Weston White and the "Quatpillar" - continued

[Duke2Earl]

I am not making an "argument." I am stating a fact. Whether you want to believe it or not is your issue.

Great than cite your sources, do not just type our your "facts", show them to me, please.

What part of "I will not play your game" did you fail to understand? Is it the same part that you fail to understand in almost everything you post? I don't do quote games. I have no need to convince you of anything. If the simple fact that nobody has ever won a single case in any court with your nonsense for almost 100 years doesn't convince you then I can't be bothered. I simply state facts and conclusions. If you don't like them that's your problem.

[SteveSy]

"Excises" were held to be taxes on "consumption," such as on wines, and on manufactured goods of any kind.

Not so fast, Weston:

1. We are told that the relation of employment is one so essential to the pursuit of happiness that it may not be burdened with a tax. Appeal is made to history. From the precedents of colonial days, we are supplied with [301 U.S. 548, 579] illustrations of excises common in the colonies. They are said to have been bound up with the enjoyment of particular commodities. Appeal is also made to principle or the analysis of concepts. An excise, we are told, imports a tax upon a privilege; employment, it is said, is a right, not a privilege, from which it follows that employment is not subject to an excise. Neither the one appeal nor the other leads to the desired goal.

As to the argument from history: Doubtless there were many excises in colonial days and later that were associated, more or less intimately, with the enjoyment or the use of property. This would not prove, even if no others were then known, that the forms then accepted were not subject to enlargement. Cf. Pensacola Teleg. Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 96 U.S. 1 , 9; In re Debs, 158 U.S. 564, 591 , 15 S.Ct. 900; South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448 , 449 S., 26 S.Ct. 110, 4 Ann.Cas. 737. But in truth other excises were known, and known since early times. Thus in 1695 (6 & 7 Wm. III, c. 6), Parliament passed an act which granted 'to His Majesty certain Rates and Duties upon Marriages, Births and Burials,' all for the purpose of 'carrying on the War against France with Vigour.' See Opinion of the Justices, 196 Mass. 603, 609, 85 N.E. 545, 547. No commodity was affected there. The industry of counsel has supplied us with an apter illustration where the tax was not different in substance from the one now challenged as invalid. In 1777, before our Constitutional Convention, Parliament laid upon employers an annual 'duty' of 21 shillings for 'every male Servant' employed in stated forms of work. 3 [301 U.S. 548, 580] Revenue Act of 1777, 17 George III, c. 39.4 The point is made as a distinction that a tax upon the use of male servants was thought of as a tax upon a luxury. Davis v. Boston & Maine R.R. Co., supra. It did not touch employments in husbandry or business. This is to throw over the argument that historically an excise is a tax upon the enjoyment of commodities. But the attempted distinction, whatever may be thought of its validity, is inapplicable to a statute of Virginia passed in 1780. There a tax of 3 pounds, 6 shillings, and 8 pence was to be paid for every male tithable above the age of twenty-one years (with stated exceptions), and a like tax for 'every white servant whatsoever, except apprentices under the age of twenty one years.' 10 Hening's Statutes of Virginia, p. 244. Our colonial forbears knew more about ways of taxing than some of their descendants seem to be willing to concede. 5


The historical prop failing, the prop or fancied prop of principle remains. We learn that employment for lawful gain is a 'natural' or 'inherent' or 'inalienable' right, and not a 'privilege' at all. But natural rights, so called, are as much subject to taxation as rights of less importance. 6 An excise is not limited to vocations or activities [301 U.S. 548, 581] 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.

The case is here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 1&page=548

I take issue with this, as I always have. While some TP's intentionally or unintentionally misquote cases or take them out of context TA's do that on occasion also. This is a perfect example. Yest it is true there are taxes on occupations but they are not talking about taxing the earnings of all occupations, in fact they are not talking about taxing income at all.

