Income Taxes Are Not For Income To The Federal Government

reply to post by wcitizen

I know, but once you do understand, it the veil really does start to disappear. Understanding this is to really start to see the trickery for what it really is.

That is why I use the Federal Reserve as a start in educating people. I then move to the Food Safety Farce

If you are aware of the 1970 statement by Henry Kissinger - "Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world." everything becomes clear.

The 1913 Federal Reserve Act and FDR signing the Bretton Woods Agreement (World Bank and IMF) - Control of Money.
Tthe 1995 World Trade Agreement on Agriculture and Waxman's Food Safety farce - Control of Food.

So what else has TPTB, the UN and Waxman been pushing lately? Why its Cap and Trade and Global Warming - Control of Energy.

Pretty darn obvious isn't it?

Here's a good find, that just comes to show ( as an example ) that even in the earlier years of the income tax, that it was deemed unconstitutional.

The tax was repealed ten years later. However, in 1894 Congress enacted a flat rate Federal income tax, which was ruled unconstitutional the following year by the U.S. Supreme Court because it was a direct tax not apportioned according to the population of each state.

source: www.loc.gov...

Granted, this was a clear case of misrepresentation of the different populations in different cities, but it gives you an idea that even then, USG wasn't forthcoming in its proportions of funds.

reply to post by crimvelvet


Bretton Woods died in 1971, along with most of the power of the IMF and the World Bank. The Federal Reserve was also weakened to an extent. Nixon must have thought he was breaking the backs of the bankers, he was right to an extent, he broke the backs of the American bankers but empowered Europe's.

The Bank for International Settlements has filled the vacuum. The Federal Reserve didn't come to terms until 1994, when they finally took their seat at the BIS.

The BIS has since then grown and become the nexus of global central banking, with the formation of the FSB, it now wields considerable power over the G-20.

reply to post by MikeboydUS

Bretton Woods died in 1971, along with most of the power of the IMF and the World Bank. The Federal Reserve was also weakened to an extent. Nixon must have thought he was breaking the backs of the bankers, he was right to an extent, he broke the backs of the American bankers but empowered Europe's....

Thanks for the information. I had not gotten that far in my research.

There is so much going on and all of it is so entangled it is tough to sort out the mess.

Originally posted by Klassified
reply to post by Whereweheaded

 

There is some question as to whether the 16th amendment was ever truly ratified. There are other pages, but I found this one on short notice.
www.thelawthatneverwas.com...

The argument that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified is a pointless argument that undermines its own reasoning. The only reason to argue that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified would be to claim that a.) the 16th Amendment makes people liable for the income tax, b.) that because it was not properly ratified it is unconstitutional, and c.) because it is unconstitutional that the person making the argument is not liable for the tax.

The flaws with this reasoning are numerous. First of all, the 16th Amendment does not make a single soul liable for the so called "Personal Income Tax", nor does it name any subject of a tax. Whatever the actual purpose of the 16th Amendment was, its legal effect is clearly explained by two seminal Supreme Court Cases; Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. Both Brushaber and Stanton challenged the 16th Amendment as unconstitutional on a number of contentions, most importantly claiming that the 16th Amendment made people liable for an income tax, and that this tax was a direct tax on income but no apportioned across the several states as the Constitution requires. Both claimed that Congress attempted to relieve themselves of the rule of apportionment regarding income tax, but the SCOTUS disagreed, and made clear that rather than do what Brushaber and Stanton claimed the Amendment did, it instead prevented the courts, and the people, from viewing any non-apportioned tax on income as a direct tax, and must necessarily view such a tax as an indirect tax, "where all income taxes inherently belong".

By arguing that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified, one is necessarily ignoring what was previously held by the Supreme Court, and arguing that if the 16th Amendment were properly ratified that this would Constitutionally make people liable for an income tax. Nothing could be further from the truth. The not properly ratified argument is an argument of poor legal reasoning also, because it necessarily forces those making the argument to prove the veracity of such a claim. It is most imprudent as a defendant, which would presumably be the position one would be in when making this argument, to accept burden of proof.

reply to post by Maxmars

That profit is determined after the bank owners get their cut.

