| LEGAL
DISCLAIMER I am not a Tax Lawyer, Nor do I play Dan Evans on the internet. I am not a Certified Public Accountant, Nor do I play Paul Thomas on the internet. I am not an Enrolled Agent, Nor do I play Richard Macdonald on the internet. DO NOT TAKE MY WORD FOR ANYTHING ON THIS PAGE. Go look it up for yourself. |
|
My
personal opinion is that the Beatles are closer to the truth than
American Heritage is.
Everybody knows what a tax is, right? I submit that they are wrong. I submit that they are wrong because they have never thought about taxes and taxation any deeper than the dictionary definition given above. Even the "professionals" whose job is to calculate taxes for their clients have never given this any deeper thought. If we look up the word 'exact', as it is used in the definition, "2. To exact a tax from", we see something all are aware of in the back of their minds. You don't get a choice. A tax is something taken by force, or by threat of force.
People of the United States pay their taxes, knowing that if they don't, the IRS will come and "EXACT" the tax. The sheep being sheared by this game, play along because of the threat of force. It is better to be shorn than to be lamb chops. {Patrick Henry did not agree} To make themselves feel better about this assault and robbery, they consider themselves "doing their civic duty" in paying their taxes. Now let us look at the deeper truths about taxes and taxation. Things that the casual observer or casual thinker might miss. Just as molecules are composed of atoms, and atoms are composed of subatomic particles like quarks and muons, So too the tax is composed of subcomponents.
"If you drive a car, I'll tax the street, If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat, If you get too cold, I'll tax the heat, If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet." Thank you John, Paul, George, and Ringo. What this musical group has done, is focus some lyrics on the 'nexuses' of some taxes in what could be thought of as an absurd manner to ridicule the "taxman". I want to use the Latin phrase, "reductio ad absurdum" which means "disproof of a proposition by showing the absurdity of its inevitable conclusion", Because the song does reach for what one might think of as absurd. As one studies the tax laws and argues with "professionals" employed in the fields dealing with taxation, one will realize, " It's not so absurd after all." Be that as it may, my focus in this essay is the actual nexuses of actual current U.S. tax law.
To exact a tax is to demand and obtain by force, money from those persons liable (#4). A "tax" is all 5 subcomponents with the intent that money (#1) is to be paid over to the State, erroneously called the Government. An 'imposition of a tax' by the State says to some other entity, "I want money because....", with the 'because' being any of the subcomponents of the nexus ( #5) which will be addressed below. In any review of any United States Tax Code, Whenever the Code 'hereby imposes a tax' on the nexus (#5), think the words "I want money because...." For example, in the "whiskey" tax the nexus (#5) is "distilling spirits or importing spirits into the United States."
Although my focus is the nexus, I will digress just a moment about the other components in the "whiskey" tax since it is before us. The thing measured (#3) is "each proof gallon", the rate of tax (#2) is "$13.50 on each proof gallon", and the person liable (#4) is "the distiller or importer". See whiskey tax. "I want money because...." somebody is distilling spirits or importing spirits into the United States. "I want money because...." somebody is making tires. "I want money because...." somebody is buying tires. Etc. Just to name a few nexuses from within the Internal Revenue Code. Though not in the Code, one can conceive of , "I want money because...." somebody owns tires or "I want money because...." somebody owns money. "If you drive a car, I'll tax the street, If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat, If you get too cold, I'll tax the heat, If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet." "I want money because.... you use the street, I want money because.... you use a seat, I want money because.... you use the heat, I want money because.... you use your feet." As I said, I think the Beatles were closer to the truth than American Heritage. It is not a far reach to consider a tax imposed minus the nexus: "I want money because.... I want money."
To put this taxation in perspective, A thug accosts you on the street with a weapon. He will "exact" (to demand and obtain by force or as if by force) the money in your wallet. He has "imposed" his "tax" upon you. His nexus of taxation, "I want money because.... I want money" is because you are there, because you exist. Your existence actually becomes the nexus of the thug's "tax". Now if the thug accosts you on the street, and exacts his "tax" from you, and he is firm (he's got the weapon) but polite. He will tell you that the nexus of the tax is not because you exist, and are there on that street, but that the nexus, the reason he is exacting his tax from you, is because of the privilege that you are exercising, by wearing brown khaki pants. Don't you feel much better about doing your civic duty and paying over that tax? A little digression regarding the U.S. Constitution is in order since it does address taxation. The Constitution is the embodiment of the concept that allows the U.S. Federal State to exist. Notice I said "Federal" and not "National". The Constitution is the charter that created the Federal State, erroneously referred to as the Federal Government. It is the rules by which the Federal State is ALLOWED to operate. I highlight the word "allowed" because it is an important concept. It is a concept that needs to be studied in light of the Declaration of Independence. -- Quote:
By consent of the governed, the Federal State is allowed to exist. By consent of the governed, the Federal State is granted powers. Those powers are Enumerated (numbered) in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States. As this essay is about the nexuses of taxation, the Enumerated powers regarding taxation are now up for study.
