I read the word "tax" being thrown about in this forum often. Let us see if any of my fellow conservatives or liberals. Patriots or pacifists, learned men of the letters or blue collar proletariats, socialist or capitalist, democrats or republicans unravel this riddle.

It is said that in our republican (not the party) form of governance and jurisprudence only privileges are taxed never rights. If that be true then how does one answer the following:

Is your ability to contract that which is within you - your labor - a right or a privilege?

If it be a right why the tax upon your labor.

If it be a privilege then whose permission have you asked and have been duly granted in order to exercise  that which is naturally within you.

every year on April 15th we fall over each other in our eagerness to let the Fed know that through our self assessment by way of a sworn testament called a 1040, we claim it is a privilege - in this case a federal privilege when it comes to the income tax.

-- Modified on 9/26/2010 10:30:54 AM

that the income tax is unconstitutional

Even absolute rights are subject to taxation as well as privileges.
You have an absolute right under state law to inherit from your parents but you better believe Uncle Sam can impose an estate tax if he wants to do so.

      Justice Marshall as early as 1830 shot down the idea that rights cannot be taxed:

"The power of legislation, and consequently of taxation, operates on all the persons and property belonging to the body politic. This is an original principle, which has its foundation in society itself. It is granted by all, for the benefit of all. It resides in government as a part of itself, and need not be reserved when property of any description, or the right to use it in any manner, is granted to individuals or corporate bodies. However absolute the right of an individual may be, it is still in the nature of that right, that it must bear a portion of the public burthens; and that portion must be determined by the legislature.”

in its reach and scope. It is constitutional as its application is expressly limited if one bothers to research into USC Title 26. There is good reason why it was never made into positive law.

That being said you would agree with me that all law aspires to be in harmony otherwise chaos will follow. If that be the case then how would you interpret the following supreme court decision?

"Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in that document (meaning the Declaration of Independence) is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant, the right any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give them their highest enjoyment ... It has been well said that, the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property so it is the most sacred and inviolable...." Butchers Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746(1884)

It is true what Justice Marshall grants but the constitution sets limits to the power of taxation given to the legislature – which materializes in codes and regulations set forth in USC Title 26.

Another court case one finds most enlightening recognizes that the foundation of our sovereignty as Americans is our right to contract.

"The Legislature may enjoin, permit, forbid, and punish; they may declare new crimes; and establish rules of conduct for all its citizens in future cases; they may command what is right, and prohibit what is wrong; but they cannot change innocence (eg. a right to exercise ones labor) into guilt (a privilege thus to be taxed); or punish innocence as a crime (criminally prosecute a nontaxpayer for violation of the tax laws); or violate the right of an antecedent  lawful private contract; or the right of private property (eg. labor). To maintain that our Federal or State, Legislature possesses such powers, if they had not been expressly restrained; would  in my opinion, be a political heresy, altogether inadmissible in our free republican  governments." Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 398 (1789)

The notes in ( ) are my examples I inserted based on a dicta of the court that commented on the above quote stated in 1878

"In Calder v. Bull, which was here in 1798, Mr. Justice Chase said, that there were acts which the Federal and State legislatures could not do without exceeding their authority, and among them he mentioned a law which punished a citizen for an innocent act; a law that destroyed or impaired the lawful private contracts of citizens; a law that made a man judge in his own case, and a law that took the property from A and gave it to B. 'It is against all reason and justice', he added, 'for a people to intrust a legislature with such powers, and therefore it cannot be presumed that they have done it. They may command what is right and prohibit what is wrong; but they cannot change innocence into guilt, or punish innocence as a crime, or violate the right of an antecedent lawful private contract, or the right of private property. To maintain that a Federal or State legislature possesses such powers if they had not been expressly restrained, would, in my opinion, be a political heresy altogether inadmissible in all free republican governments.' 3 Dall 388.


In other words what part did taxation play in influencing the founding fathers when they wrote the words ".....in pursuit of happiness...." – none.


-- Modified on 9/26/2010 2:14:59 PM

not disagree with anything you said, except possibly for your caption -viz., that the power to impose an income tax is very, very limited.

But without some context I can't really comment on that.

You start with "it is said...only privileges are taxed never rights."

Who said that and why must one authoritatively accept it as the final word?

It is true rights cannot be taxed by definitions, since a right means something you are free to do without penalty.  (Parenthetically, that is the old legal meaning of right.  That excludes health care because a right was not something you were entitled to get from others, it was something you were free to do on your own without interference.)  

Since you can exercise a right without penalty, it can't have a fee.

