16th Amendment "TAX"

[Thirdeyex]

April 15th cometh. Cough it up, $heeple.

Article for your evaluation.

http://www.sierratimes.com/archive/artt060900.htm

[Kent]

...we looked at the shattering ruling by a Memphis court of appeals that the Internal Revenue Code does not require an American in one of these United States to pay income tax. Now that ruling will percolate through the national consciousness; more and more people will ask IRS the same thing Vernice Kuglin did – Where is the proof that I’m required to pay? – and our friends at IRS still won’t be able to prove it.

Like a dying monster that in the throes of death is more dangerous than it ever was alive, IRS will become even more vindictive, as our dear friends there contemplate well-deserved unemployment. Communist world government traitor George W. Bush will as always come to their rescue. Either everyone will be locked up, or the income tax will be replaced by some other extortion, such as a national sales tax.

Loyal Americans hate the income tax, but they continue to love America – despite what Bush and Clinton and other traitors have done to it – and they worry: Without the income tax, would the government they love collapse? I believe that if enough Americans knew it would not collapse, they would force an end to the putrid, totalitarian monster the income tax has predictably become.
.........

Fukk article http://www.etherzone.com/2003/stang082203.shtml

[Thirdeyex]

Unfortunately, they will institute a National then Global tax to make up for the demise of the current system. In amerika, all you have to do is rename something and the sheeple can’t tell the difference.

Happy April 15th :)

[T. Daves]

Okay, I'll bite what would be wrong with a national sales tax. A person who makes 1,000,000 dollars a year would have to pay the same amount as I would for a new dining room table, instead of being able to take it off his taxes as a business expense because he holds a business party at his home.

[lucille]

A national sales tax has been debated as a good way to net receipts instead of an income tax. One reason it has not been welcomed across the board is that a sales tax is inherently regressive, meaning the poor end up paying relatively more or their incomes. The rich can save and invest, while the poor spend most of their incomes just on living. There is a proposal called the Schaefer-Tauzin bill which gives a certain rebate tied to the poverty level which tends to equalize the percentages and perhaps even make the tax progressive, where the wealthy pay a slightly higher percentage of tax..

[T. Daves]

Okay, here in Texas we have an 8.25% sales tax I buy a bill of groceries and as long as the things i buy are non-taxable I don't pay the tax. A poor person wouldn't be able to buy the soda-pops in the store because they are taxed. Or they could do like everyone else and pay the tax for something that they don't neccesarily need but want. Buy way of helping the country, and ourselves, from being picked apart by all the foreign countries that we deal with, we should also levey a surcharge on all the economic aid we send to other countries, instead of forgiveing the debts owed this country.

[Thirdeyex]

The National Sales Tax: Cooking the Numbers

Excerpted from Robert S. McIntyre, New York Times, Jan. 25, 1998

Earlier this month, the well-financed group Americans for Fair Taxation, based in Texas, kicked off a sales-tax campaign with a full-page advertisement in several large newspapers. It called for replacing all the main Federal taxes--personal and corporate income taxes, payroll taxes and the estate tax--with a 23 percent national retail sales tax.

According to the group, such a plan would raise exactly as much money as current laws do, while cutting taxes for just about everyone. The group's plan has been implicitly endorsed by Representative Bill Archer, a Republican from Texas, the chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee and a longtime sales-tax fan and income-tax hater.

I was curious about how the group did its arithmetic, so I checked out its Web site--www.fairtax.org--and sent a note to the E-mail address to get further information about the group's calculations.

According to the group's figures, at 1995 levels a new sales tax would have to raise $1.36 trillion to replace all Federal income taxes, payroll taxes and estate and gift taxes. Under its plan, the group says, taxable spending would be $4.6 trillion (after accounting for rebates to partly protect lower-income families).So, $1.36 trillion divided by $4.6 trillion would be the required sales tax rate. Fine, except that $1.36 trillion divided by $4.6 trillion is not 23 percent. It's about 30 percent.

It turns out that the group's purported 23 percent tax rate is misleading and hypothetical. It came up with that number by dividing the sales tax by the cost of a purchase plus the tax. So if the tax on a $100 purchase is $30, the group prefers to call it a 23 percent "tax inclusive rate" ($30 divided by $130). Ever hear of computing a sales tax like that?

(Ahh, I see. Tax a $1.00 product up to $1.30, and the .30 tax is only 23% of the resulting $1.30 total.... although, the consumer is, er, paying 30% more)

The fact that the group's sales tax, even by its own figures, entails a 30 percent tax rate is only the beginning of the math problems. The group's backup materials also assert that almost a third of its projected sales-tax revenue is supposed to come from taxes the Government will pay to itself. Build a road, pay yourself a tax. Buy some planes for the Air Force, pay yourself some more. And so on.

