The logic of an excise

[nattyb]

I love logic riddles, so when someone states "the income tax is an excise", I must wonder what they are thinking.
Setting aside all of the commentary and court cases, then just examining this statement for its logical conclusion:

"The income tax is an excise" MEANS if I have income and there is an income tax, therefore, the tax applied to that income is an excise.
It simply is not logical to conclude if my income can be taxed as an excise, it therefore can be taxed as an income tax.

[fortinbras]

As a generality, an excise is a tax or impost upon a certain category of privilege, such as acquiring a luxery (e.g., car or liquor or cigarettes) or acquiring a permit to do something otherwise restricted (e.g., permission to practice a regulated vocation). But income tax is a tax upon a thing - a person's annual incoming revenue without regard to what he was doing to get it.

[notorial dissent]

Logic and TP's very seldom have much if anything in common.

[Dr. Caligari]

As a generality, an excise is a tax or impost upon a certain category of privilege, such as acquiring a luxery (e.g., car or liquor or cigarettes) or acquiring a permit to do something otherwise restricted (e.g., permission to practice a regulated vocation).

Here is where the TPs get it wrong: a privilege tax and a tax on luxury purchases are excises, but not all excises are taxes on privileges or luxuries. (All dogs and cats are mammals, but not all mammals are cats and dogs.) I think the Supreme Court once defined an excise as a tax "on the occurrence of an event." Thus the gift tax, the estate tax and the income tax are all excises; they are taxes on the occurrence of an event (giving a gift, dying and earning income). An ad valorem property tax is not an excise but a direct tax, because liability does not depend on the occurrence of any event: if I buy a piece of land in year 1, and do nothing with it except continue to own it for 10 years, I owe a property tax every year even though nothing happened in years 2-9.

[.]

A definition that even a TP might understand. I won't hold my breath.

[Judge Roy Bean]

I love logic riddles, so when someone states "the income tax is an excise", I must wonder what they are thinking. ...

Could it be that they are relying on an alternative definition of the word? To "excise" can also mean to take something out, i.e., have funds taken from your paycheck or having a brain tumor that impairs logical thinking excised?

[notorial dissent]

I generally just put it down to poor to no reading skills or comprehension, ignorance both native and willful, and just plain wishful thinking. I really am convinced that no matter how you characterized an income tax, they would find some reason to dispute that it was what it was. They don't want it to be, therefore, it isn't.

[Famspear]

I generally just put it down to poor to no reading skills or comprehension, ignorance both native and willful, and just plain wishful thinking. I really am convinced that no matter how you characterized an income tax, they would find some reason to dispute that it was what it was. They don't want it to be, therefore, it isn't.

I agree.

And, I think the mix varies from person to person. Almost all of them are engaged in wishful thinking, and almost all of them will always find some "reason" to claim that the law is not what the law really is. These people simply have too much psychic energy invested in their delusions.

Many of them also have poor reading skills, comprehension, and so on.

It's the Sherry Jackson, Joe Banister, Jeff Dickstein, Eduardo Rivera, Oscar Stilley, Tommy Cryer (rest in peace), Robert Clarkson (rest in peace) types who are really deep into some weird thought patterns. These folks went far enough in life to have been licensed as CPAs or attorneys at some time. They obviously have the reading skills and ability to comprehend U.S. federal tax law. When one of these types gets drunk on the Delusional Kool-Aid, you know they have a problem that cannot be easily corrected.

[notorial dissent]

FWIW, I've always felt that both Jackson and Banister were just two not very bright individuals who decided it was easier to be con artists that productively employed. I really don't know, but don't think they believe what they are preaching. I think they are both intellectually dishonest as well as being generally and morally dishonest. Dickstein I have no opinion on as I am really not familiar with his fantasies.

Rivera, Stilley and Cryer, while being for real lawyers, aren't/weren't tax lawyers, and I don't think any of them had any really valid claims towards being so, which means that while they may have been competent or at least marginally competent in their field of expertise, there was nothing to say they were either constitutional or tax qualified.

Clarkson, was, I think in the final analysis just a cheap jack con artist selling what he thought the market wanted. I don't know if he believed any of his woo, but he was in the business of selling it.