Definition of Income

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by psholtz

Any government-granted privilege (i.e., excise) is a proper subject for taxation.

Agreed, but the issue you continue to avoid is the fact that an excise may, but does not have to, involve a privilege.

To put this to rest: what privilege was or is involved in (a) the taxation of Mr. Hylton's carriages, (b) the gift tax, or (c) the taxation of income from illegal activities? And don't try to raise any nonsense about SSN -- these taxes were upheld before there was a Social Security system.

[yebliker]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

Agreed, but the issue you continue to avoid is the fact that an excise may, but does not have to, involve a privilege.

I believe that an excise is a tax on activities that are avoidable. Working for a living is not avoidable, it is a right. To tax a right is to hinder one from exercising it, and abrogates the right. If a tax of 20% of private earnings is legal, why isn't a tax of 90%? The only fair thing to do is to not consider the fair market value of the labor when calculating taxable income. Only tax the money received that is above and beyond earnings- in other words: "gain, profits, and income".
Yebliker

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by yebliker

I believe that an excise is a tax on activities that are avoidable. Working for a living is not avoidable, it is a right. To tax a right is to hinder one from exercising it, and abrogates the right. If a tax of 20% of private earnings is legal, why isn't a tax of 90%? The only fair thing to do is to not consider the fair market value of the labor when calculating taxable income. Only tax the money received that is above and beyond earnings- in other words: "gain, profits, and income".
Yebliker

Yes, you do have the right to work. But so what? Where is it written that you can't be taxed on your earnings from work?

“But natural rights, so called, are as much subject to taxation as rights of lesser importance. An excise is not limited to vocations or activities that may be prohibited altogether. It is not limited to those that are the outcome of a franchise. It extends to vocations or activities pursued as of common right.”
Charles C. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1937)

The Supreme Court says that excise taxes (including but not limited to the income tax) extend to "vocations or activities pursued as of common right."

Again, I STRONGLY urge you to read Dan Evans' Tax Protester FAQ webpage. It is an EXCELLENT resource that shows why all the common tax protester theories are wrong.

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by yebliker

I believe that an excise is a tax on activities that are avoidable.

But that's not the legal definition of an excise. For example, death isn't avoidable, yet Congress can tax the transfer of property at death. Of course, you could try giving away all of your property during your lifetime, but then that would be subject to the gift tax, another type of excise.

The latest definition of an excise given by the Supreme Court is as follows, and it doesn't involve any notion of avoidability:

...this court has consistently held, almost from the foundation of the government, that a tax imposed upon a particular use of property or the exercise of a single power over property incidental to ownership, is an excise which need not be apportioned...
Bromley v. McCaughn, 280 U.S. 124 (1929)

Working for a living is not avoidable, it is a right. To tax a right is to hinder one from exercising it, and abrogates the right.

Except that the Constitution doesn't say that working for a living is a right, nor does it say that the income one earns from working can't be taxed. To the contrary, it specifically says that income can be taxed no matter where it comes from.

If taxing a "right" isn't permitted because it abrogates the right, then we shouldn't be taxing the income of all of the big media companies since they have the rights of free press and free speech, correct?

If a tax of 20% of private earnings is legal, why isn't a tax of 90%?

What language do you see in the Constitution that would prevent Congress from imposing such a rate (not to mention the fact that no Congressman who wants to be reelected would ever vote for such a rate)?

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

Agreed, but the issue you continue to avoid is the fact that an excise may, but does not have to, involve a privilege.

Can the government charge an excise tax on something that is not an excise?

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by psholtz

Can the government charge an excise tax on something that is not an excise?

I don't want to be argumentative, but I really don't understand what you're saying. Are you suggesting there's a federal tax that's called an excise but that really isn't one because of some legally-accepted definition? What do you have in mind?

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

To put this to rest: what privilege was or is involved in (a) the taxation of Mr. Hylton's carriages, (b) the gift tax, or (c) the taxation of income from illegal activities? And don't try to raise any nonsense about SSN -- these taxes were upheld before there was a Social Security system.

Regarding the Hylton case, I think it's interesting that James Wilson was one of the shareholders in the (original) Bank of North America, chartered in 1781 as America's first "central bank".. When the Pennsylvania Legislature got wind of the (corrupt) deal, they revoked the bank's charter, thus prompting Wilson (along w/ Gouvernour Morris and perhaps George Clymer) to author the contract clause in Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution.

This excise tax you speak of (in the Hylton case) was authorized by the act establishing the First Bank of the United States (for first "official", i.e., post-Constitution, central bank of the United States)?

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by psholtz

This excise tax you speak of (in the Hylton case) was authorized by the act establishing the First Bank of the United States (for first "official", i.e., post-Constitution, central bank of the United States)?

No, it wasn't. The bank was established in 1791 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_B...United_States), while the carriage tax wasn't enacted until 1794.

From the Hylton case:

By the case stated, only one question is submitted to the opinion of this court; whether the law of Congress, of the 5th of June, 1794, entitled, 'An act to lay duties upon carriages, for the conveyance of persons,' is unconstitutional and void?

[indago]

mertensv16 posted:

Heck, go back to 1790. Was Mr. Hylton's ownership of carriages a privilege?

See post #133

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by indago

mertensv16 posted:

See post #133

A typo -- should've been 1796.

Want me to put on the sackcloth and ashes now?