Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 1 Sep 1992 17:51:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject: re: income tax

On Tue, 1 Sep 1992 11:12:00 -0400 SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET said:
>  Yes, I was kidding about the Satanist, but not about the motivation behind
>  the *lie*.  The 16th Amendment rests on the conclusion that each dollar
>  you receive carries with it an added ability to purchase goods or services.
>  This would be true in the case of *real* income, profit, but not in a case
>  of equal trade.
Well, it is like this.  One's time and labor are not considered to be
possessions worthy of market value--i.e. most people don't care that you
can lift bales of hay.  However, the money that you have *is* a possess-
ion and *does* have market value (even above itself, if you count
interest).

>  If I trade one of my hours for one of your dollars we have made an agreed
>  upon trade.  We may each have something we want, but no profit has as yet
>  been derived.  I could have just as easily traded my hour for a hamburger
>  or a pair of shoes.  Still, no profit has necessarily occurred.  Both of
>  these scenarios are identical.
I refer you to my above statement.

>  If each dollar can erroneously be considered as income "regardless of source"
,
>  because of its implied purchasing power, then why not apply the same logic to
>  my *hours*.  Perhaps you advocate a *waking hours tax*.
Have you ever known of a sales tax on labor???  Well, OK, Canada has the
GST, but they are not under our Constitution.
And just because I think something is constitutional doesn't mean I
*advocate* it.

>  A logical, and accurate, definition of income would be:
>    Value over and above original investment, i.e. interest earned (profit)
Well, if I work for 3 hours and get paid $10.00, I have $10.00 more
than I had before.  And I did not have to give anything to anybody in
return.


>  The 16th Amendment was also quite hastily ratified.  Although I have not
>  looked into the process, many claim that the required number of states was
>  never reached and that the amendment was illegally declared as ratified.
I heard about that and would like more info from anyone who knows about
it...

>  >  Where is the IRS mentioned in the Constitution?
>
>  >>Implicitly in the elastic clause.
>
>  Whips, leather and chains clause would be more accurate.
This time, it is legitimate.  Where is the Air Force mentioned in the
constitution??

>  >  Where is the Constitutionally required "Gold or silver coin" with which
>  >  we are required to pay our State taxes?
>
>  >>There is none.  The Constitution says that states can not coin money.
>  >>They can still accept gold or silver, and even make it legal tender in
>  >>the state.  I don't think that provision was ever intended or taken to
>  >>mean that we had to pay state taxes in gold or silver.
>
>  You are WRONG on this count.  Don't feel too badly, Jamie never figured this
>  out either.
>
>  Article 1 section 10 U.S. Constitution
>
>   "No State shall ... make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender
>    in payment of debts..."
>
>  They were certainly explicit about something didn't really intend.
Notice it said debts and not taxes...hmmmmm...if it was explicit then
maybe it--wonder of wonders--didn't MEAN taxes!!!!
It doesn't say debts to the state.  It only says debts.
And this is because the United States is the one authorized to make
something other than gold or silver legal tender in payment of all
debts, public and private.
Do you really think the Founding Fathers would require us to pay our
state taxes in gold and silver???

>  ---Robert
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU