Income from investments or property value increases is taxed at half the rate as it's considered property gains tax. Right now, you actually get taxed less for doing nothing than for labor.
This was all designed to oppress the poor and benefit the rich. Most rich people don't actually do anything for their living. They just let their assets earn money for them. When those assets appreciate in value then they get taxed half. It is true that when the assets generate income independent of their value, they are supposed to be taxed at the full rate, but the rich get around that in different ways. Ways that the poor and even middle class cannot afford.
On the other hand, the way the poor and middle class earn their living is always taxed at full value. The US does have what they call a progressive income tax system where up to a certain amount of income, the rates are lower for that income amount and gradually increase in tiers. However, that doesn't really benefit anyone unless they are the poorest of the poor. The main problems (or features for them) of the progressive tax system are:
The tiered system discourages single income two parent households. If there are two households with the same income but in one where one parent works versus in the other where two parents work: The two parent working household will be charged less taxes because each parent will be able to claim the lower tax tiers versus where the one parent would only be able to take advantage of them once and have to pay more of the income at the higher tiers. Some states do potentially have what are called income splitting laws designed to mitigate this, but those tend to be limited and by default, this system disadvantages two parent single income households.
As inflation rises, governments are often slow to adjust the tiers. And the tiers are usually fixed (not tied to inflation). So the tiers become less and less meaningful over time. In some areas, by the time you are making $100,000, most of your income is being taxed at or close to the top rate. However, as anyone knows, $100,000 isn't a whole lot if you're trying to raise a family even if you got to keep all of it, which the government would never allow.
If you live in an expensive area (such as a big city), you need a large income just to survive there (for example: just to be able to afford rent). However, even though you're not wealthy in that area and most of your income is used for necessities such as rent, it is already being taxed at close to the top rate. That doesn't include the fact that some of these big cities have their own additional income tax further impoverishing their residence. The rich have easy ways of avoiding this such as being able to afford to arrange for official residency outside these cities and states even while technically living there.
It makes taxes more complicated. Both in terms of preparing them and planning your income in order to minimize them.
It allows the rich politicians to claim that that while a 40% to 50% (when you combine city, state, and federal) might seem high, it's only the rich who are paying that due to the progressive tiered tax system. They claim that most people will pay a lot less. However, the reality is, even lower middle class people need to pay close to the top rate just to maintain their standard of living. The truly rich, if they haven't setup some legal entity to make sure they pay even less, pay half the top rate (20 to 25%) if they get their income is from capital gains (and that's how most of them structure their income to minimise the tax they have to pay). That's less than most of the lower tiers that the poor have to pay. And the rich also get the advantage of the lower tiers, except that it's so little money to them, they likely don't care about them, but they still get them.
It manipulates the labor market by discouraging people from working additional hours from which they may need income, but have determined it not to be worth it. This is because let's say for the first 40 hours of the week you are being taxed at tier 1 to 3 and the 4th tier is a big jump in income tax. At that point, you might just say to yourself that it's not worth working those hours as you get to keep so little of the money at that point. Even if you might need the money and even if there is work that needs to be done. What makes this worse is that people get tired as the week drags on and additional hours become more personally taxing and tiring. So why would you work your most personally taxing and tiring hours of the week just to give most of that income straight to the government, even if you really need the money and your employer really needs the work done.
PLEASE ARCHIVE PDF OFFLINE AS THIS MIGHT BE TARGETED FOR DELETION WITH ELEVATED VISIBILITY
Context: This is the debate over what is "income" during the process to approve the Amendment that allowed the IRS to be created. Discussed is specifically the Congressionally delegated authority to be given to the IRS, and what it is NOT allowed to do. Key to this is "what is income? Specifically, "labor capital" is principal capital and individual property and NOT "income" or "property of the state".
U.S. Code: Title 26 was never enacted--because direct taxation is unconstitutional and the 16th Amendment says nothing different even though it APPEARS to. Again, this is what ignorance of our Constitution and other founding documents has allowed to happen.
Correct. IRS can legally collect tax ONLY on labor from 1. Federal employees, 2. Labor performed on Federal lands, and 3. Labor performed in job on Federal excise tax list.
Courts have upheld income tax on all Federally connected or subsidized programs such as 401K, IRA, Social Security, Medicare, etc. Direct taxation of all other income by Feds has not basis in law or Constitutional structure that requires state citizens to pay direct taxes to state of their residency per terms of state laws.
Yes, income tax is not Constitutional at all. Trading hours for money isn't a gain. It's a contract both parties have agreed to.
The idea that trading your time for money is a gain, is ridiculous. Time is far more precious than money anyway. A gain would be a bonus or inheritance or winning the lotto. Those are gains.
IRS is unconstitutional because they have usurped both Congressional and Judicial branch authority per W. Virginia v EPA (2022) SCOTUS precedent. But until we can get that fight going attack with the payroll tax vector by getting your payroll tax from last 5 years back with Form 4852 W-2 correction and amended returns.
One of the most important areas of our fundamental law concerns control over individual labor and property. Intending to establish a society based on individual liberty, America's founders designed our legal structure so as to ensure that to the greatest degree possible-- consistent with the need for securing that liberty against internal and external threats-- an individual's control over his or her own labor and property remains uncompromised by government.
When you receive money for work, that isn't income.
You TRADED your hours of your life and your labor for that cash. Even-Steven.
The government has no right to any portion of the sweat off your back.
Income from investments or property value increases, you didn't do anything to earn. The Constitution says those can be taxed.
Income tax is unconstitutional and anti-democracy, anti-liberty.
Income from investments or property value increases is taxed at half the rate as it's considered property gains tax. Right now, you actually get taxed less for doing nothing than for labor.
