The future looks bleak

[Moonbeam]

The consequence of voting for a disaster is disastrous results.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: Aelius

The Great Depression was primarily caused by the Fed yanking the money supply. It turned, what at this point was a recession, into the great depression. Some protection.

That was part of the reason (in fact I would say it was a major reason) sure but the Gold Standard played a major part, I assure you. Taking a look at the steps other countries took with the Gold Standard paints a more complete picture. The UK and Scandinavian countries left the Gold Standard earlier and recovered earlier. France, however, continued on the Gold Standard because of their previously undervalued currency and wasn't hit with a depression until later. Soon after they abandoned the Gold Standard, their economy started to recover.

A Gold Standard wouldn't work without MAJOR international monetary cooperation. Essentially we would all have to have one central bank to provide the cooperation. Considering you don't even want the Fed, I don't think you would want to give up our monetary sovereignty.

I think the primary reason was the lack of cash available for wars. Under a Gold Standard you are limited in printing money by how much gold you have on hand to back up what you print. Under no Gold Standard there is no limit to how much money you can print. Enter the central banks aka Federal Reserve banks. With a no limit ATM you can start as many wars as you like and let the middle and lower class population pay for it for generations to come. Only they one upped it by charging so much for the interest that it's impossible to pay it off.

Unfortunately that was never really the case. If you take a look at how wars were funded on the Gold Standard, most countries temporarily onto a fiat currency. The one major exception was the US during WWI. We were only able to do that because the other countries were buying our goods and gold was still flowing into our country. The Fed also helped with that due to them increasing high powered money.

How is our debt impossible to pay off? If our government chose to start paying off the debt, they easily could. The Fed has nothing to do with that decision. Canada doesn't seem to be having a problem paying off its debt currently.

I don't know what the hell you are talking about when it comes to interest rates. The real interest rate is extremely low currently due to the stability of the economy. The Gold Standard did not have good interest rates. When times were bad interest rates were raised. They couldn't lower them because there would be an outflow of gold which would essentially lead to an attack on the dollar.

I think I'll take a banking crises every few years over getting bent over for every day for the rest of my natural life as well as my children and their children's children etc.

Have you ever taken out a loan? Would you be happy taking out a loan knowing that there was a decent possibility that you would owe more (in real terms) than you borrowed? What about when the bank you borrowed from is faced with liquidity problems so it recalls the loan you took out?

There were quite a few banking crises we had that helped push us further into depressions. I don't see how you are getting bent over every day for the rest of your life. Because you are paying taxes? If that's the case, bitch at the fiscal policy of our government. The Fed has nothing to do with our government's fiscal policy.

You are correct about the 16th Amendment not creating an income tax. SCOTUS ruled that the 16th Amendment does not grant the government any new powers of taxation. Period. It further defined this in several other rulings including that your income is your property. That same ruling clearly defines that corporate taxation is legal.

As for the argument that it wasn't passed is BS is correct. Nowhere did I state that it wasn't passed. I said that it was passed illegally. It was illegal because it did not have enough states sign to ratify it. Even if you ignore the possible vote tempering that's enough to scrap it.

Enough states did ratify it. In fact 38 states ratified it. There were some minor errors in the documents they ratified but the meaning of them was the exact same. United States v. Thomas looked at that and shot it down.

Even if you ignored ALL of this you still wouldn't have to pay income tax. Why? Because it states clearly in the IRS Tax Code that compliance is voluntary. State law usually states that you must comply with federal law in regards to income tax. It doesn't matter which one they are charged under as neither states that you must pay income tax. It's voluntary compliance.

Please show me proof of this in the IRS Tax Code. This site would beg to differ with your opinion.

The reason they can't outright tell you to pay income tax and the reason why the word "income" is not defined ANYWHERE in the IRS Tax Code is because:

It would be clearly written and could be clearly compared to the Constitution and SCOTUS rulings already in force on the subject of "income" when it concerns the 16th Amendment. Thereby making it that much harder to get people to comply with paying taxes.

So why are you paying income tax? Because it is under the threat of a gun. Because if you don't they will take your house, your business and take your bank accounts. Making it impossible for you to fight them in court unless you do it yourself.

The income tax law has already been shot down in court.

One more thing. We keep saying "law". Technically there is NO LAW concerning income tax. Period.

The Internal Revenue Code is the law that deals with taxation of income. Simple. I've already posted a site that shows the first part of the Internal Revenue Code.

EDIT: By the way when the income tax "law", or lack thereof, was shot down in court there wans't a peep in the big media. Probably because the owners of central banks have been buying up much of the media in the US for decades. If you will insist I will dig out the case for you where it was shot down, but it will have to be tomorrow... need sleep.

Wow, you really pulled out your big tin foil hat for that one didn't you? What does the central bank have to do with taxation? That's completely insane. The Fed deals with monetary policy and couldn't give two sh!ts about the governments fiscal policy. Other countries that have had central banks for far longer rely more (or in equal proportion) on consumption taxes (VAT) than the income tax. Your logic makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit


It goes without saying that if I could borrow at 2% and get a 7% return I'd borrow every red cent I could get someone to loan me. Just tell me where I can borrow for 2% and where to get the guarenteed 7%.

I borrowed $25,000 at a fixed 2% for 60 months from my bank. Put it right into investments.

What bank, jrenz, and is there any info needed to get access to the same loan?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit


It goes without saying that if I could borrow at 2% and get a 7% return I'd borrow every red cent I could get someone to loan me. Just tell me where I can borrow for 2% and where to get the guarenteed 7%.