Unfortunately, that shell game won't work. Without these phantom governmental tax payments, the sales tax rate would have to jump to 42 percent to break even.

(Hmm, that's right. Our current gargantuan Federal Government transacts 20 to 25% percent of the aggregate purchasing done in the GDP. And since the Government doesn't pay sales tax on purchases that it is funding by sales tax revenues, all that aggregate purchasing is getting paid for by the remaining 75 to 80% Private Economy... raising the sales tax into the 42% range.

Now, I wonder, if the government is paying - with private sales taxes - $1.00 for goods and services that private individuals have to spend $1.42 [with sales tax] for... would that finance cheap growth of the Government sector at the expense of the Private Sector? Hmmm....)

A bit more digging reveals that a quarter of the remaining sales taxes are supposed to be paid on things like church services, free care at veterans hospitals and a variety of hard-to-tax financial services like free checking accounts. If we discount the taxes on these items, the sales tax rate would have to climb to an astronomical 56 percent to break even.

(my, from a stifling 42% up to a strangling 56%. Well, I guess you could tax churches... and veteran's hospitals... who cares if they served their country?)

Apparently, the millions of dollars that Americans for Fair Taxation says it has spent on focus groups and polling have taught it an important lesson: giving people the real facts about a national sales tax is politically disastrous for its proponents. So the group is trying the only other available route: cooking the numbers.

(Well, as long as you tax the transactions of currently untaxed areas... like religious services and veterans hospitals and so on... then the "revenue-neutral" sales tax is only 42%! I'm sure that a Private Sector paying $1.42 for goods and services that the Government can purchase for $1.00 won't grow Government, at the Private Sector's expense, whatsoever.

And this by the "Fair Tax" Group's own numbers, at that. My.)

2.IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Not an Excise
Not a Duty
Not an Impost
Not a Direct Tax Apportioned proportional to the Census

The Constitution of these United States
from Section VIII --- The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
from Section IX --- No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

Excise --- Funk & Wagnalls online: "tax imposed on the domestic manufacture, sale, or consumption of specific commodities, or on licenses to pursue certain occupations and exercise certain corporate privileges. Excises are fixed, absolute charges, usually levied for the purpose of raising revenue, and are, in effect, indirect consumption taxes."
Duty --- Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary online: "A government tax on imports or exports."
Impost --- Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary online: "That which is imposed or levied; a tax, tribute, or duty; especially, a duty or tax laid by government on goods imported into a country." Proportion --- Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary online: "...3. To divide into equal or just shares; to apportion."

The National Sales Tax is not an Excise. It is not a specific, fixed, absolute charge on a particular commodity. It is a general, percentage-based and therefore variable (based on variable market price) Tax which is charged universally on all transactions, commodities or services.

The National Sales Tax is not a Duty or Impost. It is not a tax solely levied on imports or exports.

The National Sales Tax is not a Direct Tax proportional to the actual census of the population of the Several States. It is a Direct Tax which is proportional to consumption - which can vary a great deal from State population to State population.

More Tax Reform: National Sales Tax vs. Income Tax

Free Enterprise Society, editorial, July 1996

"Since the Republicans have taken over the House of Representatives one of the major political issues has been tax reform. “I think the federal income tax, in its current form, is gone,” Newt Gingrich explained in a radio broadcast. Gingrich further explained that proposals to replace the federal income tax with a flat tax or a consumption tax are looming which would “literally eliminate the federal income tax so the IRS will have nothing to say or do about your personal life.” But not all are in agreement. While Senator Nunn agreed that tax change is a future major issue, he doesn’t desire a flat tax rate. He explained that he will promote his own tax reform package, which would make personal savings and corporate investments tax deductible. Nunn explained that, “What I worry about is a flat tax not lasting. You do away with all the exemptions, you make a flat tax and then three years later you get a rate increase — a big rate increase. So I would prefer to see ours, but the flat tax will be very much debated in the next six or eight months.”

Okay folks, listen up. The flat tax is nothing more than an income tax in disguise, so that type of tax will change very little.

But lets take the National Sales Tax advocates as their philosophies are not only disturbing, but as well, contrary to what the “Freedom Movement” is attempting to achieve, i.e., limited constitutional government. There are several important points about the National Sales Tax which no one seems to want to discuss...

First, it is not needed. Again, we don’t need a tax to replace the income tax.

Second, there is no constitutional authority for this tax. Can somebody please show me where in the constitution the government has been given the authority to come into the state and tax sales transactions between state citizens and state businesses? Interstate commerce is necessary to trigger federal authority.

Third, a national sales tax would serve to impose another unfunded federal mandate upon the states as the federal government would want the state to collect the tax and forward it to the federal government through their taxing agents.

