Since
it is impossible to buy your own labor and "stock up" like a pantry,
to be taxed on the accession of wealth derived from your own labor is an
unavoidable direct tax. There is no possible way a human can interact
with the world without using mental or physical labor. Therefore any tax
that is calculated on the gain derived from said labor is not indirect, and "to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the
requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in
which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone,
and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise
as an excise would not apply to it."
From:
legality-of-income-tax@yahoogroups.com [mailto:legality-of-income-tax@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of esenter@...
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 8:53
AM
To:
legality-of-income-tax@yahoogroups.com
Cc: Frank
Subject: Re:
[legality-of-income-tax] Re: An excellent write up on imposing a tax and
establishing liability
GAIN is not the increase in value.
GAIN is the INCREASE OVER COSTS.
What did you pay for the item?
What did you get when you sold the item?
Now subtract the two figures and the result is your GAIN.
What you say does not even make sense.
---- Frank <frankmymail@
> No I can't.
> Income is a GAIN in value of PROPERTY I own, DERIVED.
>
> What property of mine has increased in value,had a gain,
> whereby I can take that increase of value, derive it,
> for my personal use ??????????
>
> Answer me that, Ed !
> What property of mine has INCREASED in VALUE ?????
>
> If I have NO increase in value of ANY property I own,
> then I could not possibly have a gain.
>
> Therefor I could not possibly have INCOME !
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: esenter@....
> To: legality-of-
> Cc: Frank
> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 8:08 PM
> Subject: Re: [legality-of-
>
>
> You can derive income from your own labor, frank.
>
> ---- Frank <frankmymail@
> > Well, Ed.
> > You have failed to see that money of itself is NOT income !
> >
> > It is a FORM of property !!!!!!!!!
> >
> > Just as if I owned gold, it is a FORM of property.
> >
> > Laboring for OURSELVES, to acquire ANY FORM of property, is NOT a
taxable
> > privelege.
> > I can NOT derive income from myself !!!!!!!!!
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <esenter@....
> > To: <legality-of-
> > Cc: "Frank" <frankmymail@
> > Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 9:42 AM
> > Subject: Re: [legality-of-
> > a tax and establishing liability
> >
> >
> > > According to God of the Bible, the food you grow in your own
backyard is
> > an increase, therefore you pay your tithes on that basis.
> > >
> > > But, fortunately for you, Congress only taxes income derived or
gains
> > realized which means you usually have to sell it before the income is
> > derived or realized.
> > >
> > >
> > > ---- Frank <frankmymail@
> > > > Ed believes that food , which I eat , is an increase in
wealth.
> > > >
> > > > Hey, ED, what if I labor in my back yard and grow my
> > > > own food. Is that food 'income' ????????
> > > >
> > > > No, it is the fruits of my labor, and is thus my PROPERTY.
> > > > Which I can do with as I please.
> > > > I could eat it all myself, or give it away for nothing.
> > > >
> > > > Since the food is not income to me, although it has
> > > > a market value, I could even trade it for ANY
> > > > other property of equal value !
> > > >
> > > > The receipt of ANY other property of equal value , in
exchange for the
> > food,
> > > > is therefor NOT income either.
> > > >
> > > > I am only changing the FORM of my original property (food).
> > > > So, since money itself is NOT income, but instead is just
> > > > an intermediate FORM of property, merely changing
> > > > the form of my food for the form of money is also
> > > > NOT income.
> > > >
> > > > Laboring for OURSELVES, to acquire ANY FORM of property, is
NOT a
> > taxable privelege.
> > > >
> > > > I can NOT derive income from myself !!!!!!!!!
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: esenter@....
> > > > To: legality-of-
> > > > Cc: Optimus Prime
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 6:00 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [legality-of-
> > imposing a tax and establishing liability
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your post is totally devoid of any logic.
> > > > According to you, the only difference between 'service' and
'services'
> > is the former gets paid with one chicken and the later gets paid with
two
> > chickens.
> > > > What arbitrary nonsense, indeed.
> > > >
> > > > ---- Optimus Prime <baclark@pennswoods.
> > > > > --- In legality-of-
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Suppose your neighbor supplied the lawn mower, so
you came to work
> > > > > with only your labor. You mow the lawn and are paid
with a chicken.
> > > > > Suppose the market value of a chicken was $10. Since
you came to
> > > > > work with nothing and left with a chicken worth $10,
you realized a
> > > > > gain of $10.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since taxable income is calculated on a yearly
basis, you have
> > > > > failed to provide enough information.
> > > > > > Never the less, you have gained a chicken and it
was derived from
> > > > > your labor and was thus income.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now, why don't you show where my logic was
incomplete?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Your logic does not recognize the difference between
service and
> > > > > services.
> > > > >
> > > > > If the neighbor asked me to mow his lawn for a chicken
and I
> > > > > accepted, then I am in service to him. He is the
employer.
> > > > >
> > > > > What is derived from the labor? A nicely mown lawn.
> > > > >
> > > > > What was the chicken paid for? To push the lawn mower.
> > > > >
> > > > > The payment of the chicken was not for that which was
derived from
> > > > > the labor, but for the labor itself.
> > > > >
> > > > > Since I came to work full of energy and left work
depleted in energy
> > > > > and with a chicken. And I go home and eat the chicken
to replenish
> > my
> > > > > energy, therefore no gain.
> > > > >
> > > > > If I told the neighbor that I would mow the lawn for
two chickens
> > and
> > > > > he accepted, then I am providing services to him. I am
the employer.
> > > > >
> > > > > What is derived from the labor? A nicely mown lawn.
> > > > >
> > > > > What was the chickens paid for? A nicely mown lawn.
> > > > >
> > > > > The payment of the chicken is for that which is
derived from the
> > > > > labor and not for the labor itself.
> > > > >
> > > > > I can go home and eat a chicken to replenish my energy
and I still
> > > > > have one to sell to pay the taxes.
> > > > >
> > > > > As the provider of services I can pass the income tax
on to the
> > > > > customer in the price of my services. That is the
nature of an
> > excise.
> > > > > I control the pricing.
> > > > >
> > > > > As an employee, I can not pass on the income tax. The
employer
> > > > > controls the wage.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
Offline 
Send Email