Page 12 More Fraud
More Fraud
Starting on page 12, the FairTax posse rants and rages about how politicians misname legislation. Seems these boys from Georgia think honesty is a family value, but not in their dysfunctional family.
The Georgia Boys cite an income tax legislation title as “’An act to reduce taxation, to provide revenue for the government, and for other purposes.” Using that title is a mouthful of fraud. This act has been called the Revenue Act of 1894 and the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1984 and even the Wilson Tariff. Many ‘revenue acts’ have been passed and the name “Revenue Act” may have little meaning. But, no one in 1894 sponsored or co-sponsored any legislation in the United States Congress with the title: “An act to reduce taxation, to provide revenue for the government, and for other purposes.”
Why would anyone mislead others on the title of a piece of legislation?
The Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1894, or the Wilson Tariff Act, is the right name. Under this name, tariffs were reduced and an income tax reintroduced to the top one half of one percent of Americans (.005%). Opponents of the Act schemed to have it invalidated before any taxes could be collected.
An income tax had been collected from 1861 to 1872 and modified by various revenue acts. In 1881, in Springer vs. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1881), the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court had declared income taxation to be constitutional.
It would be too much to expect a posse, which is the right name to call the FairTax mob with its anti-Union rage, to respect the truth.
The first challenge to the Wilson Tariff’s income tax provisions were from a John G. Moore in December 1894 who sought an injunction to stop the collection.
It would be William D. Guthrie who would persuade the Farmers’ Loan and Trust Company directors along with the Continental Trust Company directors to join in a backroom scheme. The scheme was simple. The two companies would make resolutions that the tax was unconstitutional while setting aside funds to pay the tax. Then, two stockholders were recruited to seek an injunction against each company for breach of trust. Born from this scheme were Pollock vs. Farmers ’Loan and Trust Company and Hyde vs. Continental Trust Company.
Guthrie hired James C. Carter to represent the companies and defend the income tax. Lawrence Maxwell, the solicitor general of the United States made arraignments with Guthrie for direct appeal to the Supreme Court.
These maneuverings are documented by Ratner (1942), Swaine (1946), and the Grover Cleveland Papers held in the Manuscript Division, Library of Congress.
Starting on page 12, the FairTax posse rants and rages about how politicians misname legislation. Seems these boys from Georgia think honesty is a family value, but not in their dysfunctional family.
The Georgia Boys cite an income tax legislation title as “’An act to reduce taxation, to provide revenue for the government, and for other purposes.” Using that title is a mouthful of fraud. This act has been called the Revenue Act of 1894 and the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1984 and even the Wilson Tariff. Many ‘revenue acts’ have been passed and the name “Revenue Act” may have little meaning. But, no one in 1894 sponsored or co-sponsored any legislation in the United States Congress with the title: “An act to reduce taxation, to provide revenue for the government, and for other purposes.”
Why would anyone mislead others on the title of a piece of legislation?
The Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1894, or the Wilson Tariff Act, is the right name. Under this name, tariffs were reduced and an income tax reintroduced to the top one half of one percent of Americans (.005%). Opponents of the Act schemed to have it invalidated before any taxes could be collected.
An income tax had been collected from 1861 to 1872 and modified by various revenue acts. In 1881, in Springer vs. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1881), the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court had declared income taxation to be constitutional.
It would be too much to expect a posse, which is the right name to call the FairTax mob with its anti-Union rage, to respect the truth.
The first challenge to the Wilson Tariff’s income tax provisions were from a John G. Moore in December 1894 who sought an injunction to stop the collection.
It would be William D. Guthrie who would persuade the Farmers’ Loan and Trust Company directors along with the Continental Trust Company directors to join in a backroom scheme. The scheme was simple. The two companies would make resolutions that the tax was unconstitutional while setting aside funds to pay the tax. Then, two stockholders were recruited to seek an injunction against each company for breach of trust. Born from this scheme were Pollock vs. Farmers ’Loan and Trust Company and Hyde vs. Continental Trust Company.
Guthrie hired James C. Carter to represent the companies and defend the income tax. Lawrence Maxwell, the solicitor general of the United States made arraignments with Guthrie for direct appeal to the Supreme Court.
These maneuverings are documented by Ratner (1942), Swaine (1946), and the Grover Cleveland Papers held in the Manuscript Division, Library of Congress.
posted by Mike Parker | 6:13 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home