It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The IRS Extortion of the American People

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
So, what I want to know is, exactly how is our federal government supposed to fund itself? Magic?

Given that the ability for the government to lay and collect taxes is in both Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution and Amendment 16, if you don't like the IRS and think it's the boogyman, how prey tell do you expect them to fulfill this constitutional obligation?

Also, could you provide a link to the article you are quoting OP?
edit on 12/8/2010 by whatukno because: (no reason given)


Read the Grace Commission Report mentioned above. Not a single cent of Income tax funds any government service. It is all interest on the currency printed into circulation So how is the government funded? They borrow the money from the federal reserve at interest and we pay it back even though the interest is never printed which creates a shortage of money thus we are always competing for the crumbs. The mafia wishes they had a scam this good.

So they print money form nothing and we borrow it or should I say the government through congress borrows it. And we can never pay it back which is why the trillion dollar debt grows every year. It is like borrowing money to pay your credit card forever. The debt doesn't go away it just gets bigger.




Break the body and the head will fall. If millions of Americans just said no, there is little the thugs could do about it.


Millions do say no and don't pay. The problem is millions more do pay funding these bastages and allowing them to continue the fraud.
edit on 8-12-2010 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 09:45 PM
link   
You all completely ignored my question, which was: How do you expect this government to fund itself?

Since you all think that no one should have to pay any tax at all, how on earth should this government fund itself?

I gave you the legal definition of Income, you don't like it? Tough, too bad so sad, get over it. I answered the question given to me, now how about answering the question I proposed.

If it really is all a Jew conspiracy (according to the highly white supremacist article which everyone seems to agree with here.) what is the right way for the government to fund itself?



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


I answered Ah read my post at the top of the page



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
You all completely ignored my question, which was: How do you expect this government to fund itself?

Since you all think that no one should have to pay any tax at all, how on earth should this government fund itself?

I gave you the legal definition of Income, you don't like it? Tough, too bad so sad, get over it. I answered the question given to me, now how about answering the question I proposed.

If it really is all a Jew conspiracy (according to the highly white supremacist article which everyone seems to agree with here.) what is the right way for the government to fund itself?


I don't know I guess the better question to ask is, how did the government fund itself before 1913?



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
You all completely ignored my question, which was: How do you expect this government to fund itself?

Since you all think that no one should have to pay any tax at all, how on earth should this government fund itself?

I gave you the legal definition of Income, you don't like it? Tough, too bad so sad, get over it. I answered the question given to me, now how about answering the question I proposed.

If it really is all a Jew conspiracy (according to the highly white supremacist article which everyone seems to agree with here.) what is the right way for the government to fund itself?


What legal definition did you give? TheFreeDictionary.com is now a legal dictionary?

Apparently reading comprehension isnt your strong suit. I asked you for the definition of the word income as it was used in the 16th Amendment, in 1913.

Can you post that or not?

You do realize words change meaning over time right?

As another poster stated: The government managed to fund itself for 125 years from the time the Constitution was ratified until the 16th Amendment came to be. How do you think that happened?



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by BigTimeCheater
 


I swear, you people are more frustrating than watching FOX News.


income
n. money, goods or other economic benefit received. Under income tax laws, income can be "active" through one's efforts or work (including management) or "passive" from rentals, stock dividends, investments and interest on deposits in which there is neither physical effort nor management. For tax purposes, income does not include gifts and inheritances received. Taxes are collected based on income by the federal government and most state governments.


dictionary.law.com...


Income
income n

: a gain or recurrent benefit usually measured in money that derives from capital or labor
;also
: the amount of such gain received in a period of time [an of $20,000 a year]

Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law ©1996. Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. Published under license with Merriam-Webster, Incorporated.


dictionary.findlaw.com...

IS THAT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU?

I asked a question, a question that you all refuse to answer, how do you expect the government to fund itself? If you think that no one should pay taxes, how in the world do you expect the government to fund itself?