I borrowed $25,000 at a fixed 2% for 60 months from my bank. Put it right into investments.

What bank and how long ago?

I have a hard time believing you because as I said, around here that want more then that over and above what they are willing to pay for CD's at the time. Banks are like any other business, they don't work for free and I can't see how they could even break even on operating expenses on 2% let alone pay the cost of they have on the capital.

 

[imported_Aelius]

I thought this was cute. Especially the source.

voluntary compliance
A system of compliance that relies on individual citizens to report their income freely and voluntarily, calculate their tax liability correctly, and file a tax return on time.

didn't have to go far to find what it means

Now does this mean that they are just letting me do it on my own and that there is a law? Well...

Although CI has similar powers and responsibilities to those of other law enforcement agencies, several factors differentiate its role significantly. Our federal tax system is based upon voluntary compliance. It is founded on trust in the taxpayer?s honesty to comply with the tax system, and on the taxpayer?s confidence in the fairness of the tax administration system.8

Each year every qualifying income earner is required to file a tax return and pay taxes to the federal government. The willful failure to do so constitutes a criminal offense within CI?s jurisdiction. Consequently, most citizens in this country are required to take affirmative action, i.e., filing a tax return, in order to comply with the law. In contrast, other law enforcement agencies generally investigate subjects who have taken affirmative steps to violate the law, a much smaller pool of potential targets. Many citizens will never come into contact with these other agencies.

According to the IRS yes it is voluntary but there is a law you must follow.

The problem is they never tell you what the law is. They cannot, since there is no law. Their first sentence contradicts the rest of the statement. Just because it is written down doesn't mean it makes any sense. It's deliberately missleading making you think that there is a law but they are letting you freely comply. There is no such thing as free compliance to a law. For example murder or crossing a red light. If you are free to comply than you are free to not comply. That's why you are not free to comply with laws. They wouldn't stand up in court and people who know their rights go free in such tax cases. Unless the judge is a fanatical moron and the jury is filled with clueless people, which is what happens most of the time.

If there is a law requiring the average person to pay a direct income tax on their labour I have yet to see it. That includes any judge, any special IRS Criminal Investigation Agent or anyone in the country for that matter.

If right now I asked you to provide me with proof that a law exists to this effect you would never find it. The "We The People Foundation" even put an add in a newspaper offering $50,000 to anyone willing to provide proof of the above. There were no winners and that includes IRS CI agents. One of which actually attempted to do this for some easy cash and could find no law. They ended up quitting their job over it.

The enforcement was defeated time and time again in court with the media refusing to report it even though it is Earth shattering news. Not a peep. The cat is out of the bag now. I call it "enforcement" because that's all this is. It is no different from a mob coming down to your business and telling you that you had better pay up or else.

If you want to learn more I suggest to read this site and watch the vids:

Here

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: Aelius
I thought this was cute. Especially the source.

voluntary compliance
A system of compliance that relies on individual citizens to report their income freely and voluntarily, calculate their tax liability correctly, and file a tax return on time.

didn't have to go far to find what it means

Now does this mean that they are just letting me do it on my own and that there is a law? Well...

Although CI has similar powers and responsibilities to those of other law enforcement agencies, several factors differentiate its role significantly. Our federal tax system is based upon voluntary compliance. It is founded on trust in the taxpayer?s honesty to comply with the tax system, and on the taxpayer?s confidence in the fairness of the tax administration system.8

Each year every qualifying income earner is required to file a tax return and pay taxes to the federal government. The willful failure to do so constitutes a criminal offense within CI?s jurisdiction. Consequently, most citizens in this country are required to take affirmative action, i.e., filing a tax return, in order to comply with the law. In contrast, other law enforcement agencies generally investigate subjects who have taken affirmative steps to violate the law, a much smaller pool of potential targets. Many citizens will never come into contact with these other agencies.

According to the IRS yes it is voluntary but there is a law you must follow.

The problem is they never tell you what the law is. They cannot, since there is no law. Their first sentence contradicts the rest of the statement. Just because it is written down doesn't mean it makes any sense. It's deliberately missleading making you think that there is a law but they are letting you freely comply. There is no such thing as free compliance to a law. For example murder or crossing a red light. If you are free to comply than you are free to not comply. That's why you are not free to comply with laws. They wouldn't stand up in court and people who know their rights go free in such tax cases. Unless the judge is a fanatical moron and the jury is filled with clueless people, which is what happens most of the time.

If there is a law requiring the average person to pay a direct income tax on their labour I have yet to see it. That includes any judge, any special IRS Criminal Investigation Agent or anyone in the country for that matter.

If right now I asked you to provide me with proof that a law exists to this effect you would never find it. The "We The People Foundation" even put an add in a newspaper offering $50,000 to anyone willing to provide proof of the above. There were no winners and that includes IRS CI agents. One of which actually attempted to do this for some easy cash and could find no law. They ended up quitting their job over it.

The enforcement was defeated time and time again in court with the media refusing to report it even though it is Earth shattering news. Not a peep. The cat is out of the bag now. I call it "enforcement" because that's all this is. It is no different from a mob coming down to your business and telling you that you had better pay up or else.

If you want to learn more I suggest to read this site and watch the vids:

Here

From Wikipedia:

The position of the Internal Revenue Service

The position of the Internal Revenue Service based upon the statutes and upon the related legal precedents in case law, is that these and similar tax protest arguments are frivolous and, if adopted by taxpayers as a basis for failure to timely file tax returns or pay taxes, may subject such taxpayers to penalties. On its internet web site, the IRS states:

Some [people] assert that they are not required to file federal tax returns because the filing of a tax return is voluntary. Proponents point to the fact that the IRS itself tells taxpayers in the Form 1040 instruction book that the tax system is voluntary. Additionally, the Supreme Court's opinion in Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145, 176 (1960), is often quoted for the proposition that "our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint."

