that I was making that it is immoral to steal property from your neighbors.


What does any of this have to do with the governments right to collect taxes?


Government does not have rights! People have rights, government is given privileges by the people who consent to being governed.


Do your roads pave themselves? Police officers work for free? Buiding inspector donates his time? There is bloat and waste in government, dont' get me wrong. Some of it is intentional on the part of the framers and some of it is the result of humans and their natural flaws. Either way, to broadly label every "middle class bureaucrat" as a parasite is ignorant. Remember that the next time you need a police officer.


Roads, building inspectors, and police are all services that could be offered on the free market. Actually you may not believe this but there are private protection services that you can purchase for example you can have your home inspected by a private inspection agency, private protection services are available like security guards or home protection (i.e. ADT). Also roads can be provided and for a long time in the United States were privately owed, if you don't believe that look at the history of the Pennsylvania turnpike.


Thats an incredible stretch of logic.

I don't see a stretch of logic I just see different degrees of slavery and I believe that slavery is immoral and that is why I oppose it.

[Sock Puppet]

Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 US 103 (1916) (Entire text of ruling)

"...by the previous ruling, it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of INDIRECT taxation to which it inherently belonged.." (emphasis added)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=240&invol=103

[Slim.fsp]

Seriously...you're demonstrating the usefulness of gold by pointing towards it's decorative value?

In that case I guess bronze age should never have ended...:rolleyes:

Decorative value is still value. From your argument paintings are worthless so I guess we should just wipe our asses with the mona lisa and smash the sculpture of David so that it could be used in a floor. I guess you consider computers and other electronics decorative.

I never said anything about the bronze age but I would not consider bronze a worthless metal. The worth of any item is measured by the free market and the value that the market puts on the material.

[raoul duke]

I am not saying it is legal because I have not read all the laws and I really doubt that you have because it is physically impossible to read all the laws. If you can point out the exact law I believe there is a 1 million dollar reward for anyone who can point out the law but you did not respond to the point that I was making that it is immoral to steal property from your neighbors.
It is legal. There really is not much to read regarding the constitutionality of income taxes. It's not physically impossible to read the Constitution and notice that the part granting the power to collect income taxes still stands as the law of the land. The only people having a debate about legality are the ones refusing to acknowledge that is has been settled law for quite some time. We amended the Constitution after the Pollack decision to settle the question and every subsequent challenge has been dismissed as meritless and/or legally flawed and incorrect. Only took me about an hour of reading last night to figure that out.

So the answer to the million dollar question is: The Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Who do I see about getting the money? A money order or cash payment would be preferable (for tax reasons, of course).

Government does not have rights! People have rights, government is given privileges by the people who consent to being governed.
Sorry, poor choice of words. I should have said "power" not "right."

Roads, building inspectors, and police are all services that could be offered on the free market. Actually you may not believe this but there are private protection services that you can purchase for example you can have your home inspected by a private inspection agency, private protection services are available like security guards or home protection (i.e. ADT).
Mercenaries? What power do private citizens have over anyone when it comes to enforcing laws? What power would you be willing to give them? I'm talking about law enforcement, not private security. There is a huge difference.

Also roads can be provided and for a long time in the United States were privately owed, if you don't believe that look at the history of the Pennsylvania turnpike.
Yeah except the Penn. Trpk. has always been run by an agency of the state of Pennsylvania (a somewhat more efficient version of the NYS Thruway Authority). It's never been a private road.

I don't see a stretch of logic I just see different degrees of slavery and I believe that slavery is immoral and that is why I oppose it.
Still makes no sense. You are not, nor have never been "owned" by anyone or any government. Burdened by taxes? Sure. Lost your personal sovereignty? No.

[raoul duke]

Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 US 103 (1916) (Entire text of ruling)

"...by the previous ruling, it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of INDIRECT taxation to which it inherently belonged.." (emphasis added)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=240&invol=103

Not quite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_constitutional_arguments#Stanton_v._ Baltic_Mining_Co.).

Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.
Some tax protesters challenge the levying of tax upon individual income, based on language in the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.,[19] to the effect that the Sixteenth Amendment "conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged [. . . .]" The protesters argue that in light of this language, the income tax is unconstitutional in that it is a direct tax and constitutionally should be apportioned (divided equally amongst the population of the various states).[20]

The above quoted language in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. is not a holding of law in the case. (Compare Ratio decidendi, Precedent, Stare decisis and Obiter dictum for a fuller explanation.) As explained below, the Court's ruling in the case contradicts the tax protesters' argument.

The quoted language regarding the "complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning" is a reference to the power granted to Congress by the original text of Article I of the U.S. Constitution. The reference to "being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it [the income tax] belonged" is a reference to the effect of the 1895 Court decision in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.,[21] where taxes on income from property (such as interest income and dividend income) -- which like taxes on income from labor had always been considered indirect taxes (and therefore not subject to the apportionment rule) -- were, beginning in 1895, treated as direct taxes. The Sixteenth Amendment overruled the effect of Pollock, making the source of the income irrelevant with respect to the apportionment rule, and thereby placing taxes on income from property back into the category of indirect taxes such as income from labor (the Sixteenth Amendment expressly stating that Congress has power to impose income taxes regardless of the source of the income, without apportionment among the states, and without regard to any census or enumeration).