This was all designed to oppress the poor and benefit the rich. Most rich people don't actually do anything for their living. They just let their assets earn money for them. When those assets appreciate in value then they get taxed half. It is true that when the assets generate income independent of their value, they are supposed to be taxed at the full rate, but the rich get around that in different ways. Ways that the poor and even middle class cannot afford.
On the other hand, the way the poor and middle class earn their living is always taxed at full value. The US does have what they call a progressive income tax system where up to a certain amount of income, the rates are lower for that income amount and gradually increase in tiers. However, that doesn't really benefit anyone unless they are the poorest of the poor. The main problems (or features for them) of the progressive tax system are:
The tiered system discourages single income two parent households. If there are two households with the same income but in one where one parent works versus in the other where two parents work: The two parent working household will be charged less taxes because each parent will be able to claim the lower tax tiers versus where the one parent would only be able to take advantage of them once and have to pay more of the income at the higher tiers. Some states do potentially have what are called income splitting laws designed to mitigate this, but those tend to be limited and by default, this system disadvantages two parent single income households.
As inflation rises, governments are often slow to adjust the tiers. And the tiers are usually fixed (not tied to inflation). So the tiers become less and less meaningful over time. In some areas, by the time you are making $100,000, most of your income is being taxed at or close to the top rate. However, as anyone knows, $100,000 isn't a whole lot if you're trying to raise a family even if you got to keep all of it, which the government would never allow.
If you live in an expensive area (such as a big city), you need a large income just to survive there (for example: just to be able to afford rent). However, even though you're not wealthy in that area and most of your income is used for necessities such as rent, it is already being taxed at close to the top rate. That doesn't include the fact that some of these big cities have their own additional income tax further impoverishing their residence. The rich have easy ways of avoiding this such as being able to afford to arrange for official residency outside these cities and states even while technically living there.
It makes taxes more complicated. Both in terms of preparing them and planning your income in order to minimize them.
It allows the rich politicians to claim that that while a 40% to 50% (when you combine city, state, and federal) might seem high, it's only the rich who are paying that due to the progressive tiered tax system. They claim that most people will pay a lot less. However, the reality is, even lower middle class people need to pay close to the top rate just to maintain their standard of living. The truly rich, if they haven't setup some legal entity to make sure they pay even less, pay half the top rate (20 to 25%) if they get their income is from capital gains (and that's how most of them structure their income to minimise the tax they have to pay). That's less than most of the lower tiers that the poor have to pay. And the rich also get the advantage of the lower tiers, except that it's so little money to them, they likely don't care about them, but they still get them.
It manipulates the labor market by discouraging people from working additional hours from which they may need income, but have determined it not to be worth it. This is because let's say for the first 40 hours of the week you are being taxed at tier 1 to 3 and the 4th tier is a big jump in income tax. At that point, you might just say to yourself that it's not worth working those hours as you get to keep so little of the money at that point. Even if you might need the money and even if there is work that needs to be done. What makes this worse is that people get tired as the week drags on and additional hours become more personally taxing and tiring. So why would you work your most personally taxing and tiring hours of the week just to give most of that income straight to the government, even if you really need the money and your employer really needs the work done.
Deserves to be its own post, not to languish in replies
PLEASE ARCHIVE PDF OFFLINE AS THIS MIGHT BE TARGETED FOR DELETION WITH ELEVATED VISIBILITY
Context: This is the debate over what is "income" during the process to approve the Amendment that allowed the IRS to be created. Discussed is specifically the Congressionally delegated authority to be given to the IRS, and what it is NOT allowed to do. Key to this is "what is income? Specifically, "labor capital" is principal capital and individual property and NOT "income" or "property of the state".
August 28, 1913; "Congressional Record August 4, 1913-September 2, 1913: Vol 50, page 3844": https://archive.org/details/sim_congressional-record-proceedings-and-debates_august-4-1913-september-2-1913_50/page/3844/mode/2up
How to change W-4 with-holding, get all payroll taxes back with Form 4852 W-2 correction, , and aggressively protect yourself from IRS attacks: https://greatawakening.win/p/16aADrV8r4/for-anons-needing-irs-assistance/
Inspiration for my research and personal SUCCESSFUL battle against the IRS payroll tax: https://capitalvsincome.com/
This is a subject I'm very interested in.
Downloaded for safe keeping.
U.S. Code: Title 26 was never enacted--because direct taxation is unconstitutional and the 16th Amendment says nothing different even though it APPEARS to. Again, this is what ignorance of our Constitution and other founding documents has allowed to happen.
Correct. IRS can legally collect tax ONLY on labor from 1. Federal employees, 2. Labor performed on Federal lands, and 3. Labor performed in job on Federal excise tax list.
Courts have upheld income tax on all Federally connected or subsidized programs such as 401K, IRA, Social Security, Medicare, etc. Direct taxation of all other income by Feds has not basis in law or Constitutional structure that requires state citizens to pay direct taxes to state of their residency per terms of state laws.
Yes, income tax is not Constitutional at all. Trading hours for money isn't a gain. It's a contract both parties have agreed to.
The idea that trading your time for money is a gain, is ridiculous. Time is far more precious than money anyway. A gain would be a bonus or inheritance or winning the lotto. Those are gains.
IRS is unconstitutional because they have usurped both Congressional and Judicial branch authority per W. Virginia v EPA (2022) SCOTUS precedent. But until we can get that fight going attack with the payroll tax vector by getting your payroll tax from last 5 years back with Form 4852 W-2 correction and amended returns.
Lots of good information from the archives in this book, I read it several years ago. http://www.constitutionalincome.com
I post this link here occasionally
Losthorizons.com
Guy wrote a book about this topic and there are tons of people who have been successful with the process.
-https://losthorizons.com/