HOW ABOUT ANSWERING THAT QUESTION?

It's bad enough that people are so thick headed that they trust an obviously white supremacist article, but to resort to semantics? Please, give me a break.

I don't care what the definition of Income was back in the day, it's what it means NOW that is important. Course you know what, I don't care, go whine about the IRS all you guys like. You won't change a thing anyway.
edit on 12/9/2010 by whatukno because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno

: a gain or recurrent benefit usually measured in money that derives from capital or labor
;also

I asked a question, a question that you all refuse to answer, how do you expect the government to fund itself? If you think that no one should pay taxes, how in the world do you expect the government to fund itself?

HOW ABOUT ANSWERING THAT QUESTION?

It's bad enough that people are so thick headed that they trust an obviously white supremacist article, but to resort to semantics? Please, give me a break.

I don't care what the definition of Income was back in the day, it's what it means NOW that is important. Course you know what, I don't care, go whine about the IRS all you guys like. You won't change a thing anyway.
edit on 12/9/2010 by whatukno because: (no reason given)


You should care what the term income meant back in the day, as that would show the intent behind the 16th Amendment. I know you have a proclivity to ignore fact, history, and anything else that comes along with being an intelligent human being, but maybe you should spend less time typing out text in gigantic letters like a little child seeking attention and spend more time researching topics you choose to debate. Your incessant whining about "using semantics" clearly shows you have no real knowledge of how law, and more importantly, government works. Law is all about semantics.

Read the definition you posted very carefully. The key word in that definition is gain. Now when you wake up every day and go to work asking people if they want fries with that, do you gain anything? No, you don't. While you may receive a paycheck, you are also out labor. Since labor is a finite resource (meaning you only have a limited amount of it), there is an equal trade of labor for an agreed upon remuneration.

To put it in terms you can understand, follow along with the hypothetical scenario:

Lets say I wanted to pay someone to beat you up. Since the tough guy only has a certain amount of buttkickings he can dish out in life, he is not earning income for administering a beating on you. He is trading one of his beatdowns for a certain amount of money, or a remuneration for his services.

Did he gain anything? No. He received money in return for using one of his limited number of asskickings.

Now, unfortunately the government actually can tax incomes, or gains, but stealing it from peoples paychecks is not actually authorized by the constitution. Real income is earned on rents, investments, etc etc. Actual gains, not remunerations. Taxes on actual incomes is how government funded itself prior to the passage of the 16th Amendment, and that would still work today. The key is eliminating all unconstitutional spending, such as foreign aid, social assistance programs, etc etc. Anything not specifically authorized by Article 1 Section 8 needs to be done away with.

Now, given your history of drama-queenish posts, such as thinking you will be waterboarded if republicans win congress I don't really expect you to learn much from this post, but hopefully it will get other people thinking.
edit on 9-12-2010 by BigTimeCheater because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by dantanna
 


although i think you're being sarcastic.. i just have to wonder WHY they need the money through taxes when the entire monetary system is a sham / scam with money being printed AS NEEDED for debt etc .. why not just print more and pay themselves with that ..? I think it's about keeping us busy and in fear more than their need for the money .. it's a huge JOKE .. on us unfortunately.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by mayabong
I don't know I guess the better question to ask is, how did the government fund itself before 1913?


Obviously it didnt. There was no government before 1913. No streets, no homes, no jobs, no country.

The whole of history, as I have gathered from listening to and talking with far too many of my peers and even elders, began in the 1940's and even that decade was sporadic in existence only appearing occasionally to consciousness then fading out until perceived reality solidified to one constant time stream around 1953.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by BigTimeCheater
 


That was the MOST informative, and classic response I've ever witnessed on ATS! How anyone can truly attempt to debunk that logic is beyond me! MANY



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 



Originally posted by whatukno
So, what I want to know is, exactly how is our federal government supposed to fund itself? Magic?