The Court noted that the case "was commenced by the appellant [John R. Stanton] as a stockholder of the Baltic Mining Company, the appellee, to enjoin the voluntary payment by the corporation and its officers of the tax assessed against it under the income tax section of the tariff act of October 3, 1913." On a direct appeal from the trial court, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, which had dismissed Stanton's motion (i.e., had rejected Stanton's request) for a court order to prevent Baltic Mining Company from paying the income tax.

Stanton argued that the tax law was unconstitutional and void under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution in that the law denied "to mining companies and their stockholders equal protection of the laws and deprive[d] them of their property without due process of law." The Court rejected that argument.

Stanton also argued that the Sixteenth Amendment "authorizes only an exceptional direct income tax without apportionment, to which the tax in question does not conform" and that therefore the income tax was "not within the authority of that Amendment." The Court also rejected this argument.

Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. is a leading case where the Court's ruling contradicts the tax protesters' argument that the income tax is unconstitutional. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the income tax under the 1913 Act under both the Fifth Amendment and the Sixteenth Amendment.
[[I]Citations are contained in page]

[Sock Puppet]

To deny that taxing people for working wasn't new is your choice. A stupid choice, but your stupid choice.

[raoul duke]

To deny that taxing people for working wasn't new is your choice. A stupid choice, but your stupid choice.
What are you talking about? I'm not denying anything. Denial is holding onto the belief that income taxes are unconstitutional when years of case law says otherwise.

[Sock Puppet]

What are you talking about? I'm not denying anything. Denial is holding onto the belief that income taxes are unconstitutional when years of case law says otherwise.
You are denying that the income tax as we know it is neither direct nor indirect.

[raoul duke]

You are denying that the income tax as we know it is neither direct nor indirect.
You're trying to change the subject or put words in my mouth. All I'm saying is income tax is constitutional. Nothing more, nothing less. I never said or intimated anything regarding whether "taxing people for working wasn't new."

[Sock Puppet]

You're trying to change the subject or put words in my mouth. All I'm saying is income tax is constitutional. Nothing more, nothing less. I never said or intimated anything regarding whether "taxing people for working wasn't new."
What I am saying is taxing people's income for services rendered is unconstitutional.

[raoul duke]

What I am saying is taxing people's income for services rendered is unconstitutional.
Case law? Precedent? Anything that trumps the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution? Income, in essence, is compensation for services rendered, no? My employer doesn't pay me out of the goodness of their cold corporate hearts.

[Sock Puppet]

Case law? Precedent? Anything that trumps the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution? Income, in essence, is compensation for services rendered, no? My employer doesn't pay me out of the goodness of their cold corporate hearts.
"Income Tax" is misinterpreted. Stanton v. Baltic Mining sets the definition for "Income Tax" as either direct or or direct with NO NEW POWER.

[raoul duke]

"Income Tax" is misinterpreted. Stanton v. Baltic Mining sets the definition for "Income Tax" as either direct or or direct with NO NEW POWER.
This "misinterpretation?"

"conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged [. . . .]"
Did you miss this part?

The above quoted language (meaning the text above) in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. is not a holding of law in the case. (Compare Ratio decidendi, Precedent, Stare decisis and Obiter dictum for a fuller explanation.)

The reference to "being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it [the income tax] belonged" is a reference to the effect of the 1895 Court decision in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., where taxes on income from property (such as interest income and dividend income) -- which like taxes on income from labor had always been considered indirect taxes (and therefore not subject to the apportionment rule) -- were, beginning in 1895, treated as direct taxes. The Sixteenth Amendment overruled the effect of Pollock, making the source of the income irrelevant with respect to the apportionment rule, and thereby placing taxes on income from property back into the category of indirect taxes such as income from labor (the Sixteenth Amendment expressly stating that Congress has power to impose income taxes regardless of the source of the income, without apportionment among the states, and without regard to any census or enumeration).

[Sock Puppet]

Pollock sets the definition of income tax as a direct tax. The 16th allows for the collection of Direct and Indirect taxes. So at this point, taxing people for working is neither a Direct nor a Indirect tax. Baltic states that the 16TH gives the government NO NEW POWER TO TAX.

Unconstitutional.

[raoul duke]

Pollock sets the definition of income tax as a direct tax. The 16th allows for the collection of Direct and Indirect taxes. So at this point, taxing people for working is neither a Direct nor a Indirect tax. Baltic states that the 16TH gives the government NO NEW POWER TO TAX.

Unconstitutional.
Pollack was overturned by the 16th Amendment. So anything successfully argued in Pollack that contradicts the 16th Amend. is null and void.

It's constitutional. Get over it.

[run4it]

Pollock was decided in 1895. The 16th Amendment was adopted in 1913. It takes an amazing feat of willful ignorance to tray and claim that the former has any impact on the latter, both by chronological order as well as Constitutional supremacy.