Credit checks and your job

[everyman]

Originally Posted by HighSpeed GI

There is a big difference between being a fool and recognizing the fact that the tax system being forced upon Americans is unconstitutional.
I just happen to think that the "Constitution" still means something. I refer to it often only to remind people that government does not have their collective interests in mind. The sooner people realize this the sooner change can be affected.

Last time I looked our good buddies made it constitutional by passing the 16th amendment which states:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. {highlight added}.

Which means, despite our good Republican buddy, Taft's, request for a 2% tax on corporate income, we got a tax on all income. Don't like it any more than you.

[HighSpeed GI]

Originally Posted by everyman

Last time I looked our good buddies made it constitutional by passing the 16th amendment which states:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. {highlight added}.

Which means, despite our good Republican buddy, Taft's, request for a 2% tax on corporate income, we got a tax on all income. Don't like it any more than you.

The key word in the 16th ammendment is the word "income." The Supreme Court defined this way:

"Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of 'income', it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principle or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities."Doyle v. Mitchell Brother, Co., 247 US 179 (1918)

and further stated the following:

"The Treasury Department cannot, by interpretive regulations, make income out of that which is not income within the meaning of the revenue acts of Congress, nor can Congress, without apportionment, tax as income that which is not income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment."
Helvering v. Edison Bros. Stores, 133 F.2D 575



Therefore income, as defined by the Supreme Court, does not apply to individual wages.

[HighSpeed GI]

Sorry....didn't source my previous post. Here is a useful website that explains my argument and references the court cases cited above. Other sources abound...

http://www.originalintent.org/edu/consttax.php

[everyman]

Originally Posted by HighSpeed GI

The key word in the 16th ammendment is the word "income." The Supreme Court defined this way:

"Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of 'income', it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principle or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities."Doyle v. Mitchell Brother, Co., 247 US 179 (1918)

and further stated the following:

"The Treasury Department cannot, by interpretive regulations, make income out of that which is not income within the meaning of the revenue acts of Congress, nor can Congress, without apportionment, tax as income that which is not income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment."
Helvering v. Edison Bros. Stores, 133 F.2D 575



Therefore income, as defined by the Supreme Court, does not apply to individual wages.

Yeah but later in Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170 (1926) the court ruled that income can come from capital, labor, or both, in which case I would have to think labor refers to wages.

In Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955) ruled than any increases in wealth--wages, benefits, bonuses--are defined as income.

Not so sure how they justified it between your 1918 case and the 1926 case but I gotta think by the 1955 case we got specifically screwed.

[HighSpeed GI]

Originally Posted by everyman

Yeah but later in Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170 (1926) the court ruled that income can come from capital, labor, or both, in which case I would have to think labor refers to wages.

In Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955) ruled than any increases in wealth--wages, benefits, bonuses--are defined as income.

Not so sure how they justified it between your 1918 case and the 1926 case but I gotta think by the 1955 case we got specifically screwed.

I find it strange and convienient that the cases I referenced seem to be ignored in the cases you referenced. Perhaps they were mentioned. I will have to do some more reading.

[autumngal]

Originally Posted by hugo

If there is no scientific evidence it is only because there have been no scientific studies. Common sense tells you someone with a 700 credit score is, on average, more responsible than someone with a 500 credit score and that responsibility is highly valued in an employee. If all I know about two applicants is their credit score the one with the higher score gets the job.

haha! There ya go. Seems reasonable alright.

[redguitar]

Originally Posted by hugo

If there is no scientific evidence it is only because there have been no scientific studies. Common sense tells you someone with a 700 credit score is, on average, more responsible than someone with a 500 credit score and that responsibility is highly valued in an employee. If all I know about two applicants is their credit score the one with the higher score gets the job.

If all I know about two applicants are their credit scores, I'll probably delay the hiring decision until I learn more about the candidates. I tend to agree that some common sense conclusions can probably be assumed; that if two potential candidates were otherwise a comparable, a dramatic difference in their FICO scores could be the determining hiring factor.

In cases where the spread between candidates isn't 200 points, but maybe 40 or 50 points, does the difference still matter that much? A younger candidate may have a lower FICO score simply due to a shorter, but impeccable, credit history; there may be cases where a 35-year old with a 700 might be less attractive than a 20-year old with a 680.

While I think that evaluating an applicant's credit profile may be useful, I'm not sure how much total weight it should be given in the wider set of applicant data. And I think that ultimately it's the employer's prerogative to determine the importance of an applicant's credit profile.