Rehash part II

[SteveSy]

SteveSy, please clarify something. Is it your position that the Civil War tax statutes (enacted from 1862 to 1864) taxed the income of federal government employees and those persons connected with the federal government, but not the income of ordinary individuals not so employed or connected?

No that is not an accurate representation of my position. I believe the government, in order to avoid legal issues, licensed everyone they thought they thought would qualify for an income tax excepting all federal employees which didn't need to be licensed.

For example, would the gross amount of year 1863 income from salary of OTHER than an officer or employee of the United States have been included on the Federal income tax return of an individual?

Yes

And what about the gross amount of 1863 income of a U.S. resident from profits on any trade, business, or vocation (unconnected with the federal government)? Would that have been included?

Yes, if you met the income requirement. However, if you look at the law you will see you could not make the income threshold and not have a license.

Of course I will concede this is just circumstantial. I have nothing written saying "We licensed everyone we thought would pay the income tax in order to avoid an adverse ruling." It just seems logical to me for two reasons.

1) It was well accepted that privileges could be taxed and the measure could be revenue. There were a few well known SC cases dealing with taxing gross receipts and or revenue based on taxing the privilege. Considering there was no income laws prior to the civil war taxes this was a sure way to insure no adverse ruling in a time of war when revenue was badly needed.

2) It doesn't make sense to me that they had the power to lay an income tax knowing no license was required yet they licensed everyone which was difficult to maintain. They could have just raised the rate at which the income was taxed or even lowered the threshold which would have achieved the revenue requirements much easier. Look at how the income tax has taken the place of nearly all other taxes. The government didn't license people like that again or prior, at least not even remotely close to what they did during the civil war income tax.

[Prof]

SteveSy, please clarify something. Is it your position that the Civil War tax statutes (enacted from 1862 to 1864) taxed the income of federal government employees and those persons connected with the federal government, but not the income of ordinary individuals not so employed or connected?

No that is not an accurate representation of my position. I believe the government, in order to avoid legal issues, licensed everyone they thought they thought would qualify for an income tax.

For example, would the gross amount of year 1863 income from salary of OTHER than an officer or employee of the United States have been included on the Federal income tax return of an individual?

Yes

And what about the gross amount of 1863 income of a U.S. resident from profits on any trade, business, or vocation (unconnected with the federal government)? Would that have been included?

Yes, if you met the income requirement. However, if you look at the law you will see you could not make the income threshold and not have a license.

And where in that statute does it state that a lawyer (or any other licensed person) could not practice his profession without such a license? This is not rhetorical. I don't have access to the complete statute.

To me, the term license is no more or less than another word for tax.

But, and this is more relevant, where does any subsequent income tax statute, state or federal, require as a "jurisdictional hook," a license from the federal or state government? SC, NC, MA, MS all have income tax statutes. I've paid taxes in those states. I am not licensed by those states to practice law (or do any other form of labor in those states) and never have been. Why was I taxed?

Texas does not have an income tax. A substantial minority of my partners are not licensed to practice law (e.g., admitted to practice) in any federal court. Why are they paying federal taxes?

[notorial dissent]

What Federal License?

[SteveSy]

SteveSy, please clarify something. Is it your position that the Civil War tax statutes (enacted from 1862 to 1864) taxed the income of federal government employees and those persons connected with the federal government, but not the income of ordinary individuals not so employed or connected?

No that is not an accurate representation of my position. I believe the government, in order to avoid legal issues, licensed everyone they thought they thought would qualify for an income tax.

For example, would the gross amount of year 1863 income from salary of OTHER than an officer or employee of the United States have been included on the Federal income tax return of an individual?

Yes

And what about the gross amount of 1863 income of a U.S. resident from profits on any trade, business, or vocation (unconnected with the federal government)? Would that have been included?

Yes, if you met the income requirement. However, if you look at the law you will see you could not make the income threshold and not have a license.

And where in that statute does it state that a lawyer (or any other licensed person) could not practice his profession without such a license? This is not rhetorical. I don't have access to the complete statute.

It didn't say you couldn't operate without one or that it was giving you permission to do the thing being licensed, but then you would go to jail if you didn't get one if you did do the thing without a license. I guess you could say you were granted the privilege to not go to jail

To me, the term license is no more or less than another word for tax.

Yes it is....but then the court has viewed licenses as privileges just like the States. Look at the State code, you get a license or pay the tax on business income for the privilege of operating in the State.