The Law: The word "voluntary," as used in Flora and in IRS publications, refers to our system of allowing taxpayers to determine the correct amount of tax and complete the appropriate returns, rather than have the government determine tax for them. The requirement to file an income tax return is not voluntary and is clearly set forth in Internal Revenue Code §§ 6011(a) , 6012(a) , et seq., and 6072(a). See also Treas. Reg. § 1.6011-1(a).

Any taxpayer who has received more than a statutorily determined amount of gross income is obligated to file a return. Failure to file a tax return could subject the noncomplying individual to criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment, as well as civil penalties.

Think about this logically. Why the fvck would the IRS allow you to voluntarily not pay taxes? If it was because there was no law, Congress could easily pass one. It wouldn't be unconstitutional either considering taxation of income has been decided by the Supreme Court several times to be allowable under the Constitution.

So where is your argument coming from logically?

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: Aelius
I thought this was cute. Especially the source.

voluntary compliance
A system of compliance that relies on individual citizens to report their income freely and voluntarily, calculate their tax liability correctly, and file a tax return on time.

didn't have to go far to find what it means

Now does this mean that they are just letting me do it on my own and that there is a law? Well...

Although CI has similar powers and responsibilities to those of other law enforcement agencies, several factors differentiate its role significantly. Our federal tax system is based upon voluntary compliance. It is founded on trust in the taxpayer?s honesty to comply with the tax system, and on the taxpayer?s confidence in the fairness of the tax administration system.8

Each year every qualifying income earner is required to file a tax return and pay taxes to the federal government. The willful failure to do so constitutes a criminal offense within CI?s jurisdiction. Consequently, most citizens in this country are required to take affirmative action, i.e., filing a tax return, in order to comply with the law. In contrast, other law enforcement agencies generally investigate subjects who have taken affirmative steps to violate the law, a much smaller pool of potential targets. Many citizens will never come into contact with these other agencies.

According to the IRS yes it is voluntary but there is a law you must follow.

The problem is they never tell you what the law is. They cannot, since there is no law. Their first sentence contradicts the rest of the statement. Just because it is written down doesn't mean it makes any sense. It's deliberately missleading making you think that there is a law but they are letting you freely comply. There is no such thing as free compliance to a law. For example murder or crossing a red light. If you are free to comply than you are free to not comply. That's why you are not free to comply with laws. They wouldn't stand up in court and people who know their rights go free in such tax cases. Unless the judge is a fanatical moron and the jury is filled with clueless people, which is what happens most of the time.

If there is a law requiring the average person to pay a direct income tax on their labour I have yet to see it. That includes any judge, any special IRS Criminal Investigation Agent or anyone in the country for that matter.

If right now I asked you to provide me with proof that a law exists to this effect you would never find it. The "We The People Foundation" even put an add in a newspaper offering $50,000 to anyone willing to provide proof of the above. There were no winners and that includes IRS CI agents. One of which actually attempted to do this for some easy cash and could find no law. They ended up quitting their job over it.

The enforcement was defeated time and time again in court with the media refusing to report it even though it is Earth shattering news. Not a peep. The cat is out of the bag now. I call it "enforcement" because that's all this is. It is no different from a mob coming down to your business and telling you that you had better pay up or else.

If you want to learn more I suggest to read this site and watch the vids:

Here

From Wikipedia:

The position of the Internal Revenue Service

The position of the Internal Revenue Service based upon the statutes and upon the related legal precedents in case law, is that these and similar tax protest arguments are frivolous and, if adopted by taxpayers as a basis for failure to timely file tax returns or pay taxes, may subject such taxpayers to penalties. On its internet web site, the IRS states:

Some [people] assert that they are not required to file federal tax returns because the filing of a tax return is voluntary. Proponents point to the fact that the IRS itself tells taxpayers in the Form 1040 instruction book that the tax system is voluntary. Additionally, the Supreme Court's opinion in Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145, 176 (1960), is often quoted for the proposition that "our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint."

The Law: The word "voluntary," as used in Flora and in IRS publications, refers to our system of allowing taxpayers to determine the correct amount of tax and complete the appropriate returns, rather than have the government determine tax for them. The requirement to file an income tax return is not voluntary and is clearly set forth in Internal Revenue Code §§ 6011(a) , 6012(a) , et seq., and 6072(a). See also Treas. Reg. § 1.6011-1(a).

Any taxpayer who has received more than a statutorily determined amount of gross income is obligated to file a return. Failure to file a tax return could subject the noncomplying individual to criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment, as well as civil penalties.

Think about this logically. Why the fvck would the IRS allow you to voluntarily not pay taxes? If it was because there was no law, Congress could easily pass one. It wouldn't be unconstitutional either considering taxation of income has been decided by the Supreme Court several times to be allowable under the Constitution.

So where is your argument coming from logically?

You are a perfect example of the average person who thinks they have to file. You also ask some good questions.

Why the IRS allows you to voluntarily comply with the IRS Tax Code. You are in effect asking for an opinion, not fact. Since I'm not the Commissioner of the IRS I could not answer your question. If I was you would get an answer that was in effect a non answer. They do that a lot on TV when they get caught with questions about having to pay taxes.

So in essence there is no answer to your question I can give. Only my opinion, which is not what you are looking for. I would also very much like to have an answer to your question. You are welcome to write to the IRS Commissioner and ask them of course.

