Re: Who owns my labor?

Dale,
No that is "voluntary," in that you chose to be "in business," therefore
your yearly receipts are "net-income" for purposes of the excise tax levied
by Subtitle A of the IRC.  There is no compulsion to be "in business," but
there is in paying the tax imposed upon that choice.  I suppose that is why
the tax is "self-assessed," as in that way Congress is not confused over
whether or not you choose to be "in business".

"The difference between a tax upon property of any and every kind-which is
and must be, inherently direct- and taxes imposed in the form of duties and
excises is obvious in principle as well as fact.  The first kind of tax is
and always must be upon things and rights, while the second is and always
must be upon the doing of something which each person may do or refrain from
doing at his will and pleasure.

The land, the goods, or the money of a member of the community can not
escape taxation by change of ownership, for the tax adheres to the thing or
right, and whether one person or another has it is of no consequence
whatever.  But with the tax in the form of a duty or excise it is very
different.  In case of a duty it is the voluntary act of the importer in
bringing into this country the goods that fixes the tax upon him, and it is
the same with excise taxes.

No one is compelled by law to engage in the business of buying and selling
merchandise, stocks, operating railways, or in any particular business
whatever.  If he chooses to do so, he submits himself of his own choice to
any excise tax that be uniformly laid upon that particular kind of business.

The framers of the Constitution clearly understood these distinctions and
provided for the security of the internal rights of the people of the
several States accordingly by requiring that in the imposition of poll and
other direct taxes they should be apportioned among the several States
according to population, thus securing to the minorities of the people
equality with the majorities of the people electing the House of
Representatives, and thus controlling the kind and amount of levies made."
[Senate Document-61-2, Volume 58, Book 5657, "Different Kinds of Taxation"]

Research the court cases on "the presumption of Constitutionality," the
"statutory presumption" of fact, and "due process".

If the "labor for hire" employee is, in fact, a sole-proprietor or
independent contractor (in business) under the fundamental law, then the
above author is sadly mistaken and there is no choice.  Business receipts,
after the deduction of invested capital, are, by accounting principles,
gross income.

If, by fundamental law, the "labor for hire" employee is not a
sole-proprietor or independent contractor, then the "statutory presumption
of fact" is in error, and the tax imposed upon such employee is void for
lack of "due process".  Their "wages," by those same accounting principles,
are their yearly gross receipts produced by their property "labor," and a
tax upon such annual receipts is by definition a "direct" tax upon that
labor.

Thanks,  ggiven (www.taxhistory.com)

"Dale Eastman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> Brian Rookard wrote:
>
>
>
> > If you earn income, you have voluntarily submitted yourself to the tax.
>
> That would be voluntarily as in "under duress".
>
> http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/images/irsguns.jpeg
>