Excise - Revision history

Dataclarifier: linked anathema

2018-08-29T12:20:54Z

linked anathema

DavidB4-bot: clean up & uniformity

2016-07-13T12:15:16Z

clean up & uniformity

DavidB4-bot: /* 3. Excises tax particular goods, not all goods */Spelling, Grammar, and General Cleanup

2016-07-01T13:27:49Z

3. Excises tax particular goods, not all goods: Spelling, Grammar, and General Cleanup

Neocon123 at 23:34, March 21, 2009

2009-03-21T23:34:06Z

Neocon123 at 23:30, March 21, 2009

2009-03-21T23:30:07Z

Neocon123 at 01:29, April 19, 2008

2008-04-19T01:29:10Z

Neocon123 at 18:50, April 18, 2008

2008-04-18T18:50:42Z

NathanG at 02:47, March 22, 2008

2008-03-22T02:47:29Z

Neocon123 at 01:18, March 16, 2008

2008-03-16T01:18:38Z

Neocon123 at 01:08, March 16, 2008

2008-03-16T01:08:06Z

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 Recently, there has been a concerted effort by the Left to reinterpret an excise as an “event tax”—that is, a tax levied on an “event” solely by virtue of the fact that an event or transaction has occurred. This definition is without foundation.  The so-called “event” definition was completely unknown to the drafters of the Constitution, and has never been recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States or by any other court.  Were that definition allowed, any “event” could theoretically be taxed as an excise, and the Constitutional distinction between Direct taxes (requiring apportionment) and Indirect taxes and excises (requiring uniformity) would collapse. In that case, almost any commodity or activity could be taxed by government, and nothing would remain in the Constitution to safeguard the private wealth of the People.
-For example, if the “event” definition of excise were permitted, Congress could levy a tax on attending church, or issuing a news report, or going to school, because each of these is an “event.” Congress would essentially gain unlimited taxing authority—and thus unlimited ''authority''—over the People. This sort of a construct is anathema to the American experience, but typical of Marxist and Fascist political thought.
+For example, if the “event” definition of excise were permitted, Congress could levy a tax on attending church, or issuing a news report, or going to school, because each of these is an “event.” Congress would essentially gain unlimited taxing authority—and thus unlimited ''authority''—over the People. This sort of a construct is [[anathema]] to the American experience, but typical of Marxist and Fascist political thought.
 Fortunately, a proper understanding of the meaning of "excise" assures us that U.S. courts would likely rule any tax on these kinds of activities unconstitutional because these “events” involve the exercise of [[unalienable rights]], not privileges. "Events" like these are therefore not subject to Indirect taxes (of which the excise is a type).

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 Consequently, federal excises in the United States currently tax only certain luxury items and licensed activities, such as [[liquor]], [[tobacco]], luxury automobiles, aviation permits, and certain government-connected activities.
-The assessment of an excise is often (but not always) triggered by the transfer or sale of a certain commodity.  It’s important to understand, however, that an excise is defined by '''what''' it taxes -- privilege and luxury -- not by how or when it is triggered.  In 1911, the Supreme Court clarified this in ''Flint v. Stone Tracy Co''.: "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... the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of  ’'''privileges''' '."
+The assessment of an excise is often (but not always) triggered by the transfer or sale of a certain commodity.  It’s important to understand, however, that an excise is defined by '''what''' it taxes—privilege and luxury—not by how or when it is triggered.  In 1911, the Supreme Court clarified this in ''Flint v. Stone Tracy Co''.: "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... the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of  ’'''privileges''' '."
@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 ==A Recent -- But Misleading -- Definition==
-Recently, there has been a concerted effort by the Left to reinterpret an excise as an “event tax” -- that is, a tax levied on an “event” solely by virtue of the fact that an event or transaction has occurred. This definition is without foundation.  The so-called “event” definition was completely unknown to the drafters of the Constitution, and has never been recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States or by any other court.  Were that definition allowed, any “event” could theoretically be taxed as an excise, and the Constitutional distinction between Direct taxes (requiring apportionment) and Indirect taxes and excises (requiring uniformity) would collapse. In that case, almost any commodity or activity could be taxed by government, and nothing would remain in the Constitution to safeguard the private wealth of the People.
+Recently, there has been a concerted effort by the Left to reinterpret an excise as an “event tax”—that is, a tax levied on an “event” solely by virtue of the fact that an event or transaction has occurred. This definition is without foundation.  The so-called “event” definition was completely unknown to the drafters of the Constitution, and has never been recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States or by any other court.  Were that definition allowed, any “event” could theoretically be taxed as an excise, and the Constitutional distinction between Direct taxes (requiring apportionment) and Indirect taxes and excises (requiring uniformity) would collapse. In that case, almost any commodity or activity could be taxed by government, and nothing would remain in the Constitution to safeguard the private wealth of the People.
-For example, if the “event” definition of excise were permitted, Congress could levy a tax on attending church, or issuing a news report, or going to school, because each of these is an “event.” Congress would essentially gain unlimited taxing authority -- and thus unlimited ''authority'' -- over the People. This sort of a construct is anathema to the American experience, but typical of Marxist and Fascist political thought.
+For example, if the “event” definition of excise were permitted, Congress could levy a tax on attending church, or issuing a news report, or going to school, because each of these is an “event.” Congress would essentially gain unlimited taxing authority—and thus unlimited ''authority''—over the People. This sort of a construct is anathema to the American experience, but typical of Marxist and Fascist political thought.
 Fortunately, a proper understanding of the meaning of "excise" assures us that U.S. courts would likely rule any tax on these kinds of activities unconstitutional because these “events” involve the exercise of [[unalienable rights]], not privileges. "Events" like these are therefore not subject to Indirect taxes (of which the excise is a type).