If there was no law we wouldn't have this conversation. There is a law, just not a law that requires you to pay a direct tax on your income. It is in the Constitution and you are welcome to look it up. The 16th Amendment, which is often given as an answer is incorrect. It is incorrect because SCOTUS ruling clearly states that it grants no new powers of taxation. People assume that this means anything in the 16th Amendment is A-OK when in fact the opposite is true. You would be correct in thinking along this line only if the Constitution prior to the 16th Amendment granted government the power to put an un-apportioned direct tax on your income. It does not. That's why they came up with the 16th Amendment.

Because the Income Tax is an un-apportioned tax it is illegal under the Constitution.

The SCOTUS rulings you are referring to refer to Corporate tax which is a legal tax under the Constitution.

Most of these rulings took place around the 1920s and they are in force today. Just lower courts choose to ignore it and many Judges won't allow SCOTUS rulings in tax courts to be entered into evidence. Thereby violating the Constitution further.

Bottom line... 16th Amendment grants no new powers of taxation. That means you are stuck with what is already on the page. Period.

 

[imported_Aelius]

I strongly suggest that everyone watch the vids on the site I linked. Especially the smaller vids.

If you will only watch one vid watch America: Freedom To Fascism

Yes the commentary is very biased but just go with the facts and ignore the commentary. That's all you need.

 

[chcarnage]

As we speak, an American top-class delegation is preparing their visit to China; trying to reduce the Chinese trade surplus and to change the Chinese currency policy. If the Chinese can't be convinced an American change in trade policy (well let's say: some possibly minor corrections) could follow.

Google News

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit


It goes without saying that if I could borrow at 2% and get a 7% return I'd borrow every red cent I could get someone to loan me. Just tell me where I can borrow for 2% and where to get the guarenteed 7%.

I borrowed $25,000 at a fixed 2% for 60 months from my bank. Put it right into investments.

What bank and how long ago?

I have a hard time believing you because as I said, around here that want more then that over and above what they are willing to pay for CD's at the time. Banks are like any other business, they don't work for free and I can't see how they could even break even on operating expenses on 2% let alone pay the cost of they have on the capital.

<crickets>

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: Aelius

You are a perfect example of the average person who thinks they have to file. You also ask some good questions.

Why the IRS allows you to voluntarily comply with the IRS Tax Code. You are in effect asking for an opinion, not fact. Since I'm not the Commissioner of the IRS I could not answer your question. If I was you would get an answer that was in effect a non answer. They do that a lot on TV when they get caught with questions about having to pay taxes.

So in essence there is no answer to your question I can give. Only my opinion, which is not what you are looking for. I would also very much like to have an answer to your question. You are welcome to write to the IRS Commissioner and ask them of course.

If there was no law we wouldn't have this conversation. There is a law, just not a law that requires you to pay a direct tax on your income. It is in the Constitution and you are welcome to look it up. The 16th Amendment, which is often given as an answer is incorrect. It is incorrect because SCOTUS ruling clearly states that it grants no new powers of taxation. People assume that this means anything in the 16th Amendment is A-OK when in fact the opposite is true. You would be correct in thinking along this line only if the Constitution prior to the 16th Amendment granted government the power to put an un-apportioned direct tax on your income. It does not. That's why they came up with the 16th Amendment.

Because the Income Tax is an un-apportioned tax it is illegal under the Constitution.

The SCOTUS rulings you are referring to refer to Corporate tax which is a legal tax under the Constitution.

Most of these rulings took place around the 1920s and they are in force today. Just lower courts choose to ignore it and many Judges won't allow SCOTUS rulings in tax courts to be entered into evidence. Thereby violating the Constitution further.

Bottom line... 16th Amendment grants no new powers of taxation. That means you are stuck with what is already on the page. Period.

No the reason for the 16th Amendment was because Congress wanted to tax dividends and other capital gains. That is a taxation on property which the courts ruled was a direct tax in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. Because it was a direct tax it had to be apportioned which the 16th Amendment changed.

The courts have always maintained that taxes on labor income are an excise tax which is an indirect tax. Indirect taxes don't have to be apportioned.

Let's take a look at rulings on income taxes, shall we?

Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. - said that the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1894 was unconstitutional because of provisions in that taxed any gains, profits, and income. Since that included gains from property it had to be apportioned which it was not.

Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad - Because of the 16th Amendment apportionment was removed as a requirement for any income taxation.

Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co. - When Congress enacted the income taxation statutes it meant to tax all income that it didn't exempt.

So yes the earlier ones do deal with the corporate income tax. The only problem is that the courts have always maintained that tax on labor income is an excise tax. Even if it was a direct tax, it would still be constitutional because of the 16th Amendment.

As for the IRS, the Internal Revenue Code is law. They already clarified what they meant by voluntary compliance.

Here's something from Harry Browne's website that I found interesting:

Note: Internal Revenue regulations governing practices of the IRS agents are created by the IRS itself. But the Internal Revenue Code is different; it is a law of the federal government ? passed by Congress, like any other federal law. Anyone who says that there is no law requiring the payment of income tax is ignoring the fact that the Internal Revenue Code is a law passed by Congress.

It is also incorrect to believe that the income tax code applies only to selected people or to selected geographical areas of the United States ? or that income isn't defined in federal law. All these topics are covered in the Internal Revenue Code, a federal law passed by Congress and amended nearly every year.

This was the former presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party. The Libertarian Party isn't known for its liking of the income tax.