Do you remember the thug from above that "taxed" you because you existed, and he could reach you? Do you remember the very first definition of tax from above also, "A contribution for the support of a government required of persons, groups, or businesses within the domain of that government"? I'm going to rephrase that definition just slightly. Tax: "A contribution for the support of a government required of a person within the domain of that government, Just because that person exists, or because that person owns property." What that describes is the quintessential essence of the Direct Tax described in Section 9 of the Constitution. What Section 9 does, is define the method of direct taxation allowed, to limit Congress' application of a Direct Tax. The application of a Direct Tax, is simply a pain in the butt to administrate, rightfully so, since some of the words written by the founders indicate that taking of wealth (property acquired) is the tax of last resort for dire "exigencies". (A pressing or urgent situation. Synonym: crisis) Direct Taxes must by laid by the rule of apportionment. For example, the Federal State, could impose a $1.00 direct tax upon every citizen in the country. Last census (2000) indicated a population of about 281 million. Thus the tax imposed upon the states is $281 million. Each state would be expected to pony up $1.00 for every citizen in their state. Since Direct Taxes have been imposed less than the number of fingers I have on one hand, we can move on to the other class of taxation, Indirect taxes.
Much has been argued by Justices of the Supreme Court regarding the two great classes of taxation. Suffice to say that there are only two. Either a tax is direct under the rule of apportionment, or it is not direct (indirect) and hence, under the rule of uniformity. Duties and Imposts deal with international trade, and the taxes imposed upon those nexuses. Most Citizens of this country do not deal in those items so Duties and Imposts may be set aside as irrelevant for most of us. This leaves the category of Excises in the class of Indirect Taxes. On other web pages, there are many references to some lower court rulings, and one ruling in particular, that states "excise taxes and privilege taxes are synonymous." With those thoughts about privilege taxes and direct taxes in mind, Let us revisit the nexus of taxation again. This time I will include an expansion of the nexus component (#5) of the tax imposition, with a further examination of the subcomponents of the nexus.
Bringing down the wording of imposition from above, we attach a tax to these nexuses like this: The #5a nexus is something that must be taxed by the rule of apportionment. (Art. I Sec. 9). "I want money because.... you own that property." "I want money because.... you own that object." Sounds a lot like our thug on the street, doesn't it? Nexus #5b1, "I want money because.... you are choosing to exercise a privilege." Privileges are rescindable. If you don't want to pay the tax imposed upon the nexus of privilege, you don't do the privileged activity. Nexus #5b3, "I want money because.... you are choosing to do what you are not allowed to do." That could even be a rescinded privilege. Something that one was allowed to do before, but is no longer allowed to do. For instance, the "privilege" of consuming alcohol during the prohibition. Nexus #5b2. An activity one does by Right. A Right can not be rescinded. A Right can not be diminished. Any Right that is rescinded was never a Right. Any Right that is diminished is not a Right. Nexus #5b2. "I want money because.... you are choosing to exercise a Right." Breathing is a Right... "I want money because.... you are choosing to breathe." Life is a Right... "I want money because.... you are choosing to live." Nexus #5b2. This nexus is very significant. It gets its own section in this essay.
Nexus #5b2. An activity one does by Right. Nexus #5b2. "I want money because.... you are choosing to exercise a Right." Breathing is a Right... "I want money because.... you are choosing to breathe." Life is a Right... "I want money because.... you are choosing to live." I do not remember where I read the following point. It does not matter because the point stands on its own consistent internal truth. 'If a thing (nexus) can be taxed at 1%, It can be taxed at 100%.' If I recollect correctly, the forgoing statement was followed with words to the effect that, 'Once the right to tax something exists, the rate of tax is subject only to the political will of Congress'. Think on this, A Supreme Court Justice made the statement, "The power to tax is the power to destroy." Let me use these two concepts to accentuate one another.
From this, it follows, that a
right that can be taxed, can be reduced or destroyed.
