Expect this one to be the ralling cry

[Famspear]

jg wrote:

As I have pointed out repeatedly the term "excise" refers to both a category of taxes and to a particular type of tax.

SteveSy, pay attention to what jg wrote.

Like many legal terms, the term "excise" has more than one legal meaning. In the constitutional sense, virtually all taxes imposed under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (whether income taxes, gift taxes, estate taxes, miscellaneous excises, etc.) are essentially "excises" (that is, indirect taxes).

The only exception to this would theoretically be if you still considered taxes on interest income, dividend income, and rent income to be somehow "direct" taxes (à la Pollock) that are "taxed as indirect taxes;" in substance after 1913 it no longer matters whether taxes on those categories of income are considered direct or indirect, as the Sixteenth Amendment's language (removing the apportionment requirement) applies to income taxes on incomes from whatever source derived, and thus does not limit its application to any particular kind of income tax.

As shown in the text of the Code, the term "excise" has a separate statutory meaning, as in "miscellaneous excise taxes" (gasoline tax, phone tax, and so on).

Steve, get out a good collegiate or unabridged dictionary, and look up the word "run." See how many different definitions there are. You need to get comfortable with the concept that legal terms have various meanings. Indeed, the word "law" itself has more than one meaning in the United States Constitution, and is actually used with two slightly different meanings in the Constitution -- all within one sentence! (Just for fun, see if you can find the sentence I'm talking about, and see if you can discern the two separate meanings.)

[SteveSy]

Everything you post, stevesy, is idiotic. I'll just pick one and show your error.

Please show where the Supreme Court has ever included the word "exchange" in the definition of an excise? Under your silly theory even real property is taxable. If you "exchange" your house you can be liable for a tax on the entire sale without regard of the initial capital. Slaves were exchanged at one time too that means the capitation tax was not needed back in our early history. In fact since everything relies on an exchange in one form or another the direct taxes clause is and always was useless if we adopt your nonsense.

[natty]

Actually there hasn't been one single case ever concerning the constitutionality of taxing a wage or salary earner on his earnings.

The appellant is Lucas v. Earl was not dumb enough to challenge the constitutionality of the income tax, but the SC said "there is no doubt the statute taxed salaries to those who earned them".

Sometimes the law is so obvious that it would take only an idiot with the necessary temerity to bring it up.

[SteveSy]

in the text of the Code, the term "excise" has a separate statutory meaning, as in "miscellaneous excise taxes" (gasoline tax, phone tax, and so on).

Yes and those are "consumption" taxes, which clearly fall within the average definition.

Steve, get out a good collegiate or unabridged dictionary, and look up the word "run." See how many different definitions there are. You need to get comfortable with the concept that legal terms have various meanings. Indeed, the word "law" itself has more than one meaning in the United States Constitution, and is actually used with two slightly different meanings in the Constitution -- all within one sentence! (Just for fun, see if you can find the sentence I'm talking about, and see if you can discern the two separate meanings.)

I'm asking you to find ANY definition, legal or otherwise, of an excise that includes taxing the average person on his earnings. Nice try though.

[SteveSy]

Actually there hasn't been one single case ever concerning the constitutionality of taxing a wage or salary earner on his earnings.

The appellant is Lucas v. Earl was not dumb enough to challenge the constitutionality of the income tax, but the SC said "there is no doubt the statute taxed salaries to those who earned them".

Sometimes the law is so obvious that it would take only an idiot with the necessary temerity to bring it up.

You're right it does.....but not all salaries. If we take your statement as you would like me to take it, it literally means all salaries which would include taxing the French in France. We know, and can agree, it is limited to some degree it doesn't mean all. It is certainly limited to the confines of the constitution.

[Nikki]

Steve:

If there is any validity to your theories, why hasn't a single lawyer brought them up in a single income tax case?

Is there some kind or arcane plot amont all the lawyers to conceal these obvious loopholes and not eliminate the taxation of their clients?

The only rational explanation for the failure of anyone, in the last 80+ years, to bring up your obviously failure-proof arguments is that you are totally wrong.

There are thousands of attorneys who are paid big bucks to reduce their clients' incoome tax liabilities. Are you so much smarter than all of them that you've identified a legal argument which they all missed?

No, you're not. All of your posturing, pseudo-analysis, and rhetoric is nothing more than an exercise in mental masturbation on your part.

You're wrong. Get over it.

[natty]

Everything you post, stevesy, is idiotic. I'll just pick one and show your error.

Please show where the Supreme Court has ever included the word "exchange" in the definition of an excise? Under your silly theory even real property is taxable. If you "exchange" your house you can be liable for a tax on the entire sale without regard of the initial capital. Slaves were exchanged at one time too that means the capitation tax was not needed back in our early history. In fact since everything relies on an exchange in one form or another the direct taxes clause is and always was useless if we adopt your nonsense.

The SC has noted several times that the "happening of an event" was excise taxable. And, yes, if you sell your house, a tax on that sell would be an excise. All you would have to do is add the sales tax to the price.

And, no, everything does not rely on an exchange. A direct tax would tax the property because of ownership as opposes to its use. If you own a house, a tax on the value of that house regardless of any exchange would be a direct tax.

[jg]

I'm asking you to find ANY definition, legal or otherwise, of an excise that includes taxing the average person on his earnings. Nice try though.

from http://www.answers.com/topic/excise?cat=biz-fin

Excise
A tax imposed on the performance of an act, the engaging in an occupation, or the enjoyment of a privilege. A tax on the manufacture, sale, or use of goods or on the carrying on of an occupation or activity, or a tax on the transfer of property. In current usage the term has been extended to include various license fees and practically every internal revenue tax except the income tax (e.g., federal alcohol and tobacco excise taxes).

The act performed is the receipt of income in the instance of the income tax. Some might consider FICA taxes as a tax for engaging in an occupation rather than performance of the act of receipt of income. So this definition is broad enough to encompass income tax on wage earners.

There are no doubt others or even more fitting definitions but I did not want to spend more than a few minutes on this.

Of course, you will now try to show me why salary and wages of most workers are not income, even though you acknowledge those earnings have been subject to the income tax from the beginning, and then you will likely try to say that since the exemption amount precluded most workers from paying tax in the early years that the income tax is now a direct tax under the constitution since it is a capitation and so on and so on and so on
We have been there and done that (more than once).