However, the second half of your premise - that only privileges can be taxed - is without authority.  Who says that other things can't be taxed?  If I work for ten hours and earn $1,000, my claim to the money is not a "privilege."  But it can be taxes.

Can you name me one country, that doesn't enslave their citizens (hence no need to tax their labor), that attempts to insure that it's citizens, through laws and the enforcement of those laws, that no one is allowed to taking their moneys and property without their permission, that doesn't tax its citizen's labor? If you can't, then your question is irrelevant.

there are only rights. And all taxes are voluntary. I don't see the big deal here.

Taxing income is just a really efficient way to establishing a progressive tax code. Our problem is that it isn't all that progressive anymore.

most of the controversial issues of our day. Actually your question has been a subject of controversy since the beginning of our Republic. For example, the origins of the "Whiskey Rebellion" may be tied to your question. The Westerner's i.e. Kentucky of the early 1790's revolted against the Federal government imposing an excise tax on their labor. It was their "right" to keep the profits of their labor the Westerner's argued.  Sec. Of Treasury Alexander Hamilton countered the tax was a luxury tax on a sin and thus was "privilege".

Fast fowarding 100 years, the US Congress had to enact the sixteenth amendment in order to impose the income tax. So I am going to say by fiat we have a tax upon labor and it was not an inherent right the government was just to impose. However, it is a privilege to live in this great country, so I have no problem in contributing to "provide for the common defence" to "secure the Blessings of Liberty".

In summary, I believe it is my right to contract and keep the fruits of my labor. However, it is only by the opportunites that is protected by the US Constitution that I am able to prosper. The sharing of this prosperity imposed by taxes is neither a privilege or a right it's prudent.

imposed by fiat, last? You make good points.

gave the government the right to tax as they see fit. What that means is that potentially everything gets taxed in one way or another.

The Declaration of Independence did not grant any rights.
It simply declared the 13 colonies independent from Great Briton and gave the reasons for taking this action.
Nothing more.

The Constitution was written in 1787 as a foundation for our government.  It was amended to include the Bill or Rights.
It does not address taxation directly.  

The Courts have upheld the governments ability to collect revenue (taxes), if you have representation.  
If you think I'm wrong try not paying taxes.  The IRS will take what they say you owe, and the burden of proof falls on you to prove you did not owe the money.

My driver's license doens't supercede the US Bill of Rights. Particularly the 9th Amendment.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

We have the natural right to do anything. That is the basis of our government. Therefore, there are no priviledges. Only rights.

When it comes to taxation, there's a couple ways of doing it. You can have sales and excise taxes, but the easiest way to have a sales tax is to charge everyone the same amount, regardless of their wealth or income.

Therefore, a sales tax is a tax of a higher percentage of your income if you are poor, then if you are rich. Therefore, it is regressive.

An income tax could be regressive, flat, or progressive very easily, since it makes sense to charge that tax at certain regular intevals, like on an annual basis. People aren't burdened with paying it all the time (in any real way), and it's easy to establish different income tax tiers based on a selection of income.

You could also do this with taxing property or taxing wealth, but with taxing property you can run into problems such as value appreciation forcing people to sell their property that they can no longer afford to just own. With taxing wealth, it becomes problematic to calculate total wealth very easily.

Taxing income, by comparison, is pretty straight forward. I realize the income tax code is ridiculously large, but one could see how it would be very easy to make it only a couple pages long. that's all I'm saying...

I realize that a lot of people here, especially conservatives have very strong feelings about the income tax. I'm in no way disputing that, or criticizing the legitimacy of those feelings. I'm just saying, if you were a bystander, you'd probably conclude that taxing income is an easier and more efficient way of collecting taxes.

...the existence of the issuer itself can be withdrawn, recinded, or canceled by the people at any time.

Ergo, there are no priviledges. Only rights.

Read your state's driver's manual. Driving is a privilege and can be taken away from you. Your wrong on that point.

Finally, what the hell do you mean by the statement: "Taxing income is just a really efficient way to establishing a progressive tax code"? Buddy, your not making any sense.

governments are voted out of office all the time. We call them elections.

Even in dictatorships, the gov't must always provide enough for the people to prevent a violent revolution, as Marie Antoinette so rudely found out.

is a privilege, as well as recieving unemployment check is considered a privilege. In both cases they are federal privileges as they are activities created by the Fed. and therefore you shall be subject to the tax since you are invloved in the activity through which you RECIEVE  money from them.

Yes you can opt not to recieve any money, either way whether you recieve or not is irrelevant to the existence of those privileges.

did give the sovereign people of the several states the right to form their own government and most importantly the right to alter and abolish it.

Please understand the issue here is not whether one pays taxes or not. It is whether you correctly understand the claims made upon you when W-2 or 1099 are issued on you. If you correctly understand what those claims are and correctly rebut them from the get go,  then the burden of proof is never yours but those who make the claim on you, whether its your employer of IRS.

"...... if doubt exists as to the construction of a taxing statute, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the taxpayer ....." Hassett v. Welch, 303 U.S. 303,314 (1938)

or more explicitly under

IRC Title 26-6201-(d) Required reasonable verification of information returns

In any court proceeding, if a taxpayer asserts a reasonable dispute with respect to any item of income reported on an information return filed with the Secretary under subpart B or C of part III of subchapter A of chapter 61 by a third party and the taxpayer has fully cooperated with the Secretary (including providing, within a reasonable period of time, access to and inspection of all witnesses, information, and documents within the control of the taxpayer as reasonably requested by the Secretary), the Secretary shall have the burden of producing reasonable and probative information concerning such deficiency in addition to such information return.

The 1040 is nothing but a sworn affidavit you make claiming that those presumptions made upon you in W-2 and 1099 are true.

The question is do you understand what those presumptions are that are being made in W-2's and 1099's that made your right to exercise your labor (inviolable right) into a privilege ( in this case federal privilege) and thus liable to be taxed.


-- Modified on 9/27/2010 7:56:32 AM

do not pay any income tax. Most importantly the Federal Reserve - whose ownership no one seems to know - is exempt from any tax.

In any case what is particular about the US is that we are the only ones as far as I know required to submit a 1040 tax filing. All other nations that do tax do it because it is lawful under their form of government. Under our republic though labor is recognized as a right that predated any form of government and more importantly "the original foundation of all other property" and therefore is inviolable.

Think about it if it was the law then why the need for us to submit a sworn testament by way of a 1040 claiming our earnings to be taxed. If it were law at the end of the year the state only has either to refund us for over payment or bill us for any outstanding money due.  Do not be misled with all the "exemptions" you can claim on the 1040, they are nothing but smoke and mirrors to side track you from seeking the real reason.

I stated opinions of the court a code citation from IRS and a summary of the second paragraph from the Declaration of Independence.

If you consider those to be garbage then I suggest you contact the Supreme Court the IRS - unfortunately all the founding fathers a dead - and tell them what they stated is garbage.

Calling something garbage in and of itself does not prove a point. You can rebut what I stated by giving a counter to each of the points I express, no need to be all worked up about it.

As I said if you claim to have made taxable income through your sworn testament in the form of a 1040, you are subject to the tax period, and IRS has the right to collect.

required to file a income tax return it is because the state recoginizes the sacrosanct nature of labor. They need the citizen to convert and recognize that which is a natural right to a privilege without them coercing the citizen.

Where taxation on labor is law  there is no need to submit and file an income tax return, where the tax has already been taken out of your earnings before you get your money.

If the Federal Reserve is an agency of the US government then why does the US government charge itself interest to borrow money. It is as if you are charging yourself interest for borrowing your own money and then claiming what a mess you are in.

Some of us have no taxable income yet we have wealth. We pay no taxes.

-- Modified on 9/27/2010 5:14:03 AM

You repeat a lot of garbage.  But it come down to this.  You pay your taxes or you will go to federal prison!

Your opinion means nothing to the IRS and will not do you any good in court!

American Samoa is not a country, it is a US Territory.  They don't pay taxes because they don't have a voting representative in Congress.  The Federal Reserve is an agency of the US government!

Canada also files income tax returns.  I'm sure other countries that has income tax may also.  

it depends on other factors to such as if you have other sources of income, if you are below the base amount, if you are between the base amount and additional amount that you recieve or if your income is above the additional amount. Both the base and additional are I believe calculated by S.S.

My understanding is if your income is below base then you are not taxed. If it is in between base and additional or greater then additional you are taxed. This is an amateurs response, best to find out from an expert in this field of taxation.

The chair of the Fed. is appointed by the President and Confirmed by Congress.
No profit dividends are paid and no private individual owns stock.

But why do I persist in arguing with the tinfoil hat brigade!

Yes, you have the natural right to commit murder. I'm talking about natural rights in the same context that Hamilton talked about rights in Federalist 84.

As a recipient of SS, I believe the cut off amount currently is $32,450/year, in income other than SS. That can be from salary, wages, tips, annuities, other pension income, etc. Make more than that amount from the other sources, and you pay a tax on your SS benefits. Make less, and your SS benefits are tax free.

Is that taxable?

There is no god!