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:27, July 1, 2016
Line 81:		Line 81:
	"They would not, therefore, in this mode alone contribute to the public treasury in a ratio to their abilities. To make them do this it is necessary that recourse be had to excises, the proper objects of which are '''particular''' [privileged, luxurious] kinds of manufactures." [No. 35]		"They would not, therefore, in this mode alone contribute to the public treasury in a ratio to their abilities. To make them do this it is necessary that recourse be had to excises, the proper objects of which are '''particular''' [privileged, luxurious] kinds of manufactures." [No. 35]

−	[[~~category~~:Economics]]	+	[[Category:Economics]]

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 For example, if the “event” definition of excise were permitted, Congress could levy a tax on attending church, or issuing a news report, or going to school, because each of these is an “event.” Congress would essentially gain unlimited taxing authority -- and thus unlimited ''authority'' -- over the People. This sort of a construct is anathema to the American experience, but typical of Marxist and Fascist political thought.
-Fortunately, a proper understanding of the meaning of "excise" assures us that U.S. courts would likely rule taxes on these kinds of activities unconstitutional because these “events” involve the exercise of [[unalienable rights]], not privileges. "Events" like these are therefore not subject to Indirect taxes (of which the excise is a type), nor are they subject to Direct taxation without apportionment.
+Fortunately, a proper understanding of the meaning of "excise" assures us that U.S. courts would likely rule any tax on these kinds of activities unconstitutional because these “events” involve the exercise of [[unalienable rights]], not privileges. "Events" like these are therefore not subject to Indirect taxes (of which the excise is a type).
@@ Line 44: / Line 44: @@
 "In order that the greater part of the members of any society should contribute to the public revenue in proportion to their respective expence, it does not seem necessary that every single article of that expence should be taxed. The revenue which is levied by the duties of excise is supposed to fall as equally upon the contributors as that which is levied by the duties of customs, and the duties of excise are imposed upon '''a few articles only''' of the most general use and consumption."  [Book V, Ch. 2, Para. V.2.176]
 ===3. The masses should not pay excises on essential items===