Fourth, and more importantly, a national sales tax, regardless of how you wish to frame it, would serve to regulate commerce between a man and a man in a state, which does not extend to or affect other states. This would be an absolute violation of the commerce power. See Justice Thomas’ concurring opinion in United States v. Lopez.

Fifth, the theory that the national sales tax would replace the income tax is unfounded.

Oh, the government may suspend the income tax for a while, or water it down, but it will be back. You see, the sales tax advocates have the mistaken belief that the income tax is solely for revenue collection, when revenue collection is the least of its concerns. It is axiomatic that if the income tax system goes, the money system has to go. There may be an alternative, and that is make the national sales tax as oppressive as the income tax so the excess spending wealth, i.e, inflation is drawn off the market as it is created.

Folks, the theory that we replace the income tax, with another un-needed tax, which the government has no power to levy, is like asking a dictator to shoot you in the head with a steel-jacketed bullet, rather than with a hollow point.

And, the theory that we can rid ourselves of the income tax by convincing the people that a national sales tax is better and worry about eliminating the national sales tax later is the epitome of naivete.

I think it is time for everybody to read “The Prince” written by Machiavelli. The government is throwing red herrings at us with this tax reform ploy. There will be no reform, just more new and improved ways of collecting taxes. In short, as long as the government thinks it has the power to levy an income tax, we will have one, regardless of the form it takes. That is one thing Nunn and Gingrich agree on, i.e., some type of income tax.

Think of the national sales tax as a tax in addition to the income tax, not in replacement thereof, and please, read “The Prince” so you understand what your government is really doing to you. A national sales tax would not have constitutional sanction, regardless if it could feasibly replace the income tax.

Why, then, would we the people want our government to levy an unconstitutional tax? To replace one that has been declared constitutional over and over again? Why would we encourage our government to continue to usurp the power granted to it? Why would we encourage our government to commit a wrong to fix a wrong?

The main reason given by the sales tax advocates is that the people won’t accept an abolition of the income tax without a replacement. That may be true now but not in the future. Good things take time and truth will prevail as long as we keep expounding the truth, not another lie. People will and DO understand the need to abolish the income tax when informed of the true nature of the beast. It is time to stop this nonsense about convincing the majority of people to accept an alternative tax system to the income tax system. To do otherwise is to promote injustice, and there is not, nor can there be, any excuse for that type of conduct.

Also, I would remind you that when you encourage conduct by your government which is wrong, you shall reap what you sow.

Think about it. Think about it real hard."

Just Say No To The National Sales Tax

Free Enterprise Society, editorial, June 1999

"This issue needs to be re-visited again as too many patriots are jumping on this government sanctioned bandwagon. As well, a great concern has arisen among us at Free Enterprise Society as it appears many in the patriot movement have adopted a conciliatory posture and chosen to accept anything tossed at them by the government just to temporarily do away with the income tax. And worse, they appear not to be concerned that two wrongs do not make a right.

What happened to the fight to eliminate the income tax by exposing the fraud and deception of this tax? What happened to the proposition of restoration of constitutional government and taxation? How did the fight degenerate to replacing the income tax, a complete fraud, with an unconstitutional National Sales Tax? Has anyone considered the fact that the Freedom Movement, at least when I discovered it, was against confiscatory taxation, was for limited constitutional government, and decried government lawlessness? There is no argument which can justify replacement of the income tax with any type of alternative tax.

If it were conceded that a National Sales Tax had constitutional sanction, which it is not, that is not the solution to eliminating the income tax and the restoration of constitutional government. Currently the government, and I mean each and every branch, refuses to recognize the fact, and it is a fact, that the 16th Amendment was not ratified. All the government has to do to eliminate the income tax, is admit the 16th Amendment was not ratified. This isn’t hard - in fact it is a no-brainer. The problem of course, is that the government intends to keep the income tax if we let them.

Just because the federal government replaces the income tax with a sales tax, what makes anyone think the States would do the same thing? Consider this, most of the States already have an income tax and a sales tax so there would be no reason for the states to dump their income tax laws. And, take notice of one small fact folks - if the people will tolerate both a sales tax and income tax on the state level as they already do, why wouldn’t they tolerate the same at the federal level? Let’s face it, that is exactly what we are being set up for, and more amazingly, they are getting our help. Talk about cutting our own throats!

Further, if the temporary replacement, (and I mean temporary) of the income tax is the end of the race we are running, perhaps one could justify an argument for the National Sales Tax. However, it is not. Our race ends only after we have eliminated the income tax by exposing it’s fraud and deception and restoring constitutional government. Why have we forgotten this?

But, if the patriots sell replacement of the income tax to Joe-Six-Pack as the race we are running, to gain Joe’s participation in the movement, and it happens, Joe will stop at that point, because Joe will believe that the race is over.

More importantly, if a National Sales Tax is adopted, it leaves the promoters of the