My view is that "money" derived from performing work is merely ONE medium of exchange, out of a plethora of other possible mediums, for what is basically a trade. I traded a skill I have to someone who needed my service, and they in exchange gave me something which we both previously decided on as an equal trade. I just don't see how labor wages can be considered income. If I trade my skills for an equal amount of compensation, such as an amount of money, how did I profit? Even if it could be construed as a profit in a particular trade, who makes that decision? Who decides that work I performed, building someone a shed, or me replacing someone's toilet, is actually worth less than what I traded those skills for, thereby earning me a "profit"? I mean, a company could just as easily be willing to trade items of clothing, or items of food, to employees for the work they performed. It's no different just because someone was handed $100 in cash. Money is just an item of trade, as anything else could potentially be. If I was given 5 t-shirts for one hour of work at, say, a plumbing company, should the government tax me one shirt for each 5 I'm given? Because, I could very well choose to work for actual items instead of cash. But since the method didn't change, and I still traded my work for something else, with the logic of the IRS, I owe them some t-shirts. Thoughts?