But, and this is more relevant, where does any subsequent income tax statute, state or federal, require as a "jurisdictional hook," a license from the federal or state government? SC, NC, MA, MS all have income tax statutes. I've paid taxes in those states. I am not licensed by those states to practice law (or do any other form of labor in those states) and never have been. Why was I taxed?

I can't answer that Prof, I haven't looked at their laws, the power is probably granted by the state constitution. More importantly very few States have direct tax laws where as the Federal government does. Britain doesn't have an apportionment requirement for direct taxes so they can lay an income tax without taxing privileges even though its accepted such a tax is a direct tax same with the States if they view such taxes as direct.

For instance, and you will find this in probably all State laws that have direct tax limitations...
Texas:

The Texas franchise tax is a privilege tax imposed on each corporation and limited liability company chartered/organized in Texas or doing business in Texas

http://www.window.state.tx.us/taxinfo/f ... rrent.html

Texas does not have an income tax. A substantial minority of my partners are not licensed to practice law (e.g., admitted to practice) in any federal court. Why are they paying federal taxes?

Do they have a corporation, LLC, LLP or any other chartered organization formed under State law. Without the state granting the privilege to form and be protected under its law they wouldn't have the organization.

Besides, isn't it my issue whether the government is misapplying the law to begin with? Seems a little silly you would ask me why someone is paying a tax I think is being misapplied as if to prove I'm wrong about the tax that's being misapplied.

[SteveSy]

More importantly even if they let the law stand no laborer working for a paycheck would have been taxed. Only wealthy businessmen such as lawyers, doctors and the like could have even achieved the level of income needed to pay the tax. So they weren't talking about Joe bricklayer.

As an aside the court never says they only modified the Springer opinion as far as it related to income from property. The only rational conclusion is the didn't modify it at all. The Springer case dealt only with Springer's income because of what Springer did and nothing in Pollock repudiated any part of that decision.

This is confusing. Does a lawyer owe an income tax because he is a lawyer, or does a lawyer owe an income tax because he makes more income than a bricklayer?

I believe in 1863-1864 he owed the income tax because he was a federally licensed lawyer, the measure was his income.

[Prof]

Don't you have it backwards? Springer was a lawyer before the tax statute, just like the other income earners were doctors, indian chiefs, or whatever.

Now comes the civil war, and to raise money, the government says (1) you must get a license and (2) the license fee is driven by the amount you make. (At least, that is what I think the statute says, since I do not have a copy, and am relying on your analysis.)

The government did not say that it had any power to prohibit the practice of law; it said, buy and license and pay a tax, which is synonymous, is it not? There is no doubt that Springer had a right to practice his profession, he was just being taxed, just like a laborer who made a lot of money in other lines of work listed on your posted quote from the statute was required to buy a license and pay a tax -- the license and the tax came together. The license was not created to give a jurisdictional hook.

Now, back to the present. I am asking two questions. Why do lawyers who are not licensed by the feds have to pay tax? Why do lawyers licensed by the State of Texas have to pay a federal tax? Where in the tax statute (IRS) or any state tax statute (SC) does it say, "Because you are licensed to practice law in SC or because you have a federal admission to practice, you will pay a tax?" Where is this in any statute today?

Lawyers usually practice in a professional corp., LLC, LLP, or some form of INC. for the firm. In Texas, there is no tax on those entities. The IRS generally imposes no tax if the funds are administered properly. The tax burden lies only on the lawyers. Besides, where does it say that because I work for a corp./LLC/LLP, I have to pay taxes? Where? This is another TP myth, which I think you picked up on the internet.

Now, go back, and answer my question instead of dodging same: Where in any modern taxation scheme for taxation of incomes does the statute, state or federal, require a lawyer to pay an income tax because he/she has been licensed by the state or by the federal courts?

[SteveSy]

Don't you have it backwards? Springer was a lawyer before the tax statute, just like the other income earners were doctors, indian chiefs, or whatever.

True he was, but then comes the new tax law and he will go to jail if he continues operating as a lawyer without a license.

Now comes the civil war, and to raise money, the government says (1) you must get a license and (2) the license fee is driven by the amount you make. (At least, that is what I think the statute says, since I do not have a copy, and am relying on your analysis.)

No, you have to get a license which requires a flat fee. You also have to pay income tax on any profits received from that profession above the threshold.