A little further down they say:

The statute books of the states are strewn with illustrations of taxes laid on [301 U.S. 548, 583] occupations pursued of common right. 7\
...
[ Footnote 7 ] Alabama General Acts, 1935, No. 194, art. 13, 348 et seq. (flat license tax on occupations); Arizona Revised Code, Supplement (1936) 3138a et seq. (general gross receipts tax); Connecticut General Statutes, Supplement (1935) 457c, 458c (gross receipts tax on unincorporated businesses); Revised Code of Delaware (1935) 192-197 (flat license tax on occupations); Compiled Laws of Florida, Permanent Supplement (1936) Vol. 1, 1279 (1) et seq. (flat license tax on occupations); Georgia Laws, 1935, p. 11 (flat license tax on occupations); Indiana Statutes Ann. (1933 ) 64-2601 et seq. (general gross receipts tax); Louisiana Laws, 3rd Extra Session, 1934, Act No. 15, 1st Extra Session, 1935, Acts Nos. 5, 6 ( general gross receipts tax); Mississippi Laws, 1934, c. 119 (general gross receipts tax); New Mexico Laws, 1935, c. 73 (general gross receipts tax); South Dakota Laws, 1933, c. 184 (general gross receipts tax, expired June 30, 1935); Washington Laws, 1935, c. 180, title 2, p. 709 (general gross receipts tax); West Virginia Code, Supplement (1935) 960 (general gross receipts tax).

Footnote 7 explains what they are referring to. I've actually looked up all of those laws and all of them are a tax on a privilege, they all specifically say so in their wording. A tax on privileges have always been included in the definition of "excise". Take for instance "Washington Laws, 1935, c. 180, title 2, p. 709 (general gross receipts tax)". In Washington a tax on income generally was held to be unconstitutional under state law just two years prior to this decision because the court found there was no identifiable privilege to tax for general working folk. The law they are referring to is where gross receipts is actually the measure, the tax itself is on an identified privilege, it says so right in the law, even though its identified as a gross receipts tax. Certainly the SC would have been aware of this and its rather ridiculous to claim they cited a State law to justify a tax on income generally from all occupations when that very same State held a general excise tax on income was unconstitutional under State law. They held that excises do not include a general tax on a person's earnings.

I have posted quotes from all the laws cited laws before but I do not have the readily available right now. If one of you feel like I'm lying then I'll be sure to update my post later on. Most who have been here for awhile know I have them.

[Weston White]

What the hell is good ole WW talking about now? I've never seen such a header in my entire legal career.

WW what are you talking about?

I quoted it for all to see, so what the hell are you talking about? Are you certain you work in law? Perhaps you are a bit confused, perhaps you have acquired swine flew, maybe you should seek assistance from a doctor?

AND

The individual tax burden in the US is relatively light compared to every industrialized country in the world.

Gee, so I take it we are in the “honeymoon phase”, now? [See I say that because this person is attempting to justify the abuse. I love you so much honey that is why I have to smash your face in with my fists! Why don't you understand that?!?]

All your bluster and bravado is going to get you is a world of hurt.

Yes, and I am sure you truly to believe that. I however, do not.

You think you are some sort of romantic hero battling against injustice when all you really are is an uneducated buffoon.

Yes, and I am sure you truly to believe that. I however, do not.

Honestly, all I can hope for is that someday you get in contact with actual reality. Many here have tried to help and offer good advice. But until you admit you have a problem there literally is nothing we can do. Until then, things are going to get a lot worse for you. And as much as you want to blame us and the government the whole and entire fault lies with you and you alone.

Not at all, as a prime example in the POLLOCK case, they was dealing with an issue of taxing the gains and profits from property, ergo, the income tax, being as some believed that the income tax fell within other direct taxes, while others did not, enter then the XVI Amendment, now income taxes are back within the class of indirect taxation, regardless. Now never during this time was there any issues dealing with taxing labor or the money received by labouring. See the income tax is not something new, historically the income tax was a tax upon those with property, meaning those more fortunate in society.

In fact it might actually be said that the Forefathers intentionally left income taxes out of the prescription of designated indirect taxes, because they are so closely related to direct taxes and feared a breach. This seems to have been realized by Congress by the way the XVI Amendment was written, being that they began by establishing that Congress have the power to lay and collect income taxes in the same manner as AI,S8,C1. However, though this is my own theory of course.

AND

Once again Westy, you're wrong. At least that much has been consistent for you.

