Shirley Peterson Quote

“... the key question is: can we define 'income' in a fair and reasonably straightforward manner? Unfortunately we have not yet succeeded in doing so.”

~ Shirley Peterson

April 1993 

Ratings and Comments

Logan, Memphis, TN

Although there are a few errors in the video, I would suggest that everyone go to google video and search for "America: Freedom to Fascism".

Waffler, Smith, Arkansas

Anothr silly commissioner. Income is what you put into your pocket, outgo is what you take out of your pocket. Code Section 1 IRC "There shall be a tax on income from whatever source received", obviously Ms. Peterson is taken out of context. The difference between what you put in and the deductible part of what you take out is taxable income. At tax time many people try to go gooffy for their own selfish purposes - to rob their government and fellow citizen.

J Carlton, Calgary

The key question is...Does the government have any right to personally tax you at all? No, is the answer. Its a criminal enterprise, always was, always will be. Another good source of information and thought is ""

jim k, austin, tex

As usual ,Waffler is way out in left field. Karl Marx would love our Arkansas friend. It's the government that robs the people , not the other way around.

Mike, Norwalk

How about going back to the original meaning of income? (nah, that would clearify to much and the larceny would have to stop) goofy is thinking that government and fellow citizens, for selfish purposes, have a right to rob sovereign individuals with impunity.

warren, olathe

Yep change the definition to any thing you want like good old bill with what the definition of is is. With the proper definition of what income is you can tax anything you want. The air you breathe for instance. Guess they are going for that too as soon as they figure out how to finish off all the scientists' opposition to the global warming hoax.

Paul, Union, WA

Waffler says, " Income is what you put into your pocket, outgo is what you take out of your pocket." Now THAT is a carefully crafted legal definition. Boy, we need to call the IRS and have him appointed to be the "unsilly" commissioner. I can interpret his meaning a dozen different ways, including NO DEDUCTIONS PERIOD. Now THAT is silly!

Waffler, Smith, Arkansas

Commissioners are political appointees, not IRS "professionals". Paul the word "income" means come in, outgo means go out. What is difficult about that? Be careful Paul of those carefully crafted and crafty guys, just use your common sense? Now of course some income is specifically exclude from taxation like municipal bond income but for general discussion my definition stands. The Code clearly states, "income from whatever source derived unless specifically excluded by this code". What Mike perchance is the "Original" meaning of income in your dictionary.

Waffler, Smith, Arkansas

Mike you probably have no better faith in Funk and Wagnalls (in fact I don't believe you have faith in anything) but here goes: "Income 1. Money or other benefit, received, the amount so received." "Outgo 1. That which goes out; cost or outlay; opposed to income."

Logan, Memphis, TN

It's not Mike's definition of income that is being questioned, but the Supreme Court's. Waffler, you again show your ignorance of actual American history **astounding**. Income, as originally defined by the Supreme Court, even after the 16th Amendment, was considered the increase/amount received off another person's labor. For example: Should I contract to labor for a job for $10 an hour and sublet this job for $8 an hour to another man, while pocketing $2 for the transaction, I would have $2 income. You can read this any way you want, but history stands that the 16th Amendment supposedly granted no new taxation powers, but merely defined what was already accepted. The Supreme Court originally ruled, per the 16th Amendment, that wages received for a day's labor was not in fact "income," but an exchange. A man's daily labor had to be spent, and in exchange, there was nothing gained. But, Waffler, that's okay, I wouldn't expect you to understand the history of money and the differences between lawful and equitable title and exchange beyond what you can find on wikipedia. Nice try though.

E Archer, NYC

Funk and Wagnalls?!!! ;-) Waffler, I am beginning to understand why you have such a poor understanding of money, politics, religion, and power. Hey, Shirley Peterson was the commissioner of the IRS -- if she doesn't know the definition of income, then who does? The fact is, income is whatever YOU say it is when you declare it on your tax return -- they do not correct you if you have reported more than you have to -- after all, it is voluntary anyway, right? (Yeah sure...) If you never get a Social Security number and can still manage to earn a living, you do not ever have to file a tax return -- there is no way to file a return without a Social Security number. Hmm, that is interesting -- Social Security is definitely voluntary, how come we use that number for the IRS? And why are newborns issued social security numbers -- the application for a birth certificate now includes the social security application, too. Why don't we ever ask ourselves these questions? The reason we file and pay is simple -- we do not want to fight, we are intimidated by threats of losing our property, jobs, and liberty. That my friends is slavery, like it or not. AND it is not what this country was founded upon. If the IRS cannot define income Constitutionally, then by right we do not have to declare ANYTHING as income, period. But since the entire nation is beholden to the Fed, their 'money' and their rules, We The People have little chance in a court room.

J Carlton, Calgary

And the Fed is beholden to no one. Are we starting to figure out who really runs the world yet? You can vote can vote right, it really doesn't matter and it never did. It's just a dog and pony show.


Get a Quote-a-Day!

Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box daily.