Could This Be Part of The New Worldview

[GoNuclear]

no

Pete,

I think that you meant repeal of the 16th amendment not the 17th.

The 16th ammendment gives the federal govt. no additional taxing power, according to the 9 learned orangutans with toy hammers. The 16th ammendment could be repealed tomorrow and the income tax could still remain and still found to be within the bounds of the Constitution. Liability is incurred for the income tax by the use of granted privilege. In the case of most folk, that granted privilege is "employment" as opposed to just hire. If you are "employed" you are using an SSN and you work first for the federal govt. It is similar to going thru an agency, they get a cut. They can also insist that their people are paid at least x amount of bux per hour. The federal govt. does the same via minimum wage laws, OSHA requirements, etc.

The 17th ammendment is actually more damaging in that it disenfranchises the state legislatures from providing input to Congress, because it took control of their senators to the federal govt. away.

Pete

 

[programmer_guy]

The 16th ammendment could be repealed tomorrow and the income tax could still remain and still found to be within the bounds of the Constitution.

Then why was the 16th ammendment passed if it was not needed? (i.e. no new taxing powers were created)

 

[GoNuclear]

AFIK

Then why was the 16th ammendment passed if it was not needed? (i.e. no new taxing powers were created)

As far as I know ... the main reason behind the 16th ammendment was the Pollock case of 1895 where a previous income tax was deemed to be outside Constitutional bounds and was struck down. The point of the 16th ammendment was that it was supposed to clarify that an income tax was OK as long as it was collected as an indirect or excise tax.

At the time that the 16th was passed, there was already an income tax which was a corporate tax. The object of the tax was a government granted privilege, i.e., that of incorporation. The 16th ammendment upholds this principal. Bottom line ... fish in your own fishing hole, you are ok, catch as many fish as you like, its your fishing hole. Fish in my fishing hole and I get to charge you for the privilege. I can measure that charge in different ways ... I can charge you by the day, I can charge you be the number of fish caught, or by their weight, species, etc... doesn't matter, its MY fishing hole and I can charge people for the privilege of its use as I see fit.

One of the bogus arguments against the income tax that enjoyed some brief success was that the 16th ammendment was never properly ratified. It is true, it never really was, Bill Benson pretty well proved that. But, when it was brought to court, the FOSWATH's (flatulent old slobs wielding toy hammers) said "That's a political question, take it up with Congress!" When brought up to Congress, the reply was "Thats a legal question, take it up with the Supreme Court!" BUT ... in every instance when a so-called "illegal tax protestor" was taken to court by the IRS/DOJ, part of what was entered into evidence against him was his taxpayer individual master file or IMF. A taxpayer can put information into that file, and, at one point, there was an outfit that was selling the document package proving non ratification of the 16th, all docs certified, to place in your IMF. That being done, a taxpayer could go exempt on form W-4 and not file, and the IRS would LEAVE HIM ALONE, knowing what would happen if the IMF with the non ratification package was entered into evidence in court. This was a devil of a dilemma for the IRS, because they have been telling people for years that the 16th ammendment is where they derive their authority and implying that the income tax is an unapportioned direct tax, which would be inescapeable ... but that is not at all what the 9 learned orangutans have said. It would simply be untenable for the IRS to admit in court that the 16th ammendment was NOT the source of their authority but rather govt. granted privilege, because then people would ask "WHAT privilege????????????"

The outfit selling the non ratification package was eventually enjoined for selling an "abusive tax shelter".

Anyways, the issue is the granted privilege. Use of a taxpayer ID number is evidence true on its face value that you are using a govt. granted privilege and deriving an income from it.

Pete

 

[themadhair]

Horseshit. They predate socialistic insecurity. The coastguard is a legit function of the federal govt. as per what was delegated to the federal govt. by the states. Local services are funded by legitimate local excise taxes or at least were before localities started to accept federal subsidies, derived by ripping off citizens and then doling back to them a portion of the funds confiscated. Furthermore, federal funding where it doesn't belong is like a tampon ... it comes with a string attached, and, is designed from the start to become a bloody mess and flushed down the toilet.

I fail to see anywhere in this that shows they are not socialistic. They aren’t capitalistic now are they?

Isn’t it funny how you will brand one this ‘socialism’ but fail to qualitatively provide why my examples differ? ‘Legit’ is a weasel word that hides some dubious assumptions in your reasoning.

 

[GoNuclear]

More rambling

I fail to see anywhere in this that shows they are not socialistic. They aren’t capitalistic now are they?

Isn’t it funny how you will brand one this ‘socialism’ but fail to qualitatively provide why my examples differ? ‘Legit’ is a weasel word that hides some dubious assumptions in your reasoning.

I fail to see how the argument you are raising isn't off point, either.