This will be my last post on the subject because it is getting kind of ridiculous.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

This will be my last post on the subject because it is getting kind of ridiculous.

Let me quote someone else who can word it better than myself.

...snip...

As to WHY there is the income tax, there are others who dissect and investigate this far more eloquently than I, but it is true our country worked just fine and wasn't dying for lack of money prior to the so called passage of the income tax amendment or 16th amendment.

http://members.cox.net/frdmftr/irs.htm
""No Capitation, or other Direct, tax shall be laid unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."
Article I, Section 9, Clause 4,
United States Constitution"

"Capitation.
(Lat. caput, head). A poll-tax. An imposition yearly laid upon each person.
The Constitution of the United States provides that "no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census, or enumeration, thereinbefore directed to be taken." Art. 1, s. 9, n. 4. See Hylton v. U.S., 3 Dall. (U.S.) 171, 1 L. Ed. 556; Loughborough v. Blake, 5 Wheat. (U.S.) 317, 5 L. Ed. 98.

--Bouvier's Law Dictionary Unabridged (1914)"

"Direct Tax.
In Pollock v. Trust Co., 157 U. S. 429, 15 Sup. Ct. 673, 39 L. Ed. 759, it was said that in order to determine whether a tax be direct within the meaning of the constitution it must be ascertained whether the one upon whom, by law, the burden of paying it is first cast, can thereafter shift it to another person. If he cannot, the tax would then be direct, and hence, however obvious in other respects it might be a duty, impost or excise, it cannot be levied by the rule of uniformity and must be apportioned. This was said in Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 20 Sup. Ct. 747, 44 L. Ed. 969, to be a disputable theory. It is said direct taxes within the constitution are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; Springer v. U.S., 102 U. S. 586, 26 L. Ed. 253; but the inclusion of rentals from real estate was held to make it direct to that extent; Pollock v. Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 15 Sup. Ct. 673, 39 L. Ed. 759, where it is said, although there have been from time to time intimations that there might be some tax which was not a direct tax nor included under the words duties, imposts and excises, such a tax for more than a hundred years has as yet remained undiscovered.
Direct taxes include those assessed upon property, person, business, income, etc., of those who pay them; while indirect taxes are levied upon commodities before they reach the consumer, and are paid by those upon whom they ultimately fall, not as taxes, but as part of the market price of the commodity. Under the second head may be classed the duties upon imports, and the excise and stamp duties levied upon manufactures; Cooley, Taxation 10.
See Tax; Excise.

--Bouvier's Law Dictionary Unabridged (19140"

Now, get ready for a shocker. The Old CodeMeister is now going to give a link to Rush Limbaugh's website.
http://www.rushonline.com/visitors/16thamendment.htm
"16th Amendment - RushOnline.com

The 16th amendment does not give the IRS the right to collect personal income tax. Read this e-mail carefully and then check it all out. All ref to law is given.

The first thing we're going to do is look at what the Constitution says about taxation. The limitations in the Constitution restricting the direct taxation of individuals and their property are found in Article 1 in two different sections. Both sections specifically restrict the Federal government as to how it may lay direct taxes on the citizens.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 states: "Representative and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers," and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 states: "No capitation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in apportionment to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

These basic sections of the Constitution have never been repealed or amended. The Constitution still forbids the direct taxation of individuals, their property, and their rights, unless the tax is apportioned to the State governments for collection.

And Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 states: "No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marquee and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility."

This Clause in the Constitution is why NEITHER the Federal, nor the State governments have any authority, either OVER, or TO UNILATERALLY ALTER, PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS.

In 1895, Congress tried to pass an Act that imposed income taxes on the interest and dividends of U.S. citizens on deposit in U.S. banks. This Act was immediately struck down in Pollock vs Farmer's Loan and Trust Co. (157 US 429), wherein the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to impose an income tax on the interest and dividends of United States Citizens on deposits in U.S. banks. The court ruled that the tax was unconstitutional because it was a direct tax that was not apportioned as required by the Constitution.This decision has never been reversed or overturned.

Excerpts from the Pollock decision include:

"...Ordinarily, all taxes paid primarily by persons who can shift the burden upon someone else, or who are under no legal compulsion to pay them, are considered indirect taxes; but a tax upon property holders in respect of their estates, whether real or personal, or of the income yielded by such estates, and the payment of which cannot be avoided, are direct taxes..."

And,"...Subsequently, in 1869, .... The question arose whether the law which imposes such a tax upon them was constitutional. The opinion of the Attorney General thereon was requested by the Secretary of the Treasury.

The Attorney General, in reply, gave an elaborate opinion advising the Secretary of the Treasury that no income tax could be lawfully assessed and collected upon the salaries of those officers who were in office at the time the statute imposing the tax was passed, holding on this subject the views expressed by Chief Justice Taney. His opinion is published in Volume XIII of the Opinion of the Attorney General, at page 161. I am informed that it has been followed ever since without question by the department supervising or directing the collection of the public revenue..."

And; "...A tax upon one's whole income is a tax upon the annual receipts from his whole property, and as such falls within the same class as a tax upon that property, and is a direct tax, in the meaning of the Constitution...."

And, "...We have unanimously held in this case that, so far as this law operates on the receipts from municipal bonds , it cannot be sustained, because it is a tax on the powers of the States, and on their instrumentalities to borrow money, and consequently repugnant to the Constitution.

It follows that, if the revenue from municipal bonds cannot be taxed because the source cannot be, the same rule applies to revenue from any other source not subject to the tax; and the lack of power to levy any but an apportioned tax on real and personal property equally exists as to the revenue therefrom.

