U.S. Decieved Into Believing There is Such A Thing as Fair Taxation

JPZ's threads are always good.

One, always overlooked, key to the puzzle is the math involved in compound interest. It is "presumed" personal income taxes go to pay for services and that's that. Of course, a tiny bit of digging shows personal income tax goes to pay back the money borrowed in your name, by the government, which had to be borrowed because the government was broke when it signed the deal with the Fed. Taxes on trade pays for services.

The interest in the fiat currency printed (borrowed) is the x factor in the mess. If one borrows 100 dollars from the bank, or the Fed, the interest over the life of the loan will amount to say 900 dollars plus the principal or 1000 dollars. Fair enough, you borrow you pay a penalty that gives the lender a fee that satisfies their compensation for work. We all accept the process as being the best there is, but the problem is that 900 bucks. That 900 bucks isn't printed, but you still have to pay it back even though it doesn't exist! I repeat, the 900 bucks you owe on top of the principal was not printed and does not exist.

Okay, so how do you pay back what does not exist? Well that is of course impossible, BUT..... some arrangement can be made. If you go out and take another persons money, and give that to the bank, your debt will be forgiven, but where to get 900 dollars from? You can work for it, but again that does NOT create the money, only takes it from another.

What you can do, if you are the government, is take the hard assets of other countries. What you can do is make sure that other countries are poor for you to pay back that 900 bucks; someone has to give up something and it can't be the person that borrowed the money because the reason the borrowed in the first place is because the had no money!

The tax thing is a math problem that cannot be solved. Economist ignore this fact, politicians don't understand the facts at all and borrowers are too scared to figure it out. Poor people give and give, there must be poor for there to be compound interest payments, and so it goes. If we collected all of the Federal Reserve Debt Notes (IOU's) tomorrow and gave them back to the Fed, they'd say: well, you owe us the equivalent of those IOU's as the paper is not value but a place holder for value you promised to pay and still owe..... AND, you still owe us the interest. Screw you!

reply to post by crankyoldman


The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax.

~Albert Einstein~

Under the principles of the rule of law, a statute must be understood by any person of average intelligence or better in order for it to have any force or weight of law.

The math in regards to debt is what comes after the fact. Prior to the passage of the "Personal Income Tax" the national debt was around $2 billion, and the tax scheme was sold to pay off the national debt. Instead we are now over $15 trillion and skyrocketing. The "income" tax only made things worse.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by crankyoldman

 

The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax.

~Albert Einstein~

Under the principles of the rule of law, a statute must be understood by any person of average intelligence or better in order for it to have any force or weight of law.

The math in regards to debt is what comes after the fact. Prior to the passage of the "Personal Income Tax" the national debt was around $2 billion, and the tax scheme was sold to pay off the national debt. Instead we are now over $15 trillion and skyrocketing. The "income" tax only made things worse.

Of course, I was merely pointing out the impossibility of the math. Folks actually think that the debt can be "balanced" away, when in fact the math cannot work out. They are pushing the rock up the hill, and yet the brilliant mind control programs have them thinking the end is just in sight - or could be had sooner by simply taxing everyone just a little bit more. Who said that compound interest was the biggest scam every perpetuated? What is so funny is folks actually, after several thousand years, think it's reasonable: except die hard Islam followers and we know what there commitment to no usury gets them.

ah...another thread about how there are no laws from JPZ.

Do you ever know what you're talking about? or do you just couch your rhetoric in quasi-legal speech and citations to convince many on the board that you are far more knowledgeable about the law than you are? I'm sure you will cry ad hominem argument, but honestly - you're worse than the conservative wing of the Supreme Court for striking down almost everything you see as unconstitutional.

As to your point - you ignore completely the fact that Congress is empowered to change the Constitution (as it has rightfully done so many times), thus allowing it to expand the tax powers originally granted to it in Article 1. It is demonstrably a good thing that Congress has been able - through an appropriately stringent process - to grant itself greater powers and to alter the Constitution in its original form.

I hate paying tax as much as anyone, but there can be no arguing that it is necessary to sustain the society that myself (and the majority of people, I suspect) wish to live in.

Originally posted by duality90
ah...another thread about how there are no laws from JPZ.

Do you ever know what you're talking about? or do you just couch your rhetoric in quasi-legal speech and citations to convince many on the board that you are far more knowledgeable about the law than you are? I'm sure you will cry ad hominem argument, but honestly - you're worse than the conservative wing of the Supreme Court for striking down almost everything you see as unconstitutional.

As to your point - you ignore completely the fact that Congress is empowered to change the Constitution (as it has rightfully done so many times), thus allowing it to expand the tax powers originally granted to it in Article 1. It is demonstrably a good thing that Congress has been able - through an appropriately stringent process - to grant itself greater powers and to alter the Constitution in its original form.

I hate paying tax as much as anyone, but there can be no arguing that it is necessary to sustain the society that myself (and the majority of people, I suspect) wish to live in.

Had a sigh of relief after I read this post. Well said.

It seems as though the only reason his posts are deemed credible is because he assumes a tone of superiority in them. His logic has some inherent flaws.

