----- Original Message -----

From: esenter@...

To: legality-of-income-tax@yahoogroups.com

Cc: Geoffrey

Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 1:54 PM

Subject: RE: [legality-of-income-tax] Re: constitutional exempt income? Anyone know?

You want a "taxable event"?
Ok, the selling of the product of your labor which results in the realization of a gain (i.e., INCOME) in society is indeed a "taxable event".

You can labor all day or be totally self-sufficient and never owe an income tax. It is only when you sell it and realize a gain are you taxed. That is no different than any other excise.

---- Geoffrey <gpierce1@cox.net> wrote:
> In the end, it's irrelevant if income tax is direct or indirect.
>
> 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 Brushaber, supra)
>
> All this argument whether or not the tax is indirect or direct is wasted
> energy. It is clear that you can't pay for your labor. Ed's unnatural
> requirement that we pay for our own life energy is frivolous and childish to
> propose. It is clear that you must work to survive. It is clear that
> Congress cannot interfere where no license imposes their authority, and
> contracting work for compensation does not require a license. It is clear
> that the compensation is negotiated at par with the value of the labor. It
> is clear that were the accession to wealth derived from the zero cost basis
> of labor (Ed's childish theory) that this can never be avoided and will
> always be a direct diminishment of one day's labor. It is clear that each
> day's labor is finite and lost forever if not utilized. It is clear that
> the fact that you can wake up the next day and perform equivalent labor does
> not compensate for the loss of the previous day's labor. It is clear if you
> can only build one thing a day and you trade that day's labor away, you can
> not build two the next day to make up for the loss, it is spent. It is
> clear if you sold something you own for equal compensation there is no gain.
> It is clear that for there to be gain your cost basis of your labor must be
> less than the compensation. It is clear that Congress does not have the
> authority or ability to determine your labor's cost basis.
>
> We spend all this time arguing the finer points of a law that we aren't even
> subject to. We're all acting like blind me feeling an elephant. Understand
> the nature of the elephant first and you'll know what you're feeling.
>
> Income tax is a tax on a taxable event. The income itself is the measure,
> not the subject. You calculate the amount of tax based on the amount of
> income. You are subject to the tax based on taxable events. Income is not
> a taxable event.
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: legality-of-income-tax@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:legality-of-income-tax@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> esenter@....com
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 5:34 PM
> To: legality-of-income-tax@yahoogroups.com
> Cc: Frank
> Subject: Re: [legality-of-income-tax] Re: constitutional exempt income?
> Anyone know?
>
>
>
> The Income Tax is not a tax on property.
> The Income Tax is a tax on INCOME.
>
> No matter how you rearrange the words, frank, you can't get past the simple
> truth that because of the 16th Amendment, NO Income Tax requires
> apportionment.
>
> Get over it.
>
> ---- Frank <frankmymail@ <mailto:frankmymail%40yahoo.com> yahoo.com> wrote:
> > No, you would not have to examine the source.
> > You would only have to examine the NATURE of
> > the tax !
> >
> > Does it tax property, whatever property, simply
> > because of ownership,
> > OR because of USAGE of property !
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <esenter@.... <mailto:esenter%40tx.rr.com> com>
> > To: <legality-of- <mailto:legality-of-income-tax%40yahoogroups.com>
> income-tax@yahoogroups.com>
> > Cc: "Frank" <frankmymail@ <mailto:frankmymail%40yahoo.com> yahoo.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 8:27 PM
> > Subject: Re: [legality-of-income-tax] Re: constitutional exempt income?
> > Anyone know?
> >
> >
> > > You are wrong, frank, but for the sake of argument, if some income taxes
> > would be an excise while other income taxes would be a Direct Tax that
> > required apportionment, how would you tell the difference between the two
> > types of income taxes?
> > >
> > > Would you not have to examine the source from which the income was
> > derived?
> > > Remember, the 16th Amendment says Congress has the power to tax incomes
> > derived from WHATEVER source.
> > >
> > > So your argument is contrary to the 16th Amendment and is faulty on its
> > face.
> > >
> > >
> > > ---- Frank <frankmymail@ <mailto:frankmymail%40yahoo.com> yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > > > Income , in the nature of an EXCISE, Ed !!!!!!