Given that the ability for the government to lay and collect taxes is in both Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution and Amendment 16, if you don't like the IRS and think it's the boogyman, how prey tell do you expect them to fulfill this constitutional obligation?


My answer


Fund itself with magic, ha! Of course not, it should use the means set out by the constitution to do so, namely GOLD AND SILVER, coined of course only by Congress. Surely, nobody thinks the gov't could just print whatever money it needed out of thin air to cover its debts, that would be insanely ridiculous!


IS THAT A CLEAR ENOUGH ANSWER FOR YOU???? IT WAS POSTED ON THE 1ST PAGE IN MY RESPONSE FOUND DIRECTLY UNDER YOUR INITIAL QUESTION!!!! OPEN YOUR EYES!!!!



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by BigTimeCheater
 


I swear, you people are more frustrating than watching FOX News.


income
n. money, goods or other economic benefit received. Under income tax laws, income can be "active" through one's efforts or work (including management) or "passive" from rentals, stock dividends, investments and interest on deposits in which there is neither physical effort nor management. For tax purposes, income does not include gifts and inheritances received. Taxes are collected based on income by the federal government and most state governments.


dictionary.law.com...


Income
income n

: a gain or recurrent benefit usually measured in money that derives from capital or labor
;also
: the amount of such gain received in a period of time [an of $20,000 a year]

Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law ©1996. Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. Published under license with Merriam-Webster, Incorporated.


dictionary.findlaw.com...

IS THAT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU?

I asked a question, a question that you all refuse to answer, how do you expect the government to fund itself? If you think that no one should pay taxes, how in the world do you expect the government to fund itself?

HOW ABOUT ANSWERING THAT QUESTION?

It's bad enough that people are so thick headed that they trust an obviously white supremacist article, but to resort to semantics? Please, give me a break.

I don't care what the definition of Income was back in the day, it's what it means NOW that is important. Course you know what, I don't care, go whine about the IRS all you guys like. You won't change a thing anyway.
edit on 12/9/2010 by whatukno because: (no reason given)


I gather it's fun to manipulate text on a website and attempt to portray yourself as someone knowledgeable. You passed on the former and failed on the latter.

Spare us your limited thinking until you've studied the first 150 years of how this nation operated. The simple word is Tariffs. Nobody had a gun held to their head while being expected to relinquish the fruits of their labor. That wasn't accomplished until 1913 and this nation has plunged down the $hit hole since then. BUT I'm sure you can enlighten us otherwise?



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by BigTimeCheater
 


according to your definition taxes would be applicable on anything over minimum wage, minimum wage is the absolute minimum that someone can pay you for your labor, anything above that is a gain and therefore a profit and taxable, by your definition of gain.


reply to post by budaruskie
 


Using a finite resource in order to pay for the expenses of the government is absurd in this day and age, how are they supposed to recoup that gold and silver?

Because obviously you three in here have the assumption that no one has any obligation to pay tax at all, so there is absolutely no way that the government could sustain itself on gold, it would have to mine the whole of the Earth for every gram of gold just to keep running.

So, without the government being able to lay and collect taxes, there is absolutely no way that federal, state, or local governments can keep running. Your solution is completely flawed on it's face.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 02:19 AM
link   
The Supreme Court (SC) ruled the 16th conferred no new powers of taxation


by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth 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 and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived, that is by testing the tax not by what it was -- a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed. "

[Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 U.S. 103 (1916)]


Here the SC ruled the Income tax on indiviudals was unconstitutional


Pollock v. Farmer's Loan and Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429, 158 U.S. 601 (1895)
Justice Edward D. White was the author of the opinion of the court in this case. This was the same justice who wrote the dissenting opinion in the Pollock Decision back in 1895, which incidentally declared the income tax unconstitutional.


Here the SC ruled the the 16th Amendment was only applicable to Federal corporations under narrow circumstances. Are you a federal corporation?


[Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1 (1916)]
The ruling established that income tax is constitutional as an excise tax on federal corporations, but not as a direct tax. The measure of whether it is a direct or an indirect/excise tax is determined by the burden the tax on income places on the property that is its object. Who or what then is subject to an excise tax? In most cases it is usually federal corporations. You can see that by rereading section 3.8.15.1, which talks about the legislative intent of the Sixteenth Amendment as described by President Taft in his speech to Congress on June 16, 1909.
inclusion.semitagui.gov.co...

Trading your labor for money is value for value there is no income. Income is profit of federal corporations not the wage paid to an individual. And understanding legalese is all about semantics and even entirely different definitions for then thier common cultural meanings.

whatukno must have me on ignore or something cause she does not respond to a single thing I posted and acts like I am not even here and continues to spew her non-sense



edit on 10-12-2010 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 02:45 AM
link   
Ok, so, if we are going to argue the bs conspiracy theory side of this.

Then, since every single dollar printed by the Federal Reserve is a statement of debt owed to the Federal Reserve, then by accepting those notes, whether in bearer form or electronically, you are in essence accepting that part of the overall debt.

And therefore, taxes are your contribution to repay the interest on that debt for those notes that you possess.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno

according to your definition taxes would be applicable on anything over minimum wage, minimum wage is the absolute minimum that someone can pay you for your labor, anything above that is a gain and therefore a profit and taxable, by your definition of gain.



Huh?

Good to see everything went right over your head or you are simply incapable of understanding it.

Educate yourself kid.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


I agree with you about the gold and silver part. I think that is an outdated and I can't even imagine how you would get it going in this day in age.

I think at the very least, the US should be able to print its own money interest free if it needs to.

There is No need for the federal reserve.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by mayabong
 


Yes, I also don't see the point of the Federal Reserve. I can't imagine that what the Fed does can't be done by the Treasury.

But this thread seems to be more about how these people don't think they should ever have to pay anything in taxes no matter how much they make. It appears that they are so pissed about paying taxes that they have concocted imaginary and unrealistic scenarios where they have convinced themselves that they don't have to pay anything in tax.

Given the obviously white supremacist tone of the OP article, makes the whole thing suspect and probably should be ignored as the ravings of a madman.

Personally I don't care if they pay tax or not. I chalk these kinds of nuts up into the same group as those who think that you don't have to listen to a judge who flies the gold fringed flag in a court room because they think that it's a navy trial for some reason.

But I agree, I don't really see the benefit of the Federal Reserve Bank. I think that it's not really conspiratorial in nature, but more damaging to our economy.

The only problem with removing the fed is that you would give Congress complete control over the monetary policy of this country, if conservatives are in charge, that would mean that they would cease money production, liberals would flood the country with currency. The economy would be in constant chaos.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno


The only problem with removing the fed is that you would give Congress complete control over the monetary policy of this country, if conservatives are in charge, that would mean that they would cease money production, liberals would flood the country with currency. The economy would be in constant chaos.



Seriously, what planet are you from?

Cease money production? Only an ignorant fool or one who spends too much time outside of reality on a college campus could believe that.

Which one are you?



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by mayabong
reply to post by whatukno
 


I agree with you about the gold and silver part. I think that is an outdated and I can't even imagine how you would get it going in this day in age.

I think at the very least, the US should be able to print its own money interest free if it needs to.

There is No need for the federal reserve.


Ahh the ignorance of the people... Sigh! Gold and silver are not outdated. You prefer the current system and where it has lead us. A common argument against a gold standard is there is not enough gold which of course ridiculous. Prices would simply adjust to the amount of real currency in circulation whether it be gold or puca shells. The reason the politicians and elite and the only reason they don;t like hard currency is you can't print gold therefore you can;t inflate economies into oblivion and steal the wealth of the people. Contrary to popular believe the economy doe snot always need to e growing to be healthy, Sound currency would stabilize the economy and eliminate the boom bust cycles that have led us to disaster. And it must be taken out of the hands of government period,. A free market is the answer if I want to trade with puca shells that is my business and no one else's.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join