Admitting that this act taxes the income of property irrespective of its source, still we cannot doubt that such a tax is necessarily a direct tax in the meaning of the Constitution. In England, we do not understand that an income tax has ever been regarded as other than a direct tax. In Dowell's History of Taxation and Taxes in England, given, and an income tax is invariably classified as a direct tax.."

And, even in dissent:...that personal property, contracts, obligations, and the like, have never been regarded by Congress as proper subjects of direct tax. The United States Constitution provides Congress the power to lay and collect taxes directly only as long as it is apportioned with regard to the census or enumeration."

Then, in 1913 Congress passed the 16th Amendment which says, "Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

So that changed everything, right? Well, NO ! That is not what the Supreme Court ruled. What the Supreme Court ruled, in Brushaber vs Union Pacific R.R. Co. and in Stanton vs Baltic Mining Co., is that since the provisions of Article I, requiring that direct taxes be apportioned, were not repealed, they are still in full force and effect. And, that since the language of the 16th Amendment specifies that the income tax is to be a tax without apportionment, then it cannot be a direct tax, because otherwise the Constitution would inherently contradict itself, which cannot be allowed to happen. Article I cannot prohibit direct taxation unless apportioned, while the 16th Amendment grants the power to lay direct taxes without apportionment, because then the Constitution would inherently contradict itself and could no longer serve as a valid foundation for our Law. So, to specifically prevent the Constitution from contradicting itself, the Supreme Court ruled that since the 16th Amendment provides for an income tax without apportionment, then the income tax cannot be a direct tax.

But, there are only two major classes of taxation authorized in the Constitution; direct taxes and indirect taxes. So, if the income tax cannot be a direct tax, then it must be an indirect tax. Indirect taxes are classified into three minor categories in the Constitution: imposts, duties and excises. If you remember, the income tax started in 1861 as an Income Duty and a Federal employee "kickback", imposed only on foreign imports and Federal employees, which was contained and allowed within the Constitutional category of duties. As a duty it was only imposed on the flow of foreign goods into America, NOT DOMESTIC GOODS, NOR DOMESTIC INCOME.

Obviously today, the income tax is not currently being enforced as a duty, so the questions are: "Did the 16th Amendment create a new congressional power to tax directly ?", and; "How did the 16th Amendment change the income tax ?". The answer to the first question was supplied by the Supreme Court in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 US 112 (1916), stating:"...by the previous ruling, it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged.."

The Supreme Court clearly states that the 16th Amendment DID NOT create a new power to tax the People in a direct fashion without apportionment, AS IS FRAUDULENTLY CLAIMED BY THE IRS.

So, if it is not a direct tax, then it is still an indirect tax, but, possibly, no longer a duty. Then; "What kind of tax is the income tax now?" In the "previous ruling" referenced above, Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. 240 US 1 (1916), the court stated:"...taxation on income was in its nature an excise ..." , and "...taxes on such income had been sustained as excises in the past...". specifically, "Moreover, in addition, the conclusion reached in the Pollock case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone,..."

The Court ruled that the 16th Amendment effectively transformed the income tax from an indirect duty to an indirect excise. It is not a direct tax without apportionment. And, if we examine the law closely, that is exactly what we find; that the income tax is imposed and applied under the law, as an indirect excise, ONLY imposed on specific entities (Federal), and sources of "taxable income" (privileged).

So, what is an excise tax ? Fortunately, the Supreme Court used to know what it was doing, and both of these decisions, Brushaber and Stanton, refer you to another case handed down five years earlier, Flint vs Stone Tracy Co. 220 U.S. 107 (1911), in which the Supreme Court ruled that excise taxes are:"...taxes laid on 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 the privilege and if business is not done in the manner described no tax is payable...it is the privilege which is the subject of the tax and not the mere buying, selling or handling of goods."

The Supreme Court effectively establishes with this ruling that excise taxes are manufacturing taxes, sales taxes, and taxes on privileges. Privileges in the form of either licenses to pursue certain occupations, corporate privileges, and any other privileges granted to the individual by the government as well. One of these other privileges, is the privilege of being protected by the United States government in a foreign country under a tax treaty. The government normally would have no jurisdiction or ability to protect you or your business interests in a foreign country, but because of the existence of the tax treaty with that foreign government, your business is protected by the U.S. government outside their jurisdictional boundaries (the United States).

That protection, being afforded by the tax treaty, is construed to be a privilege granted to you by the government; and therefore, the income earned in that foreign country under the tax treaty, is privileged income and subject to the income tax.

Sincerely,

Ken Handy"

...snip...

source

I have looked up every law cited by Ken and they are correct in their representation in the above quote.


If Income Tax was an excise tax as suggested then it does not apply since excise is and I quote SCOTUS:

"...the requirement to pay [excise] taxes involves the exercise of privilege."
United States Supreme Court, Flint vs. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U.S. 107 (1911)

Working and gathering income is NOT a privilege.

Furthermore contracts (working in exchange for an income) are property and it is an inalienable right according to SCOTUS:

"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 and other forms of property."
Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915)

It goes on further:

"...The term [liberty] denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life... The established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered with under the guise of protecting public interest by legislative action..."
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923)

Period... end of argument.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit


It goes without saying that if I could borrow at 2% and get a 7% return I'd borrow every red cent I could get someone to loan me. Just tell me where I can borrow for 2% and where to get the guarenteed 7%.

I borrowed $25,000 at a fixed 2% for 60 months from my bank. Put it right into investments.

What bank and how long ago?

