Billy Brown wrote:
>
> Michael S. Lorrey wrote:
> > I suggest you look over this page and its linked pages before you
> > make such a
> > conclusion.
> > http://www.ex.ac.uk/~RDavies/arian/barter.html
> >
> > The whole problem with taxing barter exchanges is the presumption that the
> > government has a right to part of your property, which is clearly
> > unconstitutional. The government has a right to tax transactions
> > involving money because the money is a security instrument of the
> government.
>
> ROFL!
>
> Michael, if constitutionality actually mattered most of the government would
> be shut down tomorrow. The sad fact is that the government disagrees with
> your position, and the courts will back them up.
Actually, they don't. Taxing a barter exchange would be classified as a
direct tax, which the Supreme Court has continually said is
unconstitutional for the federal government to tax. The states can
impose direct taxes. The feds can only impose indirect taxes, like
tariffs, excises, and duties. The Income Tax is actually an income duty,
but legally it is only required to be paid by residents of federal
property and resident aliens, everyone else who resides in the 50 states
pays the income tax voluntarily. Those who point to the 16th Amendment
don't know or understand what that Amendment actually did. What it did
was establish that an income tax is an indirect tax, and that it can
only be mandated for certain types of income and on certain types of
people.
> If the IRS decides to tax
> downloaded MP3 files as income at the retail price of the equivalent CDs,
> they can, and no amount of argument on your part will convince either them
> or the courts not to let it happen. So, your only protection is your skill
> at not getting caught - whether money ever changed hands is entirely
> irrelevant to the issue.
Taxing property is a direct tax and is only permissible by the states,
not by the federal government. Since the case can be made that MP3 files
offer nowhere near the quality of CD technology, they are not the same
thing, so applying CD sales taxes to MP3 downloads is not reasonable.
I understand that most people here live in jurisdictions where they have
ceded most of their 9th amendment rights to their state and local
governments, so you feel like little more than serfs, but there is a
distinct difference in the types of taxes that the states can levy
versus what the feds can levy.
Mike Lorrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:04:42 MDT