-- Modified on 9/28/2010 3:53:18 AM

using words as "BS", "garbage", "full of it" means nothing. Of course the courts have upheld the income tax as I said IF YOU ARE SUBJECT TO THE TAX. How many ways do you want me to say this!!

Constitution. You are not making a sensible or credible rational. I really do not understand when you say:

"We have the natural right to do anything."

Does this mean I have the right to commit murder? What do you mean by "natural" right?

But now you will be fined for failure to follow.

Sorry but I'm not buying your BS.
The courts have upheld the income tax.
You are full of it!

They don't have a local office!!!!!

The Board of Governors
of the Federal Reserve System
Appointments to the Board
The seven members of the Board of Governors are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate to serve 14-year terms of office. Members may serve only one full term, but a member who has been appointed to complete an unexpired term may be reappointed to a full term. The President designates, and the Senate confirms, two members of the Board to be Chairman and Vice Chairman, for four-year terms.
Representation
Only one member of the Board may be selected from any one of the twelve Federal Reserve Districts. In making appointments, the President is directed by law to select a "fair representation of the financial, agricultural, industrial, and commercial interests and geographical divisions of the country."  These aspects of selection are intended to ensure representation of regional interests and the interests of various sectors of the public.

Responsibilities
The primary responsibility of the Board members is the formulation of monetary policy. The seven Board members constitute a majority of the 12-member Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), the group that makes the key decisions affecting the cost and availability of money and credit in the economy. The other five members of the FOMC are Reserve Bank presidents, one of whom is the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The other Bank presidents serve one-year terms on a rotating basis. By statute the FOMC determines its own organization, and by tradition it elects the Chairman of the Board of Governors as its Chairman and the President of the New York Bank as its Vice Chairman.

The Board sets reserve requirements and shares the responsibility with the Reserve Banks for discount rate policy. These two functions plus open market operations constitute the monetary policy tools of the Federal Reserve System.

In addition to monetary policy responsibilities, the Federal Reserve Board has regulatory and supervisory responsibilities over banks that are members of the System, bank holding companies, international banking facilities in the United States, Edge Act and agreement corporations, foreign activities of member banks, and the U.S. activities of foreign-owned banks. The Board also sets margin requirements, which limit the use of credit for purchasing or carrying securities.

In addition, the Board plays a key role in assuring the smooth functioning and continued development of the nation's vast payments system [see Fedwire and Payment System Risk Policy].

Another area of Board responsibility is the development and administration of regulations that implement major federal laws governing consumer credit such as the Truth in Lending Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act and the Truth in Savings Act [see Consumer Information and Community Development].

Meetings
The Board usually meets several times a week. Meetings are conducted in compliance with the Government in the Sunshine Act, and many meetings are open to the public. If the Board has convened to consider confidential financial information, however, the sessions are closed to public observation.

Contacts within Government
As they carry out their duties, members of the Board routinely confer with officials of other government agencies, representatives of banking industry groups, officials of the central banks of other countries, members of Congress and academicians. For example, they meet frequently with Treasury officials and the Council of Economic Advisers to help evaluate the economic climate and to discuss objectives for the nation's economy. Governors also discuss the international monetary system with central bankers of other countries and are in close contact with the heads of the U.S. agencies that make foreign loans and conduct foreign financial transactions.

In the current system, private banks are for-profit businesses but government regulation places restrictions on what they can do. The Federal Reserve System is a part of government that regulates the private banks. The balance between privatization and government involvement is also seen in the structure of the system. Private banks elect members of the board of directors at their regional Federal Reserve Bank while the members of the Board of Governors are selected by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate. The private banks give input to the government officials about their economic situation and these government officials use this input in Federal Reserve policy decisions. In the end, private banking businesses are able to run a profitable business while the U.S. government, through the Federal Reserve System, oversees and regulates the activities of the private banks.

You still fail to answer the fundemental question. Why does the government charge interest to itself for borrowing money if the Federal Reserve was part of it.

By the way to quote from your text...

"Private banks elect members of the board of directors at their regional Federal Reserve Bank..."

You are aware the regional federal reserve banks are an extension of the federal reserve bank, the main one being in New York.

So if this is a US agency as you claim, how does the constitution allow private citizens to APPOINT public officers? (Mind you they are not ELECTED.)

-- Modified on 9/28/2010 8:35:47 PM

A person with can take your privilege to work by enslaving you. The answer to your question is the person having power grant that privilege, either because that person hires you for a wage or enslaves you for nothing more than a wage.

damnit to hell.

Enslaving a person makes that person your property. Property by US law cannot be human.