Why does the elite need the federal income tax?

Supposedly the federal banks worldwide are owned by a private body of people. If those banks can print money, why do they need to go through the trouble of scamming people out of their earned money through the income tax, which goes to the central bank, which they turn over to whoever. Cant they just assign themselves 35% of what country X payed out in wages that year?

Lets say it is true that the central banks collect the income tax and forward it to a few powerfull men, why do it that way if you have the power to print yourself some money?

reply to post by Cassius666


IMO money means nothing to them as you say..
But keeping the public broke with higher taxes and charges causes economic collapse..

Then the elite use that money to get what they're after..ASSETS...
Most stocks and infrastructure is now in the hands of the few..
And how much property do you think they now own?

The part I don't get is the simple matter of them only paying taxes on the part of their income they can't hide off shore or get an accountant to lie about.

If they were having to pay on ALL their income, maybe they should find a good place to invest it. Like jobs for those willing to actually work for a living.

It's not about revenue. It never was. Just about control and fear.

How could anyone explain away the government spending millions of dollars and man hours to collect debts of a few thousand?

It's fear and control. Pay up or get your head bashed in.

It's to keep you from becoming and elite - once you are an elete you convert your ill gotten lucre (I've always wanted to use that) into stocks, bonds and investments....

which are taxed at lower rates, ensureing you keep your elete status.


But - if you are a working still - we tax your income at a higher rate.

Consider - Warren Buffet admits his secrtaries pay a higher marginal income tax rate than he does.

reply to post by Cassius666


you might have seen this already but it helped me to understand, kind of

vimeo.com...

Money has never been about what people can buy with it.
It's about control and power.
As long as (we) need it, (they) have control over us.
Money is a tool used by the rulers of the world to keep us doing their bidding all in the name of our own personal gain.
We think we're getting ahead, but all we really do is stay afloat, "barely"
Money is the only way to get otherwise intelligent people to do meaningless things that do not benefit our species as a whole.
I've always wondered that same question. Why don't they just make their own money and leave us the hell alone.
Everyone would be better off. But then again, there goes that control.
If we didn't have to fork over 27-40% of our income, then we would have to work 27-40% less.
Those numbers don't make for good slave labor.

Its just certain claims i have a hard time wrapping my mind around, when it is stated these people made x for money when they print it. For exmaple some people make the claim that the vietnam war was fought in such a way that it does not end, because industrialists were looking to make profit out of it by selling to both sides.

reply to post by Cassius666

Banks have often financed both sides of a war and at very high interest rate..
The looser usually ends up paying..

reply to post by Cassius666


why? it is to keep everyone poor and accounting for everything as a means to control. you know, poor people are much easier to control than free people.

eliminates competition when you are competing to stay rich..

For one it keeps them from paying anything (heck GE paid 0 in taxes) and for two it's a great weapon against adversaries. They can always ruin a rival politician by reviewing his tax return for discrepencies and labeling him a tax evader.

haha, the funny thing is Federal income tax is illegal, at least in Canada but that doesn't stop them from collecting it.... What's that tell you?

Control. To make people poor. To make money for the illuminati, so the government does not have to destroy the currency too quickly (don't kill the goose that lays the golden egg). Any of those reasons are plausible.

For the US...

1. The supreme Court: the highest court in the land that cannot be appealed against said: "the 16th amendment give the government no new powers of taxation."

2. The constitution also says that no direct unapportion tax may be levied against the people at any time. Federal income tax is a direct unapportioned tax.

3. The 16th amendment never received enough votes from the states to be ratified, therefore it is not actually a legal amendment. This HAS been ruled on and decided by the supreme court.

For Canada...

There are two specific sections of the B.N.A. Act that deal with the delegation of authority between the Federal and Provincial Governments. Sections 91 and 92 deal with authority for various types of taxation, who has authority to levy which taxes, and various other areas of jurisdiction.

The Act is very specific in its direction. The right to tax income, known as "direct" tax, was delegated to the provinces; and it was clearly indicated that any monies so raised must be raised provincially, and used for provincial purposes. The Federal Government was denied the right to levy income tax.

But the Supreme Court of Canada goes further. It states that no level or government is allowed to transfer its authority to another level of government, and if transfer were attempted by one level, it could not legally be accepted by another.

On October 3, 1950, the Supreme Court of Canada handed down a decision in the case involving the Lord Nelson Hotel of Halifax, Nova Scotia, against the Attorneys-General of Nova Scotia and Canada. The case involved the transfer of powers from the Provincial to the Federal Government, and was directly related to the income Tax Act. In a seven-judge unanimous decision, the highest court in our land ruled that power transfers cannot legally take place. The Federal Government was given until 1962 to remove itself from all such power-transfer agreements, including the Income tax business, and scrap the Income Tax Act...

Clearly, the Federal Government has no constitutional right to engage in the Income Tax business, or any other type of direct taxation, whether on behalf of itself or on behalf of the provinces. Therefore, the Income Tax Act is, in itself, unconstitutional, and need not to be obeyed...

Originally posted by Cassius666

Supposedly the federal banks worldwide are owned by a private body of people. If those banks can print money, why do they need to go through the trouble of scamming people out of their earned money through the income tax, which goes to the central bank, which they turn over to whoever. Cant they just assign themselves 35% of what country X payed out in wages that year?

Lets say it is true that the central banks collect the income tax and forward it to a few powerfull men, why do it that way if you have the power to print yourself some money?

edit on 14-4-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

It has much to do with the nature of money and compound interest. As well as the History of the United States.
Who have been indebted to England since the very beginning. All of our wars were about this debt to be repaid to England...Revolutionary War, War of 1812....Civil War...the very first Executive Order BTW....

First and foremost all money as we know it, is a fiat currency, in that it isn't backed by gold or anything of real value, but is backed by debt.

In other words, For every Dollar printed, Someone is making payments in some way or form upon it.
The rule of 72 applies here and in essence the longer you can compound interest the longer you can collect interest payments.

The Govt. goes to the FED with their Budget and the FED issues Debt in the form of Bonds to the GOVT.
The GOVT has to repay this debt with interest. TO cover the interest payments on this debt. Our tax dollars are used. So it isn't an actual out of pocket expense for the GOVT per se.
Also as to why the IRS was created, in essence the Collection Agency for the Govt....

Your Birth Certificate and mine were used as collateral by the Govt. to borrow against..based upon our projected tax payments throughout our projected lifespan.

A bond is generated using our income taxes as collateral on the loans made to the Govt. The tax payments pay only the interest on these loans back to the FED and their owner the IMF

The difference being, our tax payments are a direct result of production with our labor. It is debt free money so to speak, and once in the pockets of the FED with no real debt attached it can be reloaned out with interest once again.
And the cycle perpetuates.

This is why they don't need to merely print money which would flood the currency markets with excess paper devaluing the Dollar.

The have an addict addicted to debt called the US Govt. and as long as the population continues to increase, it has plenty more people to borrow against.

Why do you think there is no real concerted effort to stem the flow of illegals into the US ?
This is Due to the fact that they will become more taxpayers to pay into the system !!!!




History of our money and Lincoln planning to print money with no debt involved....same with JFKennedy.
And both Ended up on the wrong end of a gun ....

www.youtube.com...