[Verse 1] Back to Savage we return with magnifying lens Scrutinize enrichment's core, where taxation begins Justice Rand drew careful lines 'tween gain and mere survival What enriches past our needs determines tax arrival [Chorus] Maintenance or improvement, that's the dividing wire Human capital questions what the courts require Necessities can't enrich if they just preserve your state Only surplus past survival meets the taxable fate [Verse 2] Subsequent decisions built on Savage's foundation Courts refined the boundaries through careful application Did the benefit enhance or simply keep you whole? This distinction shapes the reach of revenue's control [Chorus] Maintenance or improvement, that's the dividing wire Human capital questions what the courts require Necessities can't enrich if they just preserve your state Only surplus past survival meets the taxable fate [Bridge] Could we argue training costs, education, healthcare too Are maintenance not improvement of the person that is you? If machines get depreciation for their wearing-down each year Why not humans getting older? The parallel seems clear [Verse 3] The strongest case for necessities escaping taxation's grip: True enrichment adds beyond what baseline needs equip Food and shelter, basic training, medical repair These restore but don't enhance, so tax should not be there [Chorus] Maintenance or improvement, that's the dividing wire Human capital questions what the courts require Necessities can't enrich if they just preserve your state Only surplus past survival meets the taxable fate [Outro] When courts weigh what enrichment means in human terms They must ask: does this enhance or just confirm That survival isn't surplus, maintenance isn't gain Only true advancement should bear taxation's chain
← Phase 2 — Benefits Doctrine (weeks 3–4) | Phase 4 — Synthesis (weeks 7–8) →