The government did not say that it had any power to prohibit the practice of law; it said, buy and license and pay a tax, which is synonymous, is it not?

True....

But, what's the difference is saying "we are granting you the right to operate as a lawyer" and "You will go to jail if you try and operate as a lawyer without a license"? I personally see none, it's a distinction without a difference, in substance they achieve the same goal.

There is no doubt that Springer had a right to practice his profession, he was just being taxed, just like a laborer who made a lot of money in other lines of work listed on your posted quote from the statute was required to buy a license and pay a tax -- the license and the tax came together. The license was not created to give a jurisdictional hook.

That's your opinion. Personally it's nonsensical they would attempt to maintain a register of all these licenses if it were not for the license being the method to tax the profits. It would have been easier to just increase the percentage of income tax or reduce the threshold.

Now, back to the present. I am asking two questions. Why do lawyers who are not licensed by the feds have to pay tax?

For one the government can tax the privilege even though they did not create the privilege, see Flint v. Stone.

Why do lawyers licensed by the State of Texas have to pay a federal tax?

See above

Where in the tax statute (IRS) or any state tax statute (SC) does it say, "Because you are licensed to practice law in SC or because you have a federal admission to practice, you will pay a tax?" Where is this in any statute today?

It doesn't need to say that, see Nicol v. Ames

Besides it matters if you're talking about State or Federal Taxes. Every State license or tax on business that I have seen has always said it was a tax on the privilege.

Lawyers usually practice in a professional corp., LLC, LLP, or some form of INC. for the firm. In Texas, there is no tax on those entities.

Yes there is. I provided the link a few posts above.

The IRS generally imposes no tax if the funds are administered properly. The tax burden lies only on the lawyers. Besides, where does it say that because I work for a corp./LLC/LLP, I have to pay taxes? Where? This is another TP myth, which I think you picked up on the internet.

The business must pay the tax. You personally, IMO are not liable for the tax unless you are using some defined privilege such as a state license to operate.

Now, go back, and answer my question instead of dodging same: Where in any modern taxation scheme for taxation of incomes does the statute, state or federal, require a lawyer to pay an income tax because he/she has been licensed by the state or by the federal courts?

I'm not dodging anything....

I never claimed or even implied there was such a statue in the modern acts. I clearly stated I believe the laws are being misapplied.

[Prof]

Your reference to taxation of entities in Texas is a reference to the franchise tax, which is a tax on the privelege of doing business in Texas and is based upon gross sales. It does not apply to gross sales of less than 300,000 and all tax bills of less than 1000 are not paid. It is not a tax on lawyers' incomes.

Technically, the franchise tax is not a tax on income; it is only measured by income.

Still, any lawyer in Texas can avoid the franchise tax by practicing solo (without a PC) or just by practicing in a true partnership.

The tax does not apply to foreign corporations doing business in Texas. AT&T, which is organized in Delaware, pays no franchise tax in Texas, as far as I know, even though its headquarters are in San Antonio.

Lawyers licensed in Texas, who practice in LLC's located elsewhere, would not pay the franchise tax.

So, this tax (and it really is an income tax) is tied to "incorporation" or similar acts in Texas and not a business license or the nature of the work done.

In other words, for your argument, the franchise tax is a red herring (and, since it is progressive, it also violates your fairness standard).

[SteveSy]

Your reference to taxation of entities in Texas is a reference to the franchise tax, which is a tax on the privelege of doing business in Texas and is based upon gross sales. It does not apply to gross sales of less than 300,000 and all tax bills of less than 1000 are not paid. It is not a tax on lawyers' incomes.

You said:
"Lawyers usually practice in a professional corp., LLC, LLP, or some form of INC. for the firm. In Texas, there is no tax on those entities."

There is a tax on those entities. You're changing what you said....that's ok if you meant something different. I believe it's 150k btw not 300k but that's not important.

Still, any lawyer in Texas can avoid the franchise tax by practicing solo (without a PC) or just by practicing in a true partnership.

True...but then that's different than what you originally said.

So, this tax (and it really is an income tax) is tied to "incorporation" or similar acts in Texas and not a business license or the nature of the work done.

Ok..agreed

In other words, for your argument, the franchise tax is a red herring (and, since it is progressive, it also violates your fairness standard).

No, you are changing things up so you can claim I'm wrong.

I said LLP's LLC's and any other organization organized under state law is taxed on the privilege. Individuals in the state of Texas are not taxed on their income.