Yea, and if that is all true, it is all well and fine, however, until I exposed the truth myself last night, everybody is playing outright stupid. Seriously, do you actually think I read everything you people post, that I keep up on page after page of your crap? Do you think I PDF and archive your site? Get real. As I prior stated, instead of Famspear name calling and bickering he could have posted this information himself and been all done with it. Though now, I had to do it myself… the village idiot, as it were. laff

[Weston White]

Thought the tax is much more complex than what you allege. You wish for it to be very limiting and thus useless because it destroys your contentions, and you realize that of course. 'Taxation' is much more complex much more philosophical of an issue than you make it out to be. It is not just simply black and white.

I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say here. (Literaly-- I am not being cute.)
Yea, I know, I did it purposefully to trip you up. See I have discovered your secret weakness… typos, stops the whole lot of you like a roadside oak tree on Friday at midnight.

BTW, did you mean literally or were testing me? You sneaky devil you!

Reposted by request:

Though the tax [meaning capitation and poll taxes] is much more complex than what you allege. You wish for it to be very limiting and thus useless because it destroys your contentions, and you realize that of course. [Direct]’ taxation' is much more complex much more philosophical of an issue than you make it out to be. It is not just simply black and white.

Says who? Can you find one federal court case, ever, that agrees with that?
There are many, so many, you are aware of them, come on, just like you are aware of the Lucas v. Earl deboggle, don’t make me have to cite your sources for you now… because I will… seriously I will

But Congress' ability to impose excises is not "limited only by the imagination and intent of Congress"? And Congress' ability under the 16th Amendment to tax "incomes, from whatever source derived," is not "limited only by the imagination and intent of Congress"?

Exactly, and incomes come from a source, so if the source is remuneration, there is not yet any income. E.g. income comes from property not the property itself, i.e. from land or from a machine or business or franchise arrangement or a bond or dividend, or a license of sorts, etc., etc. Furthermore, income taxes are an aside from excise taxes, such as those levied upon BATFE, et al.

[Imalawman]

I quoted it for all to see, so what the hell are you talking about? Are you certain you work in law? Perhaps you are a bit confused, perhaps you have acquired swine flew, maybe you should seek assistance from a doctor?

Are you referring to the moment in time when I'll say you got something right about tax law?

[Prof]

Why do any of you bother to respond? WW's not ever going to give up his fantasy that he alone has discovered the magic arguments which can be used to defeat the evil Income Tax Code/Internal Revenue Service. Why not let him enjoy his fantasy life? He hasn't got much else.

[Weston White]

I quoted it for all to see, so what the hell are you talking about? Are you certain you work in law? Perhaps you are a bit confused, perhaps you have acquired swine flew, maybe you should seek assistance from a doctor?

Are you referring to the moment in time when I'll say you got something right about tax law?

I love this trip up stuff so much. That was another test, see instead of flu I typed flew and none of you "caught" it... get it? See because the flew and the catching of it... Probably not. This is a s l o w crowd, I realize this.

[SteveSy]

Weston, just a piece of advice. I've been on this board for a considerable amount of time. You can not make any mistakes here as they will focus on the error in order to portray you as another stupid tax protester who will drink barrels of koolaid daily from any source whatsoever. Anything that's legitimate that supports you will fall to the wayside, the focus will be your error. What you did is a common mistake among those who feel the government is misapplying the constitution.

I would suggest you examine everything in infinite detail prior to posting here or on your site. Certainly any quotes found on other sites. Unfortunately many feel the need to mislead people with out of context quotes or manufactured quotes instead of working hard researching it. There's plenty of information out there to support the position it just takes work to find it.

Anyway, I'm assume you want accurate information to base your belief on. Just carefully examine what you get from other sites and verify it. If it can not be verified don't believe it and don't quote it. If a TA posts a quote from a case examine it. See what the court based that quote on, like I have in the Steward Machine case. Try and find the briefs and transcripts to the case, research the history of it and exactly who was involved. This will allow you to pose a strong argument to support your position or at least trivialize theirs.

You'll never win an argument here, at least they'll never admit it, but at least to others who may be passing by you'll look credible. The mission for people who hold this belief should be to get people to look for themselves and see it was not intended this way. Overcoming the "lunatic fringe" label will only be done if people see it as credible.

Their mission is simple, make you look stupid anyway they can. Your mission is a lot more difficult and requires a much higher level of accuracy.

