Quote:
Originally Posted by LUKE2447
"I agree that the Internal Revenue Code doesn't specifically define what "income" is but we can get a good idea of what it is from what the code says, e.g. "Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived." For the purpose of this discussion, "gross income" is synonymous with "income" in that it's what you or I have before the government gets its grubby hands on it and before we avail ourselves of any of the government-granted "deductions."
Major issue with what you are trying to interpret "into" the section vs define from the section. I may derive "income" from a business transaction but am I taxed on the total transactions or the profits in total from my business dealing? THe courts have decided on what "income" is and it is "profits" or "gain" Again read the decisions and yes it does matter as congress has never given a "legislative" definition that I know of. The courts have decided through variable means why it did defined a certain way. The end result I don't make profits. Seems to be you want ot ignore the Supreme Court because it conflicts with you basis.
|
You are being taxed on what you receive and it doesn't have to do solely with business transactions. To put it simply, you didn't have the money before but you have it now - and now the government is going to tax it.
Quote:
|
Also whether it says including (but not limited to)" and the phrase "and similar items." means nothing really and is weak and PURE speculation.
|
But it does mean something. It is the way the government justifies taxing wages and salaries. If you want to say the government is being deceptive in doing so, you won't get any argument from me.
Quote:
|
Why in the world would they take out the most CLEAR point of what "income" is by definition in relationship to the masses? Especially when it was CLEARLY defined before. To say well it might not but it can "allude" to is simple government trying to keep the issue vague when they know it's not.
|
It's exactly in this practice of keeping it vague that allows the government to find new and creative ways of taking more money from the citizenry.
Quote:
|
Why is wages and salaries not listed! The reason BECAUSE IT IS NOT PROFITS or GAINS!
|
You didn't have the money before and now you have it: I'd say it was gain.
Quote:
|
Notice the previous wording on that as well. It is an exchange, thus equal! I agree the wording does cause confusion and yes it was done on purpose.
|
That it was done on purpose was my point!
Quote:
|
The most two basic ways of gaining "alleged" income not defined and taken out hmmmm geee wonder why!!!! Then obscure wording used. the clear meaning of the courts on the decisions is clear "income" is not just ANYTHING brought in! That is the WHOLE point of the previous court decisions.
|
But Supreme Court decisions are not law. They are merely opinions expressed by those whose function is outlined in Article III of the Constitution:
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects." This was changed in the 11th amendment as follows: "The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."
Quote:
|
It is profits FROM CAPITAL or LABOR. I as a person who earns wages or salary do not as I have a even exhange. A business most of the time has laborers involved in which cost(having workers to fullfill obligation on behalf of the business vs benefit(the cost of workers being less than services or product rendered) is realized by the company. Thus as you know the company or business makes a "profit" in the end. As I a worker cannot have a profit as I am of equal exchange.
|
You didn't have the money before you engaged in the labor: I'd say you profited from the labor - even if you think the money you got wasn't worth the labor you put in.
Quote:
"As for Supreme Court decisions, they're not amendments to the Constitution and they're not legislation."
You ought to know better than that. They both work hand in hand!
|
The Courts want you to believe that but the Supreme Court has been overstepping its constitutional bounds ever since Marbury v. Madison.
Quote:
|
Also is the rents, interest, royalties etc... in Section 61 sources or income?
|
I'd say that most of them are "income" but notice "Income from life insurance and endowment contracts," "Income from discharge of indebtedness," "Income in respect of a decedent," and "Income from an interest in an estate or trust;" this suggests that while rent, interest, royalties, etc. are themselves "income," life insurance, endowment contracts, the discharging of indebtedness, etc. are sources.