I have a hard time believing you because as I said, around here that want more then that over and above what they are willing to pay for CD's at the time. Banks are like any other business, they don't work for free and I can't see how they could even break even on operating expenses on 2% let alone pay the cost of they have on the capital.

Bank is USAA, so all you gotta do to qualify is walk into your local recruiter's office 😉

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit


It goes without saying that if I could borrow at 2% and get a 7% return I'd borrow every red cent I could get someone to loan me. Just tell me where I can borrow for 2% and where to get the guarenteed 7%.

I borrowed $25,000 at a fixed 2% for 60 months from my bank. Put it right into investments.

What bank and how long ago?

I have a hard time believing you because as I said, around here that want more then that over and above what they are willing to pay for CD's at the time. Banks are like any other business, they don't work for free and I can't see how they could even break even on operating expenses on 2% let alone pay the cost of they have on the capital.

Bank is USAA, so all you gotta do to qualify is walk into your local recruiter's office 😉

I still don't believe you, got a 2% loan to invest money?? What are you talking about, a special house loan or something like that?

What did you use for collateral?

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit


It goes without saying that if I could borrow at 2% and get a 7% return I'd borrow every red cent I could get someone to loan me. Just tell me where I can borrow for 2% and where to get the guarenteed 7%.

I borrowed $25,000 at a fixed 2% for 60 months from my bank. Put it right into investments.

What bank and how long ago?

I have a hard time believing you because as I said, around here that want more then that over and above what they are willing to pay for CD's at the time. Banks are like any other business, they don't work for free and I can't see how they could even break even on operating expenses on 2% let alone pay the cost of they have on the capital.

Bank is USAA, so all you gotta do to qualify is walk into your local recruiter's office 😉

I still don't believe you, got a 2% loan to invest money?? What are you talking about, a special house loan or something like that?

What did you use for collateral?

It's a "career starter loan" for those in a commissioning program. Free to do with it as you please. 2% fixed, paid back over 60 months, deferred to 3 months after I commission.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: jrenz

It's a "career starter loan" for those in a commissioning program. Free to do with it as you please. 2% fixed, paid back over 60 months, deferred to 3 months after I commission.

Heh, I know many people who took that loan :thumbsup:

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit


It goes without saying that if I could borrow at 2% and get a 7% return I'd borrow every red cent I could get someone to loan me. Just tell me where I can borrow for 2% and where to get the guarenteed 7%.

I borrowed $25,000 at a fixed 2% for 60 months from my bank. Put it right into investments.

What bank and how long ago?

I have a hard time believing you because as I said, around here that want more then that over and above what they are willing to pay for CD's at the time. Banks are like any other business, they don't work for free and I can't see how they could even break even on operating expenses on 2% let alone pay the cost of they have on the capital.

Bank is USAA, so all you gotta do to qualify is walk into your local recruiter's office 😉

I still don't believe you, got a 2% loan to invest money?? What are you talking about, a special house loan or something like that?

What did you use for collateral?

It's a "career starter loan" for those in a commissioning program. Free to do with it as you please. 2% fixed, paid back over 60 months, deferred to 3 months after I commission.

A person has to be careful with what he does with a loan like that. I remember back in '76 we had the one of the worst droughts ever. The goverment was giving out disaster loans (based on your losses) at only 1% interest with 10 years to pay it back.

I was lucky (smart?) and had crop insurance that year (very, very few did back then) but I still ended up owing around $1600 after harvest. I qualified for a disaster loan of ~$15,000. That was a lot of money (you could buy a brand new Chevy Blazer all decked out for $6000). I wasn't sure I could maintain the discipline to manage the money properly so I passed on the loan.

Now I sure wish I had taken it because if I just would have had th4 discipline to put it in a saving account at 4% and leave it I would have made a guarenteed 3% on it and when the money crunch of the 80's hit I could have made a lot of nice investments with that kind of money. Heck, a friend of mine sold his SuperBee for $600 (it needed another $600 put into the front end, he pulled a General Lee with it and jumped a railroad crossing and bent all the tie rods, etc). I wanted to buy it, had a place to store it, but couldn't come up with a lousy $600. That car would be worth some major bucks today!!

The other side of the coin is that I knew a lot of people who borrowed all they could get, spent it on land, houses, vehicles,etc and when the bust came they all went broke and that was exactly what I was afraid of. It was a large enough sum of money to hang yourself with.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

A person has to be careful with what he does with a loan like that. I remember back in '76 we had the one of the worst droughts ever. The goverment was giving out disaster loans (based on your losses) at only 1% interest with 10 years to pay it back.

I was lucky (smart?) and had crop insurance that year (very, very few did back then) but I still ended up owing around $1600 after harvest. I qualified for a disaster loan of ~$15,000. That was a lot of money (you could buy a brand new Chevy Blazer all decked out for $6000). I wasn't sure I could maintain the discipline to manage the money properly so I passed on the loan.

Now I sure wish I had taken it because if I just would have had th4 discipline to put it in a saving account at 4% and leave it I would have made a guarenteed 3% on it and when the money crunch of the 80's hit I could have made a lot of nice investments with that kind of money. Heck, a friend of mine sold his SuperBee for $600 (it needed another $600 put into the front end, he pulled a General Lee with it and jumped a railroad crossing and bent all the tie rods, etc). I wanted to buy it, had a place to store it, but couldn't come up with a lousy $600. That car would be worth some major bucks today!!

The other side of the coin is that I knew a lot of people who borrowed all they could get, spent it on land, houses, vehicles,etc and when the bust came they all went broke and that was exactly what I was afraid of. It was a large enough sum of money to hang yourself with.