> > > >
> > > > Income itself, is not an excise !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > > >
> > > > The 16th does NOT mean that a tax on income is an
> > > > excise APRIORI !!!
> > > >
> > > > It means the ONLY tax on income that Congress can
> > > > pass without apportionment, is a tax that is in the nature
> > > > of an EXCISE.
> > > >
> > > > That doesn't preclude Congress from imposing
> > > > a tax on income that is NOT in the nature of an excise.
> > > > But it would be a direct tax, even though income was the measure, and
> > would have to be applied by apportionment.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: esenter@.... <mailto:esenter%40tx.rr.com> com
> > > > To: legality-of- <mailto:legality-of-income-tax%40yahoogroups.com>
> income-tax@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Cc: Richard Stokes
> > > > Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 5:55 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: [legality-of-income-tax] Re: constitutional exempt
> > income? Anyone know?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The truth is, since the 16th Amendment, there can never be an income
> > tax that would ever be considered a Direct Tax. If the tax is on income,
> it
> > is an excise apriori.
> > > >
> > > > Simple logic tells you that you don't bandy about examining the nature
> > of an "excise". That is just another way of putting the focus on the
> source
> > of the income which is clearly without any shadow of a doubt prohibited by
> > the 16th Amendment. The only question left is whether or not the thing
> being
> > taxed is INCOME.
> > > >
> > > > ---- Richard Stokes <rcs36@yahoo. <mailto:rcs36%40yahoo.com> com>
> wrote:
> > > > > See Comments below:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- prof_5string <prof_5string@ <mailto:prof_5string%40yahoo.com>
> yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > --- In legality-of-
> <mailto:legality-of-income-tax%40yahoogroups.com>
> income-tax@yahoogroups.com,
> > > > > > Richard Stokes
> > > > > > <rcs36@...> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > See comments below.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- prof_5string <prof_5string@...> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In legality-of-
> <mailto:legality-of-income-tax%40yahoogroups.com>
> income-tax@yahoogroups.com,
> > > > > > > > Richard Stokes
> > > > > > > > <rcs36@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > An excise tax must be reasonably based upon a
> > > > > > > > rational
> > > > > > > > > governmental purpose, such as raising general
> > > > > > > > revenues
> > > > > > > > > to pay for public improvements necessitated by
> > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > development.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What is your legal authority for this?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why do YOU think that I need one. Do YOU not like
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > > it says?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you're arguing what you think the law is, rather
> > > > > > than what you
> > > > > > think it ought to be, appropriate legal citations
> > > > > > would be
> > > > > > appropriate.
> > > > >
> > > > > 'If' I am arguing what I think the law is, rather than
> > > > > what I think the law out to be? Do you not know the
> > > > > difference? Maybe I know what the law is. Maybe not. I
> > > > > made a statement and you do not like it for some
> > > > > reason. Truth hurts. Now with all of your legal
> > > > > background, in the matter, it should be easy for you
> > > > > to prove me wrong, if I am. Can you? BTW, if I am
> > > > > wrong, so are 50 others.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >
> > > > > http://groups.
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/legality-of-income-tax/>
> yahoo.com/group/legality-of-income-tax/
> > > > > >
> > > > > http://groups.
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/legality-of-income-tax/join>
> yahoo.com/group/legality-of-income-tax/join
> > > > > > (Yahoo! ID required)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > mailto:legality-of-
> <mailto:legality-of-income-tax-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> income-tax-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > legality-of-
> <mailto:legality-of-income-tax-unsubscribe%40yahoogroups.com>
> income-tax-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > __________________________________________________________
> > > > > It's here! Your new message!
> > > > > Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.
> > > > > http://tools. <http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/>
> search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>