If your 'income', that is to say, the money you receive in exchange for Labor or other Property in your "private affairs" can be taxed at 1%, Then it can be taxed at 100%. Think about a 100% tax on your 'income'. For that matter, it could be taxed at 150%. Whether taxed at 150% or the lesser tax of 100%, there can be no argument that it has been destroyed.... Let us look at a hypothetical tax on an activity. Let us assume that the nexus of this tax is imposed upon each instance of you passing through the portal, the door, to exit your home. Let us assume that the tax is imposed at a rate of 10 cents per occurrence. Let us also assume that the population doesn't outright reject the concept with fits of hysterical laughter. At a dime per shot, it's not that big a deal. In a financial sense, the difference between with the tax and without the tax is like the difference of walking on a sidewalk and walking in water that is knee high. Remember, once the power to tax is allowed, the rate is up to the legislature. When the tax for leaving your home is $1.00 per occurrence, you're walking in waist high water. Just like walking into deeper and deeper water, once Congress starts taxing something, the rate of tax goes up. When the tax for passing through the portal of your home gets to $100 per occurrence, it's like trying to walk in water that is over your head. Walking through the door of your home is a right. Can you exercise that right if it is taxed at a rate that makes it impossible to do? A Right that is destroyed by the imposition of a tax was never a Right to begin with. A Right can not be rescinded. A Right can not be diminished. Everybody repeat aloud after me; "The
power to tax is the power to destroy".
In questioning the conventional wisdom, In studying what the tax laws actually say, one will inexorably be led to Article I, Sections 8 and 9 of the U.S. Constitution. Once reading the Constitution, the seepage of knowledge sets in. In studying taxation at the Federal level, we are discussing actions by the Federal State. As soon as one looks at the parts of the Constitution which deal with the actions of the Federal State, One notices that the Federal State is only supposed to do those actions specifically listed and allowed. The Constitution does not allow the Federal State do whatever it wants with exceptions (restrictions). The Constitution DOES NOT ALLOW the Federal State to do ANYTHING in dealing with the population of the U.S. at large with a few exceptions (allowances). This is expressed by Chief Justice Rehnquist in UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ, 514 U.S. 549 (1995): The text formatting and expansion of abbreviated words are mine.
Powers delegated to the Federal Government are FEW, DEFINED, and ENUMERATED (numbered) "to ensure protection of our fundamental liberties". I'm shamelessly borrowing some words from Dave Champion's website, since they are very good words:
The logic is sound for the Congress and the Constitution also. Congressional laws only apply where Congress has lawful Constitutional Jurisdiction. And the converse, Congress can not control anything that lies beyond Constitutional Congressional Jurisdiction. With that in mind, please take a moment to look over the powers that were delegated to Congress. The FEW, DEFINED, and ENUMERATED powers delegated to the Congress can be found here. If it is not on that list, it is out of bounds for Congress to touch. It is on that list, in the Constitution, that the few powers are enumerated and are defined. It is on that list that "subject matter jurisdiction" and "geographic jurisdiction" of Congress is defined. If you don't believe that Congress is a bunch of cheats, review the Lopez case and the Statute involved where Congress tries to get power that was not within their jurisdiction. Read the paragraphs in 18 USC 922 (q) that attempt to set up the criminal law as stated in 18 USC 922(q)(2)(A) which was found to be unconstitutional because Congress did not have either authority. Getting back to the enumerated powers, The first clause of Article I, Section 8 states:
Since the reality is Congress can do whatever it damn well wants to do with the money once it's in the treasury, the citizens have no control over how Congress chooses to disburse the money. In view of the enumerated powers, and the wording of the first clause of Article I, Section 8, And in view of how Congress spends the money, I have to wonder if there shouldn't be a 6th component to the imposition of a tax, A legal requirment that Congress to tell the Citizen EXACTLY what it intends to spend each X amount of dollars of the citizen's tax bill. That being, "what it is / must be spent on". If a teenager askes a parent for money, the parent is likely to ask, "what do you want it for". If the teen says, "to buy a CD", then the planned action is within the power of the teen. Contrarily, If the teen said, "to buy some drugs", That is a planned action not within the power of the teen. And in the second case, the teen does not get the money.
For example, the 87 Billion dollar appropriation that the President asked from Congress to engage in the U.S.' acts of aggression in far away lands. In order to give it to the President, the Congress would have to send the tax bill to the Citizen. The U.S. Citizen would then have to agree to pay the bill before the money could be disbursed to the President's ends. In the case of the 87 billion dollar program, the U.S. populace would have received a direct billing, to be paid in monthly installments over the next year, of which the first month was due before hostillities could commence.
Tax component #6: "I want money because.... The president wants to do an armed invasion of another country." "I want money because....I need to appropriate money to the pork barrel in my home state to bribe my constituents to vote for me again. Tax component #6 has actually been laid out in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. There was a reason that Congress was limited by the founders of this country. I leave it to you, the reader to do some study on your own regarding these issues. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||