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 An '''excise''' is a [[tax]] levied exclusively on [[goods]], [[services]], or activities which are considered ''[[privilege]]d'' or ''[[luxury good|luxurious]]''. Excises may not encumber “essential” items, or anything directly connected with the exercise of an [[unalienable right]], such as the right to practice one’s religion or earn a living.  [[Adam Smith]], whose work, ''[[The Wealth of Nations]]'', functioned as the economic bible of America’s [[Founding Fathers]], defined “luxurious” items as those which are not necessary to sustaining life, and thus which “every man is allowed to buy or not buy as he chuses.” [Bk. V, Ch. 2, Pt. 2]  Such items are legitimate objects of excise.  On the other hand, he defined “necessary” items as those “which are indispensably necessary for the support of life,” including those which “the custom of the country renders it indecent for creditable people…to be without.”  In modern America, items which are “indecent” for “creditable people to be without" include food, clothing, housing, transportation, medicine, health care, arms for self-defense, phone service, sundries, education, a job in the private sector, etc.  These items and activities are not qualified to be taxed under an excise.
-Consequently, excises in the United States currently tax only certain luxury items and licensed activities, such as [[liquor]], [[tobacco]], luxury automobiles, aviation permits, and certain government-connected activities.
+Consequently, federal excises in the United States currently tax only certain luxury items and licensed activities, such as [[liquor]], [[tobacco]], luxury automobiles, aviation permits, and certain government-connected activities.
 The assessment of an excise is often (but not always) triggered by the transfer or sale of a certain commodity.  It’s important to understand, however, that an excise is defined by '''what''' it taxes -- privilege and luxury -- not by how or when it is triggered.  In 1911, the Supreme Court clarified this in ''Flint v. Stone Tracy Co''.: "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... the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of  ’'''privileges''' '."
@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 Recently, there has been a concerted effort by the Left to reinterpret an excise as an “event tax” -- that is, a tax levied on an “event” solely by virtue of the fact that an event or transaction has occurred. This definition is without foundation.  The so-called “event” definition was completely unknown to the drafters of the Constitution, and has never been recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States or by any other court.  Were that definition allowed, any “event” could theoretically be taxed as an excise, and the Constitutional distinction between Direct taxes (requiring apportionment) and Indirect taxes and excises (requiring uniformity) would collapse. In that case, almost any commodity or activity could be taxed by government, and nothing would remain in the Constitution to safeguard the private wealth of the People.
-For example, if the “event” definition of excise were permitted, Congress could levy a tax on attending church, or issuing a news report, or going to school, because each of these is an “event.” Congress would essentially gain unlimited taxing authority -- and thus unlimited ''authority'' -- over the People. This sort of a construct is anathema to the American experience, but typical of Marxist regimes.
+For example, if the “event” definition of excise were permitted, Congress could levy a tax on attending church, or issuing a news report, or going to school, because each of these is an “event.” Congress would essentially gain unlimited taxing authority -- and thus unlimited ''authority'' -- over the People. This sort of a construct is anathema to the American experience, but typical of Marxist and Fascist political thought.
 Fortunately, a proper understanding of the meaning of "excise" assures us that U.S. courts would likely rule taxes on these kinds of activities unconstitutional because these “events” involve the exercise of [[unalienable rights]], not privileges. "Events" like these are therefore not subject to Indirect taxes (of which the excise is a type), nor are they subject to Direct taxation without apportionment.

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:29, April 19, 2008
Line 80:		Line 80:
	"They would not, therefore, in this mode alone contribute to the public treasury in a ratio to their abilities. To make them do this it is necessary that recourse be had to excises, the proper objects of which are '''particular''' [privileged, luxurious] kinds of manufactures." [No. 35]		"They would not, therefore, in this mode alone contribute to the public treasury in a ratio to their abilities. To make them do this it is necessary that recourse be had to excises, the proper objects of which are '''particular''' [privileged, luxurious] kinds of manufactures." [No. 35]

