Commercial Drivers vs. Licensing

Ive finally gotten around to asking a question about something that ive always found as a major contradiction on our parts as sovereigns. I would like opinions on this. We maintain that only persons engaged in commerce are required to be licensed to drive motor vehicles. Makes sense, but dont we also say that the right to earn a living cannot be taxed?&Why is it we make exception to that right when it comes to driving? I know case law backs up our stance on not required to be licensed for non commercial purposes, but a right is a right regardless. comments?

I drive one of them big-assed ol' trucks.


Maybe this is the distinction you're looking for:


On one hand, you have "drivers" like me: Company drivers. We drive for a "company" that is enjoying the "privilege" of business and that business should pay taxes. The income of the drivers, however, is/should be off-limits.


On the other hand, however, you have the O/O (Owner Operators, Independents, whatever you wanna call 'em, maybe just "chicken-haulers"?).& They not only "drive," but they are "in business." Their "business" should pay the taxes, but any and all monies/currency/monopoly money they "pay themselves" should likewise be off-limits. (Oh, imagine the possibilities!)


Randy

If the O/Os "purchased" the load ahd then "sold" it at the destination it would be their "private" property in between and they would not be operating in commerce.


Jim

Hi, Jim...


Good idea!& I don't think O/O's do that, at least none I've ever heard of. But, man, if you could get 'em to stay off the CB for five-minutes and out of the arcades at the truck-stops, they might see how they could make a bloody fortune with your idea!


Randy