U.S. Federal Income Tax

Subjugation by taxation

Labor is Property

Justice Field concurring in the Supreme Court case of Butchers’ Union cited Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations: Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1884) It has been well said that 'the property which every man has is his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him. As it hinders the one from working at what he thinks proper, so it hinders the others from employing whom they think proper.' Smith, Wealth Nat. bk. 1, c. 10.        Labor IS property.  Labor is a "most sacred property". Adair v. U S, 208 U.S. 161 (1908) In our opinion that section, in the particular mentioned, is an invasion of the personal liberty, as well as of the right of property, guaranteed by that Amendment. Such liberty and right embrace the right to make contracts for the purchase of the labor of others, and equally the right to make contracts for the sale of one's own labor; each right, however, being subject to the fundamental condition that no contract, whatever its subject-matter, can be sustained which the law, upon reasonable grounds, forbids as inconsistent with the public interests, or as hurtful to the public order, or as detrimental to the common good. … The right to purchase or to sell labor is part of the liberty protected by this Amendment, unless there are circumstances which exclude the right. … In every case that  comes before this court, therefore, where legislation of this character is concerned, and where the protection of the Federal Constitution is sought, the question necessarily arises: Is this a fair, reasonable, and appropriate exercise of the police power of the state, or is it an unreasonable, unnecessary, and arbitrary interference with the right of the individual to his personal liberty or to enter into those contracts in relation to labor which may seem to him appropriate or necessary for the support of himself and his family? Of course, the liberty of contract relating to labor includes both parties to it. The one has as much right to purchase as the other to sell labor.'         Personal Liberty and Personal Right embrace the Right to make contracts to sell one's own labor. Coppage v. State of Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915) The principle is fundamental and vital. Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property-partaking of the nature of each- is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property. If this right be struck down or arbitrarily interfered with, there is a substantial impairment of liberty in the long-established constitutional sense. The right is as essential to the laborer as to the capitalist, to the poor as to the rich; for the vast majority of persons have no other honest way to begin to acquire property, save by working for money. The rights of personal liberty and private property are "fundamental and vital".   The right of making of contracts for acquistion of property is "fundamental and vital".   Personal (natural person) employment is such a contract of "fundamental and vital" right.   "Labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property."  Labor (a form of property) is exchanged for money (a form of property).   Exchanging Labor for money is a "fundamental and vital" right. Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179 (1918) When the act took effect, plaintiff's timber lands, with whatever value they then possessed, were a part of its capital assets, and a subsequent change of form by conversion into money did not change the essence.        "Subsequent change of form by conversion into money did not change the essence", Nor could it. Timber lands are property, money is property, labor is property. Flint v. Stone Tracy, 220 U.S. 107 (1911) Excises are 'taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale, or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges.'        Any tax upon property is a direct tax, subject to the rule of apportionment.  A natural person exchanges property for property BY RIGHT, not by license. Therefore, no excise - privilege tax can be laid on the transaction.         How then, do you end up paying a Direct - Unapportioned tax on your compensation for labor?  You volunteer through ignorance of the WRITTEN words of law.