Au contrare
I have always found JPs threads are known for their polite encouragement of thoughtfull debate with many interesting posters at the table
until this page

Just sayin...

The real trouble is: income tax is flat out illegal, immoral, and is just another form of enslavement.
The monies generated by Income tax are being used to fund the removal of rights including the payers' own,
so on the face of it Income tax is patently unfair.


PS when Warren Buffet says the rich should pay more taxes..don't forget to check him out when he is at the head of the other line...
the line that RECIEVES record bailouts made of the liabilities yoked onto the taxpaying pee-on, which are to be paid at ( but never down) forever through income tax

reply to post by duality90

ah...another thread about how there are no laws from JPZ.

You've entered a thread where I have taken another newer member to task by insisting this is not a philosophical debate but a point of law just to begin with that sentence? Do you not even bother to read the threads and just let your knee jerk you around? Come on, Duality! You can do better than that.

Do you ever know what you're talking about? or do you just couch your rhetoric in quasi-legal speech and citations to convince many on the board that you are far more knowledgeable about the law than you are? I'm sure you will cry ad hominem argument, but honestly - you're worse than the conservative wing of the Supreme Court for striking down almost everything you see as unconstitutional.

Even if this were true, that presumed couched rhetoric in quasi-legal speech and citations is far more than you've done with this post of empty rhetoric of which you cannot help but admit is laden with logical fallacy. Further, it is not just I you have issue with, and while you seemingly want to backhand me, you cannot help but compare me to Supreme Court Justices. Hell, you have to know Duality I don't even see that as a backhanded compliment, just a compliment.

As to your point - you ignore completely the fact that Congress is empowered to change the Constitution (as it has rightfully done so many times), thus allowing it to expand the tax powers originally granted to it in Article 1.

Nothing could be further from the truth. First of all, Congress all ready has the complete and plenary power of taxation and needs no expansion. I've all ready stated in this very thread that Congress can tax whatever they please, they only have to abide by two rules. Are you suggesting that Congress has the authority to do away with those rules and that they somehow have done this?

It is demonstrably a good thing that Congress has been able - through an appropriately stringent process - to grant itself greater powers and to alter the Constitution in its original form.

Then demonstrate for all of us, here in this thread, just what the heck you're talking about. What "greater powers" has Congress "granted itself"?

I hate paying tax as much as anyone, but there can be no arguing that it is necessary to sustain the society that myself (and the majority of people, I suspect) wish to live in.

I doubt you hate paying taxes as much as anyone, but if you say so. I have never argued that government should not have the right to tax, and as odious as I find income taxation, I am not even arguing that Congress doesn't have the authority to do this, and if you had read this thread instead of blackening your eyes with your jerked up knee, you would know that.

So, you've made some wild assertions with your post, failing to offer up one scintilla of citation to back up your claims. Are you capable of offering up some facts instead of fairy tales in your next post?

Nice to see you, by the way.

reply to post by de Thor

It seems as though the only reason his posts are deemed credible is because he assumes a tone of superiority in them. His logic has some inherent flaws.

Inherent flaws you are either incapable of demonstrating, or too lazy to be bothered to do so. Either way, your bold assertion reads like empty rhetoric. Do you dare make an actual argument based upon logic, or would you rather just make drive by posts?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


excellent post.

it truly is a purposeful deception.

the current tax "code" is very much unconstitutional.

end of story.

we hold these truths to be self evident.

this was written at the beginning of this great experiment we live in.

you know intrinsically how to conduct yourself with regards to your fellow humans..

theft, as we all know, is wrong.

everyone should watch this..

Originally posted by duality90
I hate paying tax as much as anyone, but there can be no arguing that it is necessary to sustain the society that myself (and the majority of people, I suspect) wish to live in.

you obviously have no idea money is debt otherwise you would know that government services can be funded..

i see your location is the United Kingdom.. you should be familiar with the "Tally Stick", but it seems you are not..

so this leads me to ask, how are you so familiar with the laws of the US? specifically the tax "code"?

if you like, take some time to make yourself familiar with the following videos..

that should change your tone... if not.. you actively do not want the hear the truth.





tally sticks are discussed in section 5

Charge a progressive 0.00005% tax that increases with every dollar earned (wages, dividends, investments, etc).

Someone making $100k would pay 5% (100,000 x 0.00005).
Someone making $200k would pay 10% (200,000 x 0.00005).
Someone making $300k would pay 15% (300,000 x 0.00005).
Someone making $400k would pay 20% (400,000 x 0.00005).
Someone making $500k would pay 25% (500,000 x 0.00005).
Someone making $600k would pay 30% (600,000 x 0.00005).
Someone making $700k would pay 35% (700,000 x 0.00005).
Someone making $800k would pay 40% (800,000 x 0.00005).
Someone making $900k would pay 45% (900,000 x 0.00005).
Someone making $1MIL would pay 50% (1,000,000 x 0.00005).

For Example, if someone is making $67,852.00/yr they would pay 3.39% (67,852 x 0.00005) as their tax rate.