Fire and police are functions of municipal corporate entities known as cities. Generally speaking, within the bounds of a municipal corporate entity said entity has quiet or underlying title on all lands, such that anyone who owns property doesn't really own it but rather has rights on it granted in consideration of paying property tax. The legitimacy of the tax is derived from the fact that it is the corporate entity that holds the true or underlying or quiet title, also known as allodial title or land patent, and the "land owner" who is paying property tax only has surface rights he is, in essence, renting. In the past, these property taxes were sufficient to cover the cost of services such as fire and police. There are also legitimate business licensing functions where there is simply a real need to regulate a business. There are also regulations on granted monopolies such as power lines, phone lines, gas lines, etc. I don't see how any of that comes under socialism as envisioned by Carl Marx and the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto. The only issue I have with any of the above is lack of full disclosure ... for instance, homeowners need to understand the nature of property tax and that it is possible in certain situations to obtain allodial title on land.

Now as far as what is going on here ... the system of monetized debt is the culprit or at least the main culprit that is reducing us to slavery. The money system requires an income tax in order to function ... not to finance anything but rather to bleed off excess purchasing power for the point of concealing the true effects of monetary inflation on the prices of real goods and services. In turn, it is the income tax that requires a mechanism whereby virtually everyone is forced to incur liability for the tax, and that mechanism, that hardly anybody understands regardless of the simplicity of it all, is participation in Social Security. Social Security is 100% voluntary according to law but is virtually 100% enforced by corporate America. Therefore, the system is built upon lack of full disclosure and collusion between the federal govt. and private sector. Also, since states for the most part now have state income taxes, and since those income taxes depend upon someone being made liable for federal income tax, the states are therefore partners in crime to defraud the American people as well (for lack of full disclosure as to how liability is incurred).

Anyways, phuggitall, I'm phuggen tired.

Pete

 

[themadhair]

I don't see how any of that comes under socialism as envisioned by Carl Marx and the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto.

Of course you don’t, but what is stopping you applying the same reasoning to social welfare? Because you happen to like certain entities that are socialistic in nature while decrying others that are also socialistic in nature. The entire argument you present regarding legitimacy is a red herring you use to try justifying this disconnect.

Social Security is 100% voluntary according to law but is virtually 100% enforced by corporate America.

This same argument applies for the fire brigade, police, etc. They are also 100% mandatory that you have to fund through your taxes. The false equivalence you are arguing for simply does not follow since the same argument can be made for the fire brigade, the police, etc. The problem seems to be that, for some obscure reason likely to do with political ideology, you won’t go there.

 

[Lavalyte]

Center for Disease Control, National Highways, National Parks, Federal Courts, Border Patrol, ....


Mark A. Baker

What have the Romans ever done for us?

 

[themadhair]

What have the Romans ever done for us?

For the US? Nothing afaik.

 

[GoNuclear]

not sure what you are getting at

Of course you don’t, but what is stopping you applying the same reasoning to social welfare? Because you happen to like certain entities that are socialistic in nature while decrying others that are also socialistic in nature. The entire argument you present regarding legitimacy is a red herring you use to try justifying this disconnect.

This same argument applies for the fire brigade, police, etc. They are also 100% mandatory that you have to fund through your taxes. The false equivalence you are arguing for simply does not follow since the same argument can be made for the fire brigade, the police, etc. The problem seems to be that, for some obscure reason likely to do with political ideology, you won’t go there.

Plain and simiple, where I draw the line, is use of a socialist slavestate number. Usually, the great cry of the brainwashed if they hear my view on taxes is (doing my best here to sound like a parrot) "aarp! aarp! roads! gotta have roads! takes money to maintain the roads! aarp! aarp!" But they are not getting where I am coming from. I am not against all taxation, such as imposts, excises, import duties, and stamp taxes. I AM against socialistic insecurity and the income tax. I am not saying that either the income tax or socialistic insecurity are unconstitutional. I AM saying that in dealing with socialistic insecurity and/or the income tax, the laws are written one way and applied another, based upon massive ignorance, fear, the "everybody knows but nobody reads" factor, and a small, inner corps of asteroid orifices that go along to get along to keep things the way they are. I am NOT SAYING that someone's grandma should be tossed out on the street for having committed the heinous crime of letting herself become dependent on a socialist welfare program, I AM for REQUIRING plain language full disclosure anytime anyone anywhere for any reason requests a socialist slavestate number, said disclosure needs to be given to the requestee as both a written and oral statement to be gone over point by point and signed off or initialed point by point. If the requestee can't read, a witness would be required to be present as the requestee makes his mark and the requestor covers the "ssn Miranda" point by point.