The amount paid back is determined by deducting their cost to finance their self from their total income.

An random example - 86th Annual Report of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve

On page 335, you can clearly see their total interest income was (in millions) 28,452, their total operating expense was 2,878, and the "payments to the US treasury as interest on federal reserve notes" is 25,409.

So again, the federal reserve basically pays back any 'debt' the government created by borrowing money, there's no massive debt to be payed back, and if there was, it's the governments fault, not the federal reserves.

Quoted for clarity:

1999 Combined Statements of Income of the Federal Reserve Banks (in millions)

Interest income Interest on U.S. government securities 28,216
Interest on foreign securities 225
Interest on loans to depository institutions 11
Other income 688
-------
Total operating income 29,140

Operating expenses Salaries and benefits 1,446
Occupancy expense 189
Assessments by Board of Governors 699
Equipment expense 242
Other 302
-------
Total operating expenses 2,878

Net Income Prior to Distribution 26,262
Distribution of Net Income Dividends paid to member banks 374
Transferred to surplus 479
Payments to U.S. Treasury 25,409
-------
Total distribution 26,262

It also contains what you referred to as the 'bank owners cut', or dividends, which they're obligated to pay regardless, as is any organization

Edit to add - If anyone else was interested, here's the source for the PDF and also their annual reports:

Reports to Congress

Originally posted by StrangeBrew

Originally posted by wcitizen

I know, but once you do understand, it the veil really does start to disappear. Understanding this is to really start to see the trickery for what it really is.

I agree heavily. I believe this is truly one of the major linchpins holding the veil in place. Ultimately, this creation bares responsibility for the majority of frauds perpetrated against us whether it be the manipulation of the energy industry or the corrupt healthcare system people want to believe is there to "help" them.

It all became possible once we lost sight of how money began to be created in the 1913 (in the US) and other years in other countries, but all the same regardless.

Yes..and the tax money which finances all their evil antics...the money goes into their pockets and is then used to bribe and coerce the system to enslave us more - so ultimately, our taxes pay the cost of keeping us enslaved!

Originally posted by Whereweheaded


Yes, most probably this provided the basis for the argument that the Federal Reserve needed to be set up ...they could see the potential!

edit on 20-12-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by wcitizen

 

I know, but once you do understand, it the veil really does start to disappear. Understanding this is to really start to see the trickery for what it really is.

That is why I use the Federal Reserve as a start in educating people. I then move to the Food Safety Farce

Yes, it's the best place to start - to my cost I learned that talking about Zionism definitely isn't!



If you are aware of the 1970 statement by Henry Kissinger - "Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world." everything becomes clear.

The 1913 Federal Reserve Act and FDR signing the Bretton Woods Agreement (World Bank and IMF) - Control of Money.
Tthe 1995 World Trade Agreement on Agriculture and Waxman's Food Safety farce - Control of Food.

So what else has TPTB, the UN and Waxman been pushing lately? Why its Cap and Trade and Global Warming - Control of Energy.

Pretty darn obvious isn't it?


Once the veil lifts, everything makes much more sense. I remember kind of going into shock at first, and at the same time it was as though hundreds of pieces fell into place and life and the world made so much more sense.

So the lesson I learned from this thread is my income tax goes toward a legal mob group which deals in federal reserve notes.

So to defeat this mob all people would have to do is trade in something other than federal reserve notes. Like beer for example. We could all trade beer instead of federal reserve notes.

Unless you all gotta better idea anyway.

Informative thread, thank you.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Well layed out sir. Although my intent was not to argue for or against ramifications, but rather to add a snippet of info to the discussion. But I'm glad you picked it up. I certainly could not have done it justice the way you did.

