[Jason_b]

You miss the point. When you sell that labor to others, what you get in exchange for it is not income because the value of the money received is the same as the value of the labor given. The net balance is zero. Value out of 10 - Value in of 10 = 0. Income is profit above and beyond the value of the labor you put out.

It is pathetic to have this argument today, quibbling over what is constitutional income. It wouldn't even be discussed except the communists have won and established power in this land.

[MACVSOG68]

You miss the point. When you sell that labor to others, what you get in exchange for it is not income because the value of the money received is the same as the value of the labor given. The net balance is zero. Value out of 10 - Value in of 10 = 0. Income is profit above and beyond the value of the labor you put out.

You are missing the definition of income, which does include accessions to wealth. With your definition, nothing could ever be taxable. The value of any transaction is considered equal from a value to value comparison. Gains on transactions, however are how income is defined. Your labor may well be worth exactly what you received, but the cost of that labor was 0 plus any additional expenses the IRS would recognize as deductions from that gain.

It is pathetic to have this argument today, quibbling over what is constitutional income. It wouldn't even be discussed except the communists have won and established power in this land.

Pathetic perhaps, but it is quite logical. As long as the income tax remains the main source of revenue for the government, your argument above is not a valid determination of income.