No deductions, no write-offs, no loop-holes. The maximum tax would be capped at 50% which would still allow folks to become ridiculously wealthy.

Very well done thread OP S&F. Your right if more people knew and understood the tax codes they would see something very wrong... No where in the IRS tax code book does it say we are "required" to pay federal income tax, it's voluntary but people go to jail all the time for not paying. Just look at Willie Nelson. State tax yes federal tax NO. We are all groomed to believe the government needs our tax dollars to function. Thats a flat out lie. The states are the government. The government is not a seperate entity that requires a separate tax structure, it should get it's money from the states not the people... For anyone who doesen't really know about this I suggest watching "America Freedom to Fascism" Arron Russo is the man! May he RIP...

This is why I get pissed off at the OWS movement. We are protesting a bunch of people who don't really know they are destroying the country. We MUST work our way up the chain of command. We need to be protesting the federal reserve and the IRS not the people who work for them. Ron Paul is our only saving grace here and if he doesen't get elected we are all screwed this country can't take on another 3.9 trillion in debt.

with Obama's unconstitutinal acceptance of the presidentship of the UN security council and his making of congress superflous with EOs, you have Taxation without representation..
even if the taxes were legal...

Taxation without representation is a big NONO

The credit system applied to federal debt is what screwed America. Outsourcing jobs to other countries and allowing jobs to be sent to China where people are oppressed is another part of what's wrong with America. Taxing the rich at different rates because of loopholes is awarding Americans who make lots of money by letting them keep more of their money because they make more than most. It costs $50,000 a year to keep a prisoner in prison in America which is quite a lot more than the average American makes. We throe people in prison that need treatment not a prison cell. We waste billions of dollars on a fake war on drugs. We should be trying to stop drugs coming in from other countries instead of spending so much money jailing Americans who are addicted to them. America is spending money on wars that have been senseless because nation building is a joke. Look at what we had to go through to build our own nation. Soooo much misspent money and subsidies for big corporations that don't need them. There's so much screwed up stuff going on in America that anything short of a new revolution is a joke.

So is it all taxes you're against?
Remember that man whose house burned down
because his local (tea party?) Rep. thought they didn't need
a tax funded fire department ? Instead implementing a "Pay in case
You Burn" private fire department. He was one of these
"I'm sick of paying taxes" people. So he didn't pay.
His house burned to the ground as the private fire department
watched, in case his fire caught the dues paying neighbors house.

That's the world you want? I know you mean income tax,
but let's not go with income tax just pays debt argument.
Police, Fire, Ambulance, disaster relief?

Maybe y'all can set an example by never using roads?

reply to post by sealing

Maybe y'all can set an example by never using roads?

Maybe you can set an example by actually reading the O.P. and then the rest of the thread instead of just reading a title to a thread and making erroneous assumptions. If you, Duality, and de Thor are the best the IRS have to offer in their defense, the end to that dubious agency is clearly in sight. Of course, to actually engage in the discussion being had would require a modicum of intelligence, and understanding of law.

The only pro income taxation member in this thread who has shown anything near intelligence is gagefather...but then again, he actually bothered to read the thread. Perhaps if I employed rhyming couplets as Dr. Seuss did the rest of you pro income taxation people could understand this thread, Lord knows you haven't a clue what the tax code say's, what the Constitution say's, or anything else about law.

Great post. S&F

May we all keep paying for the mystery "privilege" of being a U.S. Citizen, not that it's based on where you're born or your parents' citizenship status or anything...

According to the Congressional Research Service, the federal income tax is not a tax on income. It is a privilege tax measured by income. In other words, Congress is taxing some government-defined privilege and income is merely the measuring stick to determine the value of the privilege. Nowhere in this report does CRS identify the so-called privilege that is the basis for the tax.

If the income tax is an excise or privilege tax, then what’s the privilege? The nature of this “privilege” has been one of the most closely guarded secrets in American history. Neither the Internal Revenue Service nor members of Congress will identify the privilege.

Source

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Drive by is my style. But it was 2 in the morning when I posted so I guess I was just lazy. Either way, it was my mistake even making my presence known in this thread because I don't wish to engage in this discussion with you. Therefore, I will depart with this:

If your argument was practical, we would be hearing it in the court of law and not reading it in the pages of some thread on ATS.

reply to post by de Thor


So you're saying if it were a "practical" argument it would be heard by a judge, otherwise, it's null and void, huh? I do believe that's a logical fallacy known as a false dichotomy.

Weak sauce, sir, weak sauce.

Originally posted by de Thor
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Drive by is my style. But it was 2 in the morning when I posted so I guess I was just lazy. Either way, it was my mistake even making my presence known in this thread because I don't wish to engage in this discussion with you. Therefore, I will depart with this:

If your argument was practical, we would be hearing it in the court of law and not reading it in the pages of some thread on ATS.

Sure, just like you heard "in a court of law" how corporations were made a person by the SCOTUS...oh wait...you didn't hear that in a court of law, you heard that from the media even though no court of law in the nation ever made any such ruling.

Your ignorance is shameful and why you thought bragging about your ignorance was a bright idea is beyond me.