Originally posted by Klassified
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Well layed out sir. Although my intent was not to argue for or against ramifications, but rather to add a snippet of info to the discussion. But I'm glad you picked it up. I certainly could not have done it justice the way you did.

It was not at all my intentions to pick on you or your post, only to make clear to anyone considering doing battle with the IRS, that the not properly ratified argument, regarding the 16th Amendment is one those guys love to see people make. It is going down the rabbit hole, which is the last place anyone wants to go regarding the tax code. In my humble opinion, not a single soul understands the tax code and that is key! How can someone be held liable to a five volume set of codes that no one understands?

reply to post by wiredamerican

So to defeat this mob all people would have to do is trade in something other than federal reserve notes. Like beer for example. We could all trade beer instead of federal reserve notes.

While it is not at all clear how the vast majority of people in their professions, or jobs, have been made liable for a tax, regarding the so called "Personal Income Tax", due to a pointed and decidedly tautological and circumlocution of the code, when it comes to distilled spirits, the tax code is remarkably clear on who has been made liable:

§ 5005. Persons liable for tax

(a) General The distiller or importer of distilled spirits shall be liable for the taxes imposed thereon by section 5001 (a)(1).

(In Part)

www.law.cornell.edu...

§ 5001. Imposition, rate, and attachment of tax

(a) Rate of tax (1) General There is hereby imposed on all distilled spirits produced in or imported into the United States a tax at the rate of $13.50 on each proof gallon and a proportionate tax at the like rate on all fractional parts of a proof gallon.

(In Part)

www.law.cornell.edu...

If one intends to barter beer that they distilled, or brewed, then they are undeniably liable for a tax. The key here is to understand, based upon these sections of the code, that this particular "income" tax is not a tax levied directly upon income, but income is what is used to measure how much is owed. The subject of this particular tax is the activity, (an indirect tax), of distillation or importation of spirits. It is not a direct tax on income, but an indirect tax where income is merely used to measure how much is owed.

Understand? I would suggest that the correct answer is NO I DO NOT UNDERSTAND!!!!!! Understanding a code that has no intentions of being understood is not in any ones best interest. While we are all presumed to know the law, the law itself has to be written in a way where the average person can understand it. For the vast majority of people who are claimed to be liable, it is Section 1 of Title 26 U.S.C. that is used to demonstrate that liability. Go to Section 1 of 26 U.S.C. and find out just how easily understood it is.

What I would like to see if just a sales tax instead of an income tax. That would be more fair for everybody.

Originally posted by peter_kandra

Originally posted by gnosticquasar
I have no problem with income taxes. It helps in the upkeep of roads, police, the military, and the like. I wish we could do a flat tax of 15-20% on everybody, on all income, with no exceptions or refunds. It would be so much easier.

I agree with a flat tax. If you consume more, you pay more....everyone would be on a level playing field. The problem then becomes state and local taxes. Do we abolish them and have one flat tax system?

I like the flat tax, too. It is not paying based on consumption; it is paying based on income. For example if you make 200k you pay ten percent and that is much more than the ten percent paid by one who earns 12K. There are no write-offs and no need for the IRS. Too bad we don't have politicans in power to push for this reform.

As far as reforming states and local government taxation systems, that would be up to each state's politicans and voters.

reply to post by wiredamerican

So the lesson I learned from this thread is my income tax goes toward a legal mob group which deals in federal reserve notes.

So to defeat this mob all people would have to do is trade in something other than federal reserve notes. Like beer for example. We could all trade beer instead of federal reserve notes.

Unless you all gotta better idea anyway.

There have been several ideas floating around. The most doable is a State Level idea. I really want to see the Federal Reserve - Hung, Drawn and Quartered - but in the mean time this looks like an alternative.

While bank bailouts fatten Wall Street, states continue to battle the credit crisis. In the search for innovative solutions, some political candidates are proposing that states generate their own credit by setting up their own banks....