I in no way intend this post to belittle you or identify myself as smarter than you are. I've just been here and know what happens.

[Dr. Caligari]

You are quoting a case about Social Security taxes upon corporate employers? And what does this have to do with anything a laborer faces?

So Congress can tax a private sector, non-federally-connected, company for paying non-federally-connected, non-privileged remuneration to a worker, but cannot tax the worker for receiving that remuneration? Where does the Constitution say that? And what happened to your claim that some federally-connected privilege is necessary for an excise tax?

And of course the excise tax is expansive, though expansive to only that which is properly suited within such classes of excise taxes (never can you provide how taxing labor is proper within such a head of taxation, however, I have as to the opposite).

If the Supreme Court said that "births, marriages and burials" can be taxed via an excise, why can't the earnings of a private-sector laborer? Or is there some federal privilege involved in being born or dying? And if you claim that a tax on laboring is a capitation because laboring is an inherent part of being a person qua person, why isn't that true of "births, marriages and burials"?

However, it appears though, the case you quoted seems to be confusing what are known as duties with excises, not that it really matters all that much.

No, the Supreme Court is saying that it doesn't matter if you call it an excise or a duty, because either way it isn't a direct tax.

Though I see no issues of direct taxation being pursed therein.

If it's an "excise or a duty," it's obviously not a direct tax, no?

I do like how they reference France though, see you desire to pick and choose your references, this is from France, well guess what so is the Capitation Tax and Dr. Adam Smith explained this in summary in his work Wealth of Nations, pefectly.

No, they don't reference French taxes, they reference a tax collected in the American colonies to pay for a war against France. And they reference it to show that "[o]ur colonial forbears knew more about ways of taxing than some of their descendants seem to be willing to concede."

[SteveSy]

C'mon SteveSy, be the big expert you claim to be and bring forth the cases that negate federal income taxes on individuals since the passage of the 16th Amendment

I never claimed to be an expert Cpt., but I have researched everything I say very extensively. While you may disagree with opinion on the results you can not claim I just cut and past.

As far as wining in court I've always said that's not going to happen. There is no doubt any attack on the constitutionality of the income tax will fail. Its clear to me that if one court can claim its constitutional because its a direct tax which no longer requires apportionment due to the 16th and another say its really an excise and not a direct tax and both courts claim the other argument is frivolous then its obvious no matter what you argue its going to lose.

The only way it will change is if more people see that the income tax is just wrong. It was never intended this way regardless if the very entity who is laying the tax says its supposed to be that way or not. This will not be won in the federal courts of law rather it will be won in the court of public opinion. That's my focus not some place where they don't even support their position except with quotes from other places that also don't support their position.

[SteveSy]

If the Supreme Court said that "births, marriages and burials" can be taxed via an excise, why can't the earnings of a private-sector laborer?

Because they aren't taxing those things. They are taxing the privilege of the State recognizing those things. When you get a certificate of birth you're paying for the State to certify it. They are not taxing people to have children. When you get a marriage license you are not being taxed to marry, you're paying a tax for the privilege of having the State recognize it. There is a difference.

Its just like the tax on inheritance. It's not a tax on the death of the subject its a tax on the privilege to legally transfer wealth. The State has granted that right through the law. Without the law it is not recognized by the State and thus not subject to the protections of it.

[Weston White]

C'mon SteveSy, be the big expert you claim to be and bring forth the cases that negate federal income taxes on individuals since the passage of the 16th Amendment

C'mon yourself, stopy confusing the issue. It is not about not being taxable it is about what is taxable and what is not taxable under indirect taxation. Why don't you bring forth the cases that explain what indirect taxes are? Oh yea that is because it is always in the context of corporations, franchise, and business...nothing else. Lower court rulings aside, all which fall back upon the Code to answer its questions.

Does the IRS even actually say someplace that working for money is a taxable activity? I do not think I have seen a quote like that anyplace before. They only say income is wages and wages are taxable... where is it that they say laboring is a taxable activity? If there is no such quote, why not?

[SteveSy]

Does the IRS even actually say someplace that working for money is a taxable activity? I do not think I have seen a quote like that anyplace before. They only say income is wages and wages are taxable... where is it that they say laboring is a taxable activity? If there is no such quote, why not?