Just because someone pays the tax is not proof the tax as applied is constitutional.

Let's just get passed this game you're playing.
I know there is no statute saying you must have a license in order to pay the federal income tax. I know there are no licenses for lawyers in the federal code making lawyers liable for the federal income tax. I know there is no law saying only federal employees are taxed on their income.

Let's move on....I believe the federal laws are being misapplied so that a income tax can be collected from everyone making minimal earnings. I believe this because I believe the income tax on average people is a direct tax requiring apportionment. The income tax as it stands can only be collected from people/entities who are using a government privilege. No, the federal statues do not say this, they don't have to, they are limited by constitution itself that's why they can't be unconstitutional. Btw, the Supreme Court said the laws are limited by the constitution. This effectively makes any challenge to the income tax law on a constitutional basis impossible. The law can only construed to apply as far as the constitution allows.

[Cpt Banjo]

I believe the government, in order to avoid legal issues, licensed everyone they thought they thought would qualify for an income tax excepting all federal employees which didn't need to be licensed.

The federal government required licenses of people who would not have reached the income tax threshold, such as jugglers (who had to pay $20 for a license -- see http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?co ... recNum=488).

The entire "license" business had no linkage to the income tax; it was simply a way to raise money for the war.

And what about the gross amount of 1863 income of a U.S. resident from profits on any trade, business, or vocation (unconnected with the federal government)? Would that have been included?

Yes, if you met the income requirement. However, if you look at the law you will see you could not make the income threshold and not have a license.

False. One could make over $600 in investment income and be liable for the tax but not be required to have a license. In fact, one could make over $600 in a nonlisted occupation and be liable for the tax without having to have a license -- the government didn't require licenses of all occupations until 1864, and even then there was a $1,000 gross receipt threshold. See paragraph 49 of Section 79 at http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?co ... recNum=488

Accordingly, it was quite possible to owe the income tax without being subject to any licensing requirement.

It doesn't make sense to me that they had the power to lay an income tax knowing no license was required yet they licensed everyone which was difficult to maintain.

They didn't license everyone; they didn't have to in order to levy the income tax.

[Cpt Banjo]

The [Texas franchise] tax does not apply to foreign corporations doing business in Texas. AT&T, which is organized in Delaware, pays no franchise tax in Texas, as far as I know, even though its headquarters are in San Antonio.

Prof, the Texas franchise tax does apply to foreign corporations, LLC's, and limited partnerships doing business in Texas. See http://www.window.state.tx.us/taxinfo/f ... vised.html

It's possible that AT&T has previously escaped the franchise tax by operating as a limited partnership, since before 2008 LP's weren't subject to the tax; but they are effective January 1, 2008.

[SteveSy]

I believe the government, in order to avoid legal issues, licensed everyone they thought they thought would qualify for an income tax excepting all federal employees which didn't need to be licensed.

The federal government required licenses of people who would not have reached the income tax threshold, such as jugglers (who had to pay $20 for a license -- see http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?co ... recNum=488).

That was the 1862 tax....I any case the point is no one who was not a government employee was going to pay the income tax unless they had a license.

The entire "license" business had no linkage to the income tax; it was simply a way to raise money for the war.

That's your opinion.

And what about the gross amount of 1863 income of a U.S. resident from profits on any trade, business, or vocation (unconnected with the federal government)? Would that have been included?

Yes, if you met the income requirement. However, if you look at the law you will see you could not make the income threshold and not have a license.

False. One could make over $600 in investment income and be liable for the tax but not be required to have a license. In fact, one could make over $600 in a nonlisted occupation and be liable for the tax without having to have a license -- the government didn't require licenses of all occupations until 1864, and even then there was a $1,000 gross receipt threshold. See paragraph 49 of Section 79 at http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?co ... recNum=488

Accordingly, it was quite possible to owe the income tax without being subject to any licensing requirement.

I disagree....it would have been very difficult to operate without a license in 1862-1864.

For instance I believe a person investing money would have been called a "broker" which required a license. Any purchase or sale of stock, coined money, bank notes or other securities for themselves or others. "[O]r who deals in exchanges relating to money, shall be regarded a broker under this act" is extremely broad.

It doesn't make sense to me that they had the power to lay an income tax knowing no license was required yet they licensed everyone which was difficult to maintain.

They didn't license everyone; they didn't have to in order to levy the income tax.

So say you...I say they did.