The full disclosure law I have in mind would probably eliminate all of the various horseshit requests for SSN's, such as those that appear on various forms filled out in the offices of doctors, dentists, chiropractors, etc. Where it would really kick in is "employers". It would go something like this: "In compliance with the SSN full disclosure act, XYZ Corporation is required to give you this statement. First of all, do you read and write? (if yes, continue). XYZ Corporation is required by law to ASK you for a Social Security Number or SSN. Just because XYZ Corporation is required by law to ASK you for an SSN doesn' mean you are required by law to provide one, ok?
(initial here) If you DO provide one, that means you desire employment, if you DO NOT provide one, you desire to be hired OTHER than being employed. (initial here). If you DO decide you want to be EMPLOYED, that means that you desire to participate in Social Security. At retirement, THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF ANY FUNDS TO BE PROVIDED TO YOU, and, if there ARE funds provided by Social Security for you retirement, there is no guarantee of value ... for example ... if Social Security pays out $3000 per month for your retirement benefit, there is no guarantee that market prices won'd demand $4000 to purchase a loaf of bread. Congress can do away with benefits, raise retirement age, lower benefits, or provide a means test to receive benefits at any time. Do you understand that? (initial here). If you decide to participate, you will be treated as a federal employee for tax purposes, which means that you will incur liability for FICA, federal, state, and even local income taxes. (initial here). If you participate, you will be required to sign a tax return (form 1040) under penalty of perjury. If you perjure yourself by filing an inacurate return, and if caught, you may be taken to trial and found guilty of felony tax evasion. If you refuse to sign under penalty of purjury or refuse to file, you may be found guilty of misdemeanor willlful failure to file. (initial here). It is the policy of XYZ Corporation to refuse to hire any person unless they agree to provide an SSN, thereby making themselves "employees" for tax purposes and incurring said liabilities. (initial here) Will you be providing a Social Security Number? OR ... they could say It is the policy of XYZ Corporation to allow both employment OR hire WITHOUT employment, and XYZ Corporation is offering you, at this time, either employment OR hire WITHOUT employment. Which do you prefer?"

Guess which way to go is more likely to be healthy with respect to retaining teeth and plate glass.


Pete

 

[themadhair]

Plain and simiple, where I draw the line, is use of a socialist slavestate number.

This is utterly irrelevant. You made the claim that one use of taxes was socialism while trying (and failing) to justify why other socialistic uses were not. What you wrote has absolutely nothing to do with that.

If you oppose one use over another then that is a different discussion.
If you want to propose changes/recommendations/whatever to current law then that is a different discussion.

What I see happening is that you are decreeing certain uses of taxes are, or are not, socialist purely on the basis of whether you agree with those uses. So far you have thrown up nothing but chaff to try justify your imagined distinction in those uses. I just don’t get why you think your approach is even relevant to answering the fundamental point over whether those certain uses are, or are not, socialistic.

 

[Pepin]

The 16th ammendment gives the federal govt. no additional taxing power, according to the 9 learned orangutans with toy hammers. The 16th ammendment could be repealed tomorrow and the income tax could still remain and still found to be within the bounds of the Constitution. Liability is incurred for the income tax by the use of granted privilege. In the case of most folk, that granted privilege is "employment" as opposed to just hire. If you are "employed" you are using an SSN and you work first for the federal govt. It is similar to going thru an agency, they get a cut.

This is partly true. What you do though is look up the definition of "employee" as defined in title 26.
An employee is someone who is a resident Alien, a citizen of Puerto Rico, someone who works for the Fed Government or any subdivision thereof or an officer of a corporation. Are you any of those?

 

[Pepin]

Then why was the 16th ammendment passed if it was not needed? (i.e. no new taxing powers were created)

To give the illusion that Fed taxes are constitutional against citizens. It gives congress the ability for the Fed to tax individuals directly. And as you can see from the ruling, that power was already there because....

In title 26, resident aliens and Federal employees are what supported the fed government before world war II. U.S. citizens support the Fed government through the states called apportionment.

 

[programmer_guy]

To give the illusion that Fed taxes are constitutional against citizens. It gives congress the ability for the Fed to tax individuals directly. And as you can see from the ruling, that power was already there because....

In title 26, resident aliens and Federal employees are what supported the fed government before world war II. U.S. citizens support the Fed government through the states called apportionment.

The main purpose of the 16th amendment to the U.S. Constitution was to do away with the apportionment clause.
This is why it was "needed" to allow direct taxes on wages and salaries.
And legally that IS what it did.

 

[GoNuclear]

a smokescreen

The main purpose of the 16th amendment to the U.S. Constitution was to do away with the apportionment clause.
This is why it was "needed" to allow direct taxes on wages and salaries.
And legally that IS what it did.

The 16th ammendment did NOT broadly do away with the apportionment clause regarding direct taxes. All it did was clarify that the income may be collected as an indirect or excise tax without regards to apportionment. Had the intent been to do away with the apportionment clause, it would have specifically referenced the section, stricken it down, repealed it, etc.
Furthermore, and I need to look this up, but I believe that there is a requirement that direct taxes need to be renewed by Congress every two years, and I don't recall any votes renewing the income tax on bi-annual basis.

One of the inalienable rights that people have is an unlimited right to contract. On the other hand, what about minimum wage laws? What about OSHA regulations? What about withholding before a tax is assessed? Would not any of those clearly abridge that right to contract, if the federal govt. gets to enter in regardless? The answer is no, because they were INVITED in. The invite is via use of an SSN, WHICH IS VOLUNTARY, at least by law. That it is enforced by corporate policies almost universally to the point where virtually everybody BELIEVES there is a law REQUIRING SSN use is of no importance to the nine learned orangutans with toy hammers. Therefore, number 1 on my political agenda is a law that would force full disclosure anytime an SSN is asked for, plus a one time opt out provision allowing for official denumeration.

Pete