The IRS holds that it is a direct tax without apportionment...so they aren't confined to any rules. In fact under the IRS's position it doesn't even have to be uniform.

http://www.irs.gov/app/understandingTax ... _les04.jsp
http://www.irs.gov/app/understandingTax ... sary.jsp#D

[Weston White]

Weston, just a piece of advice. I've been on this board for a considerable amount of time. You can not make any mistakes here as they will focus on the error in order to portray you as another stupid tax protester who will drink barrels of koolaid daily from any source whatsoever. Anything that's legitimate that supports you will fall to the wayside, the focus will be your error. What you did is a common mistake among those who feel the government is misapplying the constitution.

I would suggest you examine everything in infinite detail prior to posting here or on your site. Certainly any quotes found on other sites. Unfortunately many feel the need to mislead people with out of context quotes or manufactured quotes instead of working hard researching it. There's plenty of information out there to support the position it just takes work to find it.

Anyway, I'm assume you want accurate information to base your belief on. Just carefully examine what you get from other sites and verify it. If it can not be verified don't believe it and don't quote it. If a TA posts a quote from a case examine it. See what the court based that quote on, like I have in the Steward Machine case. Try and find the briefs and transcripts to the case, research the history of it and exactly who was involved. This will allow you to pose a strong argument to support your position or at least trivialize theirs.

You'll never win an argument here, at least they'll never admit it, but at least to others who may be passing by you'll look credible. The mission for people who hold this belief should be to get people to look for themselves and see it was not intended this way. Overcoming the "lunatic fringe" label will only be done if people see it as credible.

Their mission is simple, make you look stupid anyway they can. Your mission is a lot more difficult and requires a much higher level of accuracy.

I in no way intend this post to belittle you or identify myself as smarter than you are. I've just been here and know what happens.

Are you kidding this is the best advise I have seen posted on this "forum".

[Famspear]

Weston White wrote:

Look fella, you did not come clean until SteveSy posted the court case documents, until then you played the high-horse dumbass, which apparently you are highly trained in.

Look fella, do you want to go through this again? SteveSy has nothing to do with this. Can you not read? Are you posting here just to see your words in print? I'M THE ONE WHO POSTED THE LINK TO THE MATERIAL -- BACK IN FEBRUARY -- IN RESPONSE TO YOUR OWN BLATHER AT LOSTHORIZONS. You obviously were reading my posts, or you could not have responded to them. So don't try to pretend that you don't know that I'm the one who exposed you. That means: Cut the crap about me having to "come clean." You know damn well that I and other Quatloos regulars exposed you back in February, and it took you forever to even acknowledge it.

I am not going to discuss this Lucas v. Earl matter with you any further, as far as I am concerned, the issue is closed, end of story.

That's right, Einstein. The matter was closed when I and other Quatloos regulars exposed your stupidity back in February.

When I get a chance I will remove the quote form my webpage, it is history. See if you would have just come clean months ago, rather than posting your rhetoric and name calling, this could have been rather easily solved, but no you left it to me to do on my own... and this is your hobby and you are here to help.

Again, there's nothing for me to "come clean" about, Weston. You're the one who posted the phony quote on your own web site -- not me, not Cpt Banjo, not somebody else here at Quatloos.

BTW, for your own future reference, posting your unsourced information, holds no water as far as I am concerned. I will never take you at your word, or Captain Banjo, or however.

Unsourced information? There is a huge elephant in the room that you seem to want to ignore, Weston: All the well-sourced information I and other regulars have posted for you for many weeks. Weston, I and other Quatloos regulars have posted citation after citation after citation for you. You reject them. You come up with the stupidest explanations. You have no credibility.

We are not here to persuade you that we are right, Weston. We are here to tell you what to do. And we are here to lay down the law -- literally. We are not the ones supposedly facing $110,000 in section 6702 penalties for your ridiculous tax return filings. You are.

And no, at the rate you are going, you are not going to be any kind of legal scholar two years from now.

My focus this last month has become direct taxation vs. indirect taxation and how it relates to people and the philosophy of it all. That is it, I really do not give a crap about 26 USC or anything else at this point.

No, that has not been your focus, Weston. You have no "focus."

I have studied the Code enough that I can find my way around it fairly quickly and reference materials.