Besides it's not like there were a bunch of workers around paying this tax. Actually no laborer would have made the income requirements. Only people doing business, wealthy people, would have qualified. Everyone else was fighting the war. It's really silly to claim the 1862 or 1864 tax is proof they could tax a workers earnings, no workers were taxed and less than 1% of the population paid the income tax.

[natty]

More importantly even if they let the law stand no laborer working for a paycheck would have been taxed. Only wealthy businessmen such as lawyers, doctors and the like could have even achieved the level of income needed to pay the tax. So they weren't talking about Joe bricklayer.

As an aside the court never says they only modified the Springer opinion as far as it related to income from property. The only rational conclusion is the didn't modify it at all. The Springer case dealt only with Springer's income because of what Springer did and nothing in Pollock repudiated any part of that decision.

This is confusing. Does a lawyer owe an income tax because he is a lawyer, or does a lawyer owe an income tax because he makes more income than a bricklayer?

I believe in 1863-1864 he owed the income tax because he was a federally licensed lawyer, the measure was his income.

Now you are saying a lawyer owes an income tax because he is "federally licensed"? So, a bricklayer would also owe a tax if he was federally licensed? Why would anyone get a "federal license"? Seems to me that there is plenty of money to be made without the hassle of some "federal license", and you could avoid that stupid income tax. Would a lawyer who met the income threshold, thou he had no license, still owe the income tax?

[Cpt Banjo]

I disagree....it would have been very difficult to operate without a license in 1862-1864.

Pick anyone engaged in a nonlisted occupation earning more that $600 -- opera singer, actor, architect, carpenter, cabinet maker, furniture maker (the last two arguably had a $1,000 gross receipts cap under the 1862 act) -- no license was required, yet they owed income tax.

For instance I believe a person investing money would have been called a "broker" which required a license. Any purchase or sale of stock, coined money, bank notes or other securities for themselves or others." "[O]r who deals in exchanges relating to money, shall be regarded a broker under this act" is extremely broad.

It is, except you left out the language in the definition that referred to "any person whose business is to purchase or sell stocks", etc. See http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?co ... recNum=488

So a passive investor clipping coupons for his own account (as opposed to being in the securities business) needed no license.

It doesn't make sense to me that they had the power to lay an income tax knowing no license was required yet they licensed everyone which was difficult to maintain.

They didn't license everyone; they didn't have to in order to levy the income tax.

So say you...I say they did.

The statute says otherwise, Stevie. Give it up.

[Paul]

No, no, everybody. Stevesy is right. A tax on incomes is, and always has been a direct tax.

But, of course, if that is right, then the 16th Amendment makes it perfectly constitutional.

Why not cut to the chase? It all comes down to stevesy is relying on the holding in Brushaber, while arguing that its premise was wrong.

[LPC]

It all comes down to stevesy is relying on the holding in Brushaber, while arguing that its premise was wrong.

The *holding* in Brushaber is that the income tax is constitutional, so Sybil can't be relying on that.

Trying to make any sense of Sybil's arguments is a waste of time anyway, because Sybil himself can't make any sense of them, and they mutate from minute to minute as Sybil desperately tries to move the logical pea from one shell rationalization to another.

[SteveSy]

Steve:

Is your argument now that a tax on the average Joe is a direct tax?

My argument hasn't changed

You know damn well that the Supreme Court said almost 100 years ago that income taxes are indirect.

They are....A tax on the revenue of an individual would require a direct tax. It wouldn't be an income tax., it would be a capitation tax. Just like a fuel tax is an indirect tax, doesn't mean every conceivable form of fuel would fall under a fuel tax. A tax on the consumption of oxygen, the air you breathe, would be a direct tax even though oxygen is a type of fuel.

For the love of f**k, dude, quit yammering and put your money where your mouth is. File suit in Tax Court. Or pay your taxes, then sue for a refund in U.S. District Court, where you can get a jury if your theories survive a motion for summary judgment. Then appeal your loss to the Circuit Court of Appeals.

Why, I would lose.....

Doesn't mean I'm wrong concerning what is or is not a direct tax within the meaning of the constitution. Again, for the 100th time if it was so well known that an income tax was a indirect tax and everyone knew it since the inception of the constitution why didn't anyone say so back when it was ratified. Why didn't anyone pop up and argue when those that were there claimed it was a direct tax? Why can't anyone, not even the circuit courts, quote anything from anyone during the ratification of the constitution or shortly after saying it wasn't a direct tax? Why...the answer is simple, the people that ratified the constitution knew it was a direct tax so no one is going to be found saying otherwise and instead saying the exact opposite. We didn't change the meaning of what direct taxes were when we separated from England. We didn't create a unique definition of direct tax from all other countries in the world. that would have been idiotic especially considering no one ever mentioned they were doing something like that.

