The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: It is BOTH direct and indirect ...

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: That's incorrect (see in situ)

It is BOTH direct and indirect ...

... depending on the SOURCE, which is why they wrote it that way.

Historically, any tax on the ownership of property was a direct tax, and this included the "income" or "profit" that was "derived from" the ownership of that property. But a different type of tax on income, such as an excise for the privilege of doing business, was an indirect tax.

So, "income" could be EITHER direct or indirect, depending on what type of income it was.

This is why the Supreme Court declared the Income Tax Act of 1894 unconstitutional, because it included taxes on real estate income, for example, which was an unapportioned direct tax.

That's why they worded the 16th the way they did. The "source" has to do with whether the income is generated from ownership of property or something else.

Today, many courts have claimed it is direct and many other courts have claimed it is indirect. This is because most judges don't know what the f&ck they are talking about. It is BOTH.

This is why today, dividends from a US corporation are considered "US source" and dividends from a foreign corporation are considered "foreign source," but capital gains on the sale of the stock of a US or foreign corporation is either US source or foreign source, depending on where the SELLER is located.

See my post above that starts with "It's a profits tax." That includes what I consider the definitive statement by the Supreme Court because, unlike everything else, they actually explain all the cases up to that point, and the concept they laid out has not been overturned.

Of course, it is STILL being collected unconstitutionally, because "income" is a tax on GAIN (as that case explains), but it is not being collected that way today.