No, you haven't studied the Code enough so that you can find your way around.

I think you mentioned in a prior post that your parents were threatening to disown you because of your narcissism. Nevetheless, as I and others have said before, Weston, if and when you need our help with your tax problems, we'll be here for you.

[Weston White]

CtC - a failed argument. Section 861 arguements - failed. Sovereign citizen - failed. No federal nexus - failed. Larken Rose - failed. Irwin Schiff - failed. 16th Amendment not properly ratified - failed.

Oh no failed arguments about labor not being indirectly taxable, huh? Wow, what a shocker! And yet we not bother to wondery why?

Go ahead and cite a case that after appeals and all the legal arguing was done has stated that federal income tax on individuals is illegal, since the passage of the 16th Amendment. Go ahead, we'll wait.

Or, go ahead and cite a case that after appeals and all the legal wrangling was done has stated that the IRC and/or the IRS was illegal and could not collect taxes, since the passage of the 16th Amendment. Go ahead, we'll wait.

…And nobody is chanting that crap except the Quatloosian themselves. Speaking of ensconcing.

Think about the gigantic egos that are law professors at those institutes and you know that if they could prove it, they already would have and been made for life. To date, not even they have been able to do so, but you or WW, or Pete Hendrickson imagine yourselves cleverer than them and have found a magic loophole that they and their staff and fawning, eager to please students never have.

lolol, the issues of direct taxation is something that is barely glossed over, this has always been the case. For example when I first addressed the matter here, the most you people could muster was that it was a head tax; a poll-tax, with no further comment on the issue. Face it, the fact is that you know next to noting about this core issue, the least you could do is admit to this sole element... if you hand any class anyway.

No instead you will play stupid about what are income taxes and claim that because of the XVI Amendment and that because slavery has been abolished, direct taxation holds no relevance any longer... even though there is nothing in law or Congressional reports to even mildly support this to be the case.

[Weston White]

...yawn...

That's right, Einstein. The matter was closed when I and other Quatloos regulars exposed your stupidity back in February.

No it was closed last night when I figued it out all on my own, and without your aid.

I am not going to read your post. I will only state what month is it currently and how often have you brought that case up in this current month, how many times without bothering to provide the information which was provided by SteveSy? Then when you answer realize that I have barely been a member here for about a month now and that not even in your initial post did you or anybody else bother to provide any source documents therein and that this is my only reply to your post, whatever silly notions are contained therein about the Lucas v. Earl matter.

[Weston White]

Hah, that says exactly what TP’ claim while the Quatloosian claims that such is not the case:

Taxes can be either direct or indirect. A direct tax is one that the taxpayer pays directly to the government. These taxes cannot be shifted to others. A homeowner pays personal property taxes directly to the government. A family pays its own federal income taxes.

An indirect tax can be passed on to another person or group. A business may recover the cost of the taxes it pays by charging higher prices to customers. A tax shift occurs when the business shifts its taxes to others.

And in the glossary:

direct tax
A tax that cannot be shifted to others, such as the federal income tax.

income taxes
Taxes on income, both earned (salaries, wages, tips, commissions) and unearned (interest, dividends). Income taxes can be levied on both individuals (personal income taxes) and businesses (business and corporate income taxes).

indirect tax
A tax that can be shifted to others, such as business property taxes.

Now this is strange though, this is a test from the IRS site [is says that Drivers License Fees are a direct tax; that Personal Income Tax is a direct tax; but that Payroll Taxes are indirect taxes]:

Examine each of the taxes or fees presented below. Classify the tax or fee by clicking Direct or Indirect . To assess your answers, click the Check My Answers button at the bottom of the page.
1. Driver's License Fees: A fixed dollar amount for each driver; varies from state to state.
• A. Direct
• B. Indirect Incorrect. The correct answer is A.
2. Sales Taxes: A percentage of a product's pretax sales price.
• A. Direct
• B. Indirect Correct.
3. Personal Income Tax: A percentage of each person's taxable income.
• A. Direct Correct.
• B. Indirect
4. Business Property Taxes: A percentage of business property value.
• A. Direct
• B. Indirect Correct.
5. Personal Property Taxes: A percentage of personal property value.
• A. Direct Correct.
• B. Indirect
6. Payroll Taxes: A percentage of wages and salaries.
• A. Direct Incorrect. The correct answer is B.
• B. Indirect
Not quite. The correct answers are shown.