I go by statements such as this one:

Uniformity is an instant operation on individuals, without the intervention of assessments or any regard to states, and is at once easy, certain, and efficacious. All taxes on expenses or consumption are indirect taxes. A tax on carriages is of this kind, and of course is not a direct tax. Indirect taxes are circuitous modes of reaching the revenue of individuals, who generally live according to their income.

- Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 3 Dall. 171 171 (1796)

That is very consistent with all definitions around the world of what an indirect tax is. But you know what I would NEVER be allowed to show something like that to a jury nor would anyone else....it might confuse them.

I never said I would win in court, of course I bet if I was in the USSR during its reign and tried to argue they were doing illegal things I would have lost there too. Just because some man or woman in a black robe, who never attempts to prove their opinions, says something doesn't mean they change reality. Sure, if I am ever faced with them in their court room where they control their little world I will lose.

Surely in Texas y'all know the phrase, "Time to put up or shut up."

Ya, let me go to a place where the person controlling my fate is appointed by and paid by the very people I'm trying to cut ability to wield power and by votes with. Let me convince them that cutting a massive portion of their revenue from which they buy votes with is the right thing to do. While I'm there I'll explain why the billions in pork barrel spending is also illegal and unjust and they should do the right thing and spend the American people's money wisely. Maybe logic and reason will win the day.....

[Paul]

A tax on the revenue of an individual would require a direct tax. It wouldn't be an income tax

A tax on income isn't an income tax? That's the key to your argument?

Just like a fuel tax is an indirect tax, doesn't mean every conceivable form of fuel would fall under a fuel tax. A tax on the consumption of oxygen, the air you breathe, would be a direct tax even though oxygen is a type of fuel.

Typical sloppy language. A tax on fuel would be a property tax, not an excise. A tax on the SALE of fuel would be an excise. And, yes, a tax on the sale of oxygen would be an excise, too, but it wouldn't apply to your breathing free air. So what's your point, other than you need to use very sloppy language that allows you to slide back and forth between meanings of a word in your argument, because that's the only way your arguments work.

And why do you keep dodging the simple fact that the ONLY limitation on direct taxes in the constitution is that they must be apportioned, and the 16th Amendment says taxes on incomes do not have to be apportioned?

[SteveSy]

It all comes down to stevesy is relying on the holding in Brushaber, while arguing that its premise was wrong.

The *holding* in Brushaber is that the income tax is constitutional, so Sybil can't be relying on that.

An income tax is constitutional as long as it stays within the bounds of what income taxes can constitutionally tax. A tax on a corporations income is perfectly constitutional in my opinion. A tax on the earnings of a McDonalds worker is a capitation tax, its not an income tax at all.

[SteveSy]

A tax on the revenue of an individual would require a direct tax. It wouldn't be an income tax

A tax on income isn't an income tax? That's the key to your argument?

Income doesn't pay the tax...people or businesses do, its who is liable for that tax that makes it direct or indirect. If everyone is liable for a tax then its a head, capitation, tax especially if everyone requires it to survive. It would be no different than taxing people from the age of 21-30 at $30, 41-40 at $50 per person in an effort to avoid the fixed rate definition.

Just like a fuel tax is an indirect tax, doesn't mean every conceivable form of fuel would fall under a fuel tax. A tax on the consumption of oxygen, the air you breathe, would be a direct tax even though oxygen is a type of fuel.

Typical sloppy language. A tax on fuel would be a property tax, not an excise. A tax on the SALE of fuel would be an excise. And, yes, a tax on the sale of oxygen would be an excise, too, but it wouldn't apply to your breathing free air.[/quote]
But if it did?

So what's your point, other than you need to use very sloppy language that allows you to slide back and forth between meanings of a word in your argument, because that's the only way your arguments work.

It's not sloppy language....it's showing how ridiculous your arguments are.

If the word "income" in the term "income tax" means anything conceivable as "income" then surely a "fuel tax" could include anything conceivable as "fuel" as an indirect tax, including the air you breathe, taxed at a $10 fee per user.