I know many of my friends have taken the same loan and used it to buy new cars... which I find kinda silly. Granted, if you are looking for a car loan, 2% is still good, but I'd rather drive a beat up used car now and have a few million when I retire, over driving a new car now and having a beat up used car when I retire 😛

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Aelius
I strongly suggest that everyone watch the vids on the site I linked. Especially the smaller vids.

If you will only watch one vid watch America: Freedom To Fascism

Yes the commentary is very biased but just go with the facts and ignore the commentary. That's all you need.

perhaps it would be better if you provided more direct links, trying to find stuff on that site is near impossible

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: Aelius
I strongly suggest that everyone watch the vids on the site I linked. Especially the smaller vids.

If you will only watch one vid watch America: Freedom To Fascism

Yes the commentary is very biased but just go with the facts and ignore the commentary. That's all you need.

perhaps it would be better if you provided more direct links, trying to find stuff on that site is near impossible

The vids were on the right hand side but here is the direct link for that documentary.

 

[fornax]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Stunt

As a percentage GDP, net debt is as follows:
Canada: 40%
France: 56%
Germany: 65%
Italy: 102%
Japan: 94%
UK: 38%
US: 48%

Is debt something to criticize? yes. Is the US completely out of line? no.

Well said.

Actually, very badly said. The official statistics does not include the unfunded obligations (like SS). Our "official" debt is still about $8.5 trillion (about 68% of the GDP). The GAO was talking about the total US government obligations, which are 370% of the GDP.

Sloppy, very sloppy, Stunt. Didn't you have a business or economics degree?

Oh, and the "conservative" Republicans led by Bush have more than doubled our debt in a measly 5 years. Drunken sailors in a whorehouse doesn't quite say it.

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: fornax

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Stunt

As a percentage GDP, net debt is as follows:
Canada: 40%
France: 56%
Germany: 65%
Italy: 102%
Japan: 94%
UK: 38%
US: 48%

Is debt something to criticize? yes. Is the US completely out of line? no.

Well said.

Actually, very badly said. The official statistics does not include the unfunded obligations (like SS). Our "official" debt is still about $8.5 trillion (about 68% of the GDP). The GAO was talking about the total US government obligations, which are 370% of the GDP.

Sloppy, very sloppy, Stunt. Didn't you have a business or economics degree?

Oh, and the "conservative" Republicans led by Bush have more than doubled our debt in a measly 5 years. Drunken sailors in a whorehouse doesn't quite say it.

heh, i was wondering if anyone was going to say anything about the unfunded aspect, which was what the original post was all about. The official numbers aren't too far removed from accounting fraud.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: fornax

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Stunt

As a percentage GDP, net debt is as follows:
Canada: 40%
France: 56%
Germany: 65%
Italy: 102%
Japan: 94%
UK: 38%
US: 48%

Is debt something to criticize? yes. Is the US completely out of line? no.

Well said.

Actually, very badly said. The official statistics does not include the unfunded obligations (like SS). Our "official" debt is still about $8.5 trillion (about 68% of the GDP). The GAO was talking about the total US government obligations, which are 370% of the GDP.

Sloppy, very sloppy, Stunt. Didn't you have a business or economics degree?

Oh, and the "conservative" Republicans led by Bush have more than doubled our debt in a measly 5 years. Drunken sailors in a whorehouse doesn't quite say it.

heh, i was wondering if anyone was going to say anything about the unfunded aspect, which was what the original post was all about. The official numbers aren't too far removed from accounting fraud.

I wonder where they got the idea that cooking the books is a legit way to run an organization.

I guess hiding it in plain sight works best for government.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: fornax

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Stunt

As a percentage GDP, net debt is as follows:
Canada: 40%
France: 56%
Germany: 65%
Italy: 102%
Japan: 94%
UK: 38%
US: 48%

Is debt something to criticize? yes. Is the US completely out of line? no.

Well said.

Actually, very badly said. The official statistics does not include the unfunded obligations (like SS). Our "official" debt is still about $8.5 trillion (about 68% of the GDP). The GAO was talking about the total US government obligations, which are 370% of the GDP.

Sloppy, very sloppy, Stunt. Didn't you have a business or economics degree?

Oh, and the "conservative" Republicans led by Bush have more than doubled our debt in a measly 5 years. Drunken sailors in a whorehouse doesn't quite say it.

Many of those other Nations likely have Unfunded Liabilities as well. Would be interesting to see what they all are.

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: fornax

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Stunt

As a percentage GDP, net debt is as follows:
Canada: 40%
France: 56%
Germany: 65%
Italy: 102%
Japan: 94%
UK: 38%
US: 48%

Is debt something to criticize? yes. Is the US completely out of line? no.

Well said.

Actually, very badly said. The official statistics does not include the unfunded obligations (like SS). Our "official" debt is still about $8.5 trillion (about 68% of the GDP). The GAO was talking about the total US government obligations, which are 370% of the GDP.

Sloppy, very sloppy, Stunt. Didn't you have a business or economics degree?

Oh, and the "conservative" Republicans led by Bush have more than doubled our debt in a measly 5 years. Drunken sailors in a whorehouse doesn't quite say it.

Many of those other Nations likely have Unfunded Liabilities as well. Would be interesting to see what they all are.

That would be interesting and in this respect, the US may actually be better off than other industrialized countries (europe, japan). Our retirement system is more diverse than other countries. Some countries have actually negative population growth, which exasperates the problem. I believe toyo/honda see this coming problem and are investing heavily in research on robotics, to make up the decrease in the pool of available workers.