I wonder if this can be used in court as evidence? Heck, #6 could simply refer to corporations anyways, as in it is the employer of the corporation that is taxed and not the corporations employees... besides that is hte exact method described in Wealth of Nations.

[Gregg]

Does the IRS even actually say someplace that working for money is a taxable activity? I do not think I have seen a quote like that anyplace before. They only say income is wages and wages are taxable... where is it that they say laboring is a taxable activity? If there is no such quote, why not?

Weston, laboring is not a taxable activity. Getting paid for laboring, is a taxable activity. Are you to simple to understand that?

[Weston White]

If the Supreme Court said that "births, marriages and burials" can be taxed via an excise, why can't the earnings of a private-sector laborer?

Because they aren't taxing those things. They are taxing the privilege of the State recognizing those things. When you get a certificate of birth you're paying for the State to certify it. They are not taxing people to have children. When you get a marriage license you are not being taxed to marry, you're paying a tax for the privilege of having the State recognize it. There is a difference.

Its just like the tax on inheritance. It's not a tax on the death of the subject its a tax on the privilege to legally transfer wealth. The State has granted that right through the law. Without the law it is not recognized by the State and thus not subject to the protections of it.

Exactly! And as such excises or duties it is not the objects or property being taxed it is the activity or privilege itself in exchange for the benefit gained. When it comes to taxing labor or the money therefrom, there is nothing benefited by the worker only taken away.

Duties - A tax on the importation or exportation of goods. Also: 'Ad Valorem', a Duty Tax that is based upon the value of an article or object subject to taxation.

Duties of Detraction - These are taxes levied upon the removal from one state to another of property acquired by succession or testamentary disposition.

Franchise Tax - A tax on the right and privilege of carrying on business in the character of a corporation for the purposes for which it was created, and in the conditions which surround it. Not a tax on property, capital, stock, earnings, or dividends.

Inheritance Tax/Legacy Tax/Succession Tax or Duty - A tax on the transfer of passing of estate or property by legacy, devices, or interstate succession; this is not a tax on the property itself, but on the right to acquire it by descent or testamentary gift. A tax on the transmission or right to receive the property. A tax imposed upon the privilege of receiving property from a descendent, by device or inheritance.

License Tax - Are taxes placed upon the entitlement to engage a particular calling or occupation. Such licenses serve only as permits, not as "contracts". A fee exaction for the privilege of engaging in the business.

Occupation Tax - Are Excise Taxes levied upon a business, trade, or profession for the prosecution thereof. This is not a tax on property or business capital but on the business itself.

Privilege Tax - A tax on the privilege of carrying on a business for which a license or franchise is required.

as opposed to excises:

Excises - An excise, is of a different character. It is based on no rule of apportionment or equality whatever. It is a fixed, absolute, and direct charge laid on merchandise, products, or commodities, without any regard to the amount of property belonging to those on whom it may fall, or to any supposed relation between money expended for a public object and a special benefit occasioned to those by whom the charge is to be paid. An Excise Tax is an internal tax levied on the manufacture, sale, or consumption of a commodity; Any of various taxes on privileges often assessed in the form of a license or fee (such as: auctioneers, brewers, etc., and to keep dogs, kill game, etc.). The term is also extended to the imposition of public charges, in the nature of taxes, upon other subjects than the manufacture and sale of commodities, such as licenses to pursue particular callings, the franchises of corporations and particularly the franchise of corporate existence, and the inheritance or succession of estates.

or

Income Tax - A tax on the yearly profits arising from property, professions, trades, and offices. An income tax is not levied upon property, funds, or profits, but upon the right of an individual or corporation to receive income or profits. Under various constitutional and statutory provisions, a tax on incomes is sometimes said to be an excise tax and not a tax on property, nor on business, but a tax on the proceeds arising therefrom. But in other cases an income tax is said to be a property and not a personal or excise tax.

...Income, when not derived from personal exertion, is something produced by capital without impairing such capital, the property being left intact, and nothing can be called income which takes away from the property itself. Income is something which has gone out of or issued from capital, leaving the capital unimpaired and intact.