−	[[category:~~economics~~]]	+	[[category:Economics]]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-An '''excise''' is a [[tax]] levied exclusively on [[goods]], [[services]], or activities which are considered ''[[Privilege|privileged]]'' or ''[[Luxury good|luxurious]]''. Excises may not encumber “essential” items, or anything directly connected with the exercise of an unalienable right, such as the right to practice one’s religion or earn a living.  [[Adam Smith]], whose work, ''[[The Wealth of Nations]]'', functioned as the economic bible of America’s [[Founding Fathers]], defined “luxurious” items as those which are not necessary to sustaining life, and thus which “every man is allowed to buy or not buy as he chuses.” [Bk. V, Ch. 2, Pt. 2]  Such items are legitimate objects of excise.  On the other hand, he defined “necessary” items as those “which are indispensably necessary for the support of life,” including those which “the custom of the country renders it indecent for creditable people…to be without.”  In modern America, items which are “indecent” for “creditable people to be without" include food, clothing, housing, transportation, medicine, health care, arms for self-defense, phone service, sundries, education, a job in the private sector, etc.  These items and activities are not qualified to be taxed under an excise.
+An '''excise''' is a [[tax]] levied exclusively on [[goods]], [[services]], or activities which are considered ''[[privilege]]d'' or ''[[luxury good|luxurious]]''. Excises may not encumber “essential” items, or anything directly connected with the exercise of an unalienable right, such as the right to practice one’s religion or earn a living.  [[Adam Smith]], whose work, ''[[The Wealth of Nations]]'', functioned as the economic bible of America’s [[Founding Fathers]], defined “luxurious” items as those which are not necessary to sustaining life, and thus which “every man is allowed to buy or not buy as he chuses.” [Bk. V, Ch. 2, Pt. 2]  Such items are legitimate objects of excise.  On the other hand, he defined “necessary” items as those “which are indispensably necessary for the support of life,” including those which “the custom of the country renders it indecent for creditable people…to be without.”  In modern America, items which are “indecent” for “creditable people to be without" include food, clothing, housing, transportation, medicine, health care, arms for self-defense, phone service, sundries, education, a job in the private sector, etc.  These items and activities are not qualified to be taxed under an excise.
 Consequently, excises in the United States currently tax only certain luxury items and licensed activities, such as [[liquor]], [[tobacco]], luxury automobiles, aviation permits, and certain government-connected activities.
@@ Line 36: / Line 36: @@
 ==Adam Smith - ''The Wealth of Nations''==
-'''1. Excises may only tax luxuries'''
+===1. Excises may only tax luxuries===
 "The duties of excise are imposed briefly upon goods of home produce destined for home consumption. They are imposed only upon '''a few sorts''' of goods of the most general use. There can never be any doubt either concerning the goods which are subject to those duties, or concerning the particular duty which each species of goods is subject to. They fall almost altogether upon what I call '''luxuries''', excepting always the four duties above mentioned, upon salt, soap, leather, candles, and, perhaps, that upon green glass."  [Book V, Ch. 2, Para. V.2.164]
-'''2. Excises tax only a few items, not all items'''
+===2. Excises tax only a few items, not all items===
 "In order that the greater part of the members of any society should contribute to the public revenue in proportion to their respective expence, it does not seem necessary that every single article of that expence should be taxed. The revenue which is levied by the duties of excise is supposed to fall as equally upon the contributors as that which is levied by the duties of customs, and the duties of excise are imposed upon '''a few articles only''' of the most general use and consumption."  [Book V, Ch. 2, Para. V.2.176]
+===3. The masses should not pay excises on essential items===
 "It must always be remembered, however, that it is the '''luxurious''' and '''not the necessary expence''' of the inferior ranks of people that ought ever to be taxed."  [Book V, Ch. 2, Para. V.2.189]
-'''4. Excises are generally repugnant, and should be limited in scope'''
+===4. Excises are generally repugnant, and should be limited in scope===
 "Taxes upon '''luxuries''' generally are, and always may be, paid piecemeal, or in proportion as the contributors have occasion to purchase the goods upon which they are imposed…  They offend in every respect against the fourth [maxim of fair taxation.]"  [Book V, Ch. 2, Para. V.2.205]
-'''5. Any tax on a necessity is a direct tax, as opposed to an excise'''
+===5. Any tax on a necessity is a direct tax, as opposed to an excise===
 "It is thus that '''a tax upon the necessaries of life operates''' exactly in the same manner '''as a direct tax upon the wages of labour'''…  [Such taxes are] absurd and destructive."   [Bk. V, Ch. 2, V.2.150 and 135]
@@ Line 66: / Line 64: @@
 ==Alexander Hamilton - ''The Federalist Papers''==
-'''1. Excises can only be placed on objects proper for such a tax'''
+===1. Excises can only be placed on objects proper for such a tax===
 "There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by '''a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions'''. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counterbalanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects."  [No. 21]
-'''2. Excises must be confined to a limited number of special items'''
+===2. Excises must be confined to a limited number of special items===
-"In America, it is evident that we must a long time depend for the means of revenue chiefly on such duties. In most parts of it, excises must be '''confined within a narrow compass'''. The genius of the people will ill brook [not tolerate] the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise laws. The pockets of the farmers, on the other hand, will reluctantly yield but scanty supplies, in the unwelcome shape of impositions on their houses and lands; and personal property is too precarious and invisible a fund to be laid hold of in any other way than by the inperceptible agency of taxes on consumption…
+"In America, it is evident that we must a long time depend for the means of revenue chiefly on such duties. In most parts of it, excises must be '''confined within a narrow compass'''. The genius of the people will ill brook [not tolerate] the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise laws. The pockets of the farmers, on the other hand, will reluctantly yield but scanty supplies, in the unwelcome shape of impositions on their houses and lands; and personal property is too precarious and invisible a fund to be laid hold of in any other way than by the imperceptible agency of taxes on consumption…
 "In this country, if the principal part [of revenues] be not drawn from commerce, it must fall with oppressive weight upon land. It has been already intimated that excises, in their true signification, are too little in unison with the feelings of the people, to admit of great use being made of that mode of taxation; '''nor… are the objects proper for excise sufficiently numerous''' to permit very ample collections in that way." [No. 12]
-'''3. Excises tax particular goods, not all goods'''
+===3. Excises tax particular goods, not all goods===
 "They would not, therefore, in this mode alone contribute to the public treasury in a ratio to their abilities. To make them do this it is necessary that recourse be had to excises, the proper objects of which are '''particular''' [privileged, luxurious] kinds of manufactures."  [No. 35]

