Some thoughts on income ...

Income derives from property.

I think of it this way: the tree isn't taxed, but the fruits (fructus) from the tree are taxed.

In the real world, the tree is affixed to the land. The land is under radical title tenured by the conqueror with an inferior and incidental title given to the subject.

Income is fructus. A civil fruit. In comparison are natural fruits such as livestock and slaves.
Fructuses are a commodity. A replenishable commodity.
Government claims usufruct in the fruits of one's labor.
Government is the usufructuary.

Usufruct is a servitude (Roman Civil Law) or right in another's property (ius en re aliena).

From the Common Law perspective, taxes are a chose in action. Once paid, it becomes a chose in possession (of the king).

A chose in action can also be known as an account (Am. Jur.).

We could push this as far as saying that this fructus goes into trust or a trust pool.

I still say taxes have their roots in conquest ....
The rights of the conqueror covered with a veneer of civility.

Income tax is an excise (tax) on the transfer of money.

The transference (event) is that which is taxed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shikamaru

Income tax is an excise (tax) on the transfer of money.

The transference (event) is that which is taxed.

---

The "money" in question is non-treasury issued money. Bank credit or other money substitutes.

That "money" is measured by ones wages.

I like the tree and fruit analogy. Phrase it in terms of the 16th amendment. Income derived (severed, separated from the source) from any source whatever. Has your pay been severed from you? I would say not. Think of a house (property), someone rents it from you. The rent is the fruit of that property (it has been severed from the source).

I believe that an income tax on bank credit could have been sustained before the 16th amendment was ever dreamed up. It is a red herring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian

That "money" is measured by ones wages.

---

Economically, wages are the return on the input of labor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian

I like the tree and fruit analogy. Phrase it in terms of the 16th amendment. Income derived (severed, separated from the source) from any source whatever. Has your pay been severed from you? I would say not. Think of a house (property), someone rents it from you. The rent is the fruit of that property (it has been severed from the source).

I believe that an income tax on bank credit could have been sustained before the 16th amendment was ever dreamed up. It is a red herring.

---

There are two fundamental divisions of taxation: direct and indirect.
Income tax is held to be indirect taxation as an excise [Springer v. US (1881)].

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shikamaru

Economically, wages are the return on the input of labor.



There are two fundamental divisions of taxation: direct and indirect.
Income tax is held to be indirect taxation as an excise [Springer v. US (1881)].

---

An excise on the use of bank credit or other money substitutes. You don't have to use those money substitutes, you could use Lawful Money issued by the treasury and be protected by the direct tax clauses.

I really don't like the term "wages" it carries to many weird, differing meanings. I think I'll stick with compensation for my time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian

An excise on the use of bank credit or other money substitutes. You don't have to use those money substitutes, you could use Lawful Money issued by the treasury and be protected by the direct tax clauses.

I really don't like the term "wages" it carries to many weird, differing meanings. I think I'll stick with compensation for my time.

---

I like being paid for my time. And we all know that paying a debt is against public policy. Rather, people discharge liabilities now with legal tender. Good thing remedy is available.