Income Tax: does not my labor have value?

The Supreme Court says "Income" is "profit or gain, derived from labor, capital, or" a combination thereof. So why is there not a place on the tax forms to factor in the value of my labor, balanced against the wages thereof? It's always a straight trade of course because "labor is worth its hire". I think that comes from the bible.........

Update:

@Max

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?c...

In Eisner SCOTUS said in order for something to be taxed as "income" there must be a sale of the stock. Meaning actual profit or gain, not imputed increase in value. So your comment is off 2 ways: It was not shot down and SCOTUS seems to be on my side, since labor for wages is always quid pro quo.

To be fair, The Court elsewhere has held that employment is a privilege. One may argue that the income tax is an excise, meaning a tax on privilege, like luxury items (which is why there's a Federal tax on your car tires, dating from the days of rubber shortage....) but all that is far afield from my issue, which is that my labor is PROPERTY to me, I own it, its value is determined by what it will bring in the marketplace on that day, and by selling it I derive no profit or gain and therefore no "income". Assuming of course that I am not an "employee".

So there! ;-)

Update 2:

@L.T.M.

Tradition is bunk, legally we live under the Constitution for The United States, which guarantees certain Individual Rights and which reserves all Powers not expressly delegated to the Federal Union, shall be reserved to The States or to The People. 100 years of Progressive manipulations not with standing. That could all be wiped away if only Supreme Justice Kennedy got some balls. He's the swing vote (pun included for your entertainment, edification and delight).

Want to feed your head? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentaries_on_the_L...

It's the Red Pill.

4 Answers

Relevance
  • L.T.M.
    Lv 7
    9 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Well you got me curious so I went from Pollock in 1895 to 1913 (when we got the shaft) to Eisner v Macomber and ended up @ Snyder in 2000.

    Seems to me the federal govt and individual states argument boils down to this: WE have been taxing your labor/income since at least 1862/1913 so WE will continue to do so. Any case brought against us will fail simply because taxing your income/labor is now an American 'tradition'. We keep doing it because..well we did it many times before and few raised a fuss..so what the hell we'll just keep right on doing it.

    Seriously, if you boil it down that's the argument, it seems to me.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    That is the Eisner argument that was shot down decades ago.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    Yeah, you can say that... Your labor does represent a tax deduction for your employer...

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 9 years ago

    ..

    Let us consider the Income Tax as a mere '' Charity '' which is extracted from our regular income in some percentage.

    So giving charity is a part of our good-will towards wellness of our country and the fellow citizens..

    I hope I have a good point of view...in this regard..

    ...

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.