Amanda Paulson, writing in The Christian Science Monitor, quotes Arturo Pérez, fiscal analyst with the National Conference of State Legislatures, which released its survey of state budget situations in December:

“Unless you’re North Dakota, you’re probably a state that has had some degree of difficulty or crisis involving finances. It’s the worst situation states have faced in decades, perhaps going as far back as the Great Depression in some states.”

“Unless you’re North Dakota” – a state with a sizeable budget surplus, and the only state that is adding jobs when other states are losing them..

So what is so special about North Dakota? The answer seems to be that it is the only state in the union that owns its own bank. It doesn’t have to rely on a recalcitrant Wall Street for credit. It makes its own.

CAMPAIGNING FOR STATE-OWNED BANKS: www.webofdebt.com...

Also See:

THE GROWING MOVEMENT FOR PUBLICLY-OWNED BANKS: www.webofdebt.com...

The better idea is to get rid of Fractional Reserve banking altogether. It was even discussed in the UK parliament! UK Proposal for Banking Reform: Fractional-Reserve Banking versus Deposits and Loans

The Return to Sound Money
The first step must be a radical and unconditional abandonment of any further inflation. The total amount of dollar bills, whatever their name or legal characteristic may be, must not be increased by further issuance. No bank must be permitted to expand the total amount of its deposits subject to check or the balance of such deposits of any individual customer, be he a private citizen or the U.S. Treasury, otherwise than by receiving cash deposits in legal-tender banknotes from the public or by receiving a check payable by another domestic bank subject to the same limitations. This means a rigid 100 percent reserve for all future deposits; that is, all deposits not already in existence on the first day of the reform (p. 448).


In “Human Action”, Mises said that the government's task is to enforce contracts. Among these contracts are contracts for redeeming money-certificates for money metals on demand. He defined a money-certificate a receipt for a money metal that has 100% of the promised metal in reserve. He said that banks should not be favored by the government. They should not be allowed the right to break contracts, which is what a refusal to redeem money-certificates on demand is. "What is needed to prevent any further credit expansion is to place the banking business under the general rules of commercial and civil laws compelling every individual to fulfill all obligations in full compliance with the terms of the contract"
Mises on Money: www.lewrockwell.com...

AND BOY do the BANKS ignore contract law!

First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Daly (1969)

...to everyone's surprise, Morgan admitted that the bank routinely created money "out of thin air" for its loans, and that this was standard banking practice. "It sounds like fraud to me," intoned Presiding Justice Martin Mahoney amid nods from the jurors. In his court memorandum, Justice Mahoney stated:

"Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, . . . did create the entire $14,000.00 in money and credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note."

Did you get that?

Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note.

ALL those foreclosures that have happened recently are FRAUDULENT! The whole blasted system is nothing but FRAUD!

reply to post by Whyhi


You can doctor it anyway you want to, but the fact remains that if we did not even have a fractional reserve banking monetary system...we wouldn't have any debt.

Its a sham.

Makes sense, since it is tax ON your income, not FOR the government's income.

reply to post by dalan.

You can doctor it anyway you want to, but the fact remains that if we did not even have a fractional reserve banking monetary system...we wouldn't have any debt.

Well put. The bankers are not Venture Capitalists who loan you their own wealth. Instead the bankers draw up a contract that puts you or the US government in debt to them but gives you nothing in return. It is an empty contract and should be null and void.

Testimony by Mr. Morgan, the bank's president,First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Daly (1969)

Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, . . . did create the entire $14,000.00 in money and credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note.
www.webofdebt.com...

"A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note." A contract is not a legal contract unless BOTH parties bring to the table something of similar value. A contract can also be considered null and void if the the difference between values is so unfair as to be considered by the courts unlawful. In other words Granny gets conned out of her mint condition 1927 2-door Brougham Kissel Car for $50 dollars.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


To the laziest?

Sounds like another elitist stereotyping the poor.

Who is the laziest? Only hard workers are rich?