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:18, March 16, 2008
Line 3:		Line 3:
	Consequently, excises in the United States currently tax only certain luxury items and licensed activities, such as [[liquor]], [[tobacco]], luxury automobiles, aviation permits, and certain government-connected activities.		Consequently, excises in the United States currently tax only certain luxury items and licensed activities, such as [[liquor]], [[tobacco]], luxury automobiles, aviation permits, and certain government-connected activities.

−	The assessment of an excise is often (but not always) triggered by the transfer or sale of a certain commodity. It’s important to understand, however, that an excise is defined by '''what''' it taxes -- privilege and luxury -- not by how or when it is triggered. In 1911, the Supreme Court clarified this in Flint v. Stone Tracy Co.: "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... the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of ’'''privileges''' '."	+	The assessment of an excise is often (but not always) triggered by the transfer or sale of a certain commodity. It’s important to understand, however, that an excise is defined by '''what''' it taxes -- privilege and luxury -- not by how or when it is triggered. In 1911, the Supreme Court clarified this in ''Flint v. Stone Tracy Co''.: "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... the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of ’'''privileges''' '."

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 In addition to U.S. Supreme Court rulings, such as the one cited above, state and federal courts have consistently ruled that an excise only taxes the exercise of a privileged activity or the purchase of a luxury (special) commodity:
-'''***'''   “The term ‘excise tax’ is synonymous with ‘'''privilege tax'''’, and the two have been used interchangeably."  (American Airways v. Wallace, 57 F.2d 877, 880)
+* “The term ‘excise tax’ is synonymous with ‘'''privilege tax'''’, and the two have been used interchangeably."  (American Airways v. Wallace, 57 F.2d 877, 880)
-'''***'''   “Whether a tax is characterized in a statute imposing it, as a privilege tax or an excise tax is merely a choice of synonymous words, for an excise tax is a '''privilege tax'''.”  Foster & C. Co. v. Graham, 154 Tenn. 412, 285 S.W. 570, 47 ALR 971.
+* “Whether a tax is characterized in a statute imposing it, as a privilege tax or an excise tax is merely a choice of synonymous words, for an excise tax is a '''privilege tax'''.”  Foster & C. Co. v. Graham, 154 Tenn. 412, 285 S.W. 570, 47 ALR 971.
-'''***'''   “An ‘excise tax’ is often used synonymous with ‘'''privilege'''’ or ‘license tax‘.”  Shannon v. Streckus Steamers, 279 Ky. 649, 131 S.W.2d 833, 838.
+* “An ‘excise tax’ is often used synonymous with ‘'''privilege'''’ or ‘license tax‘.”  Shannon v. Streckus Steamers, 279 Ky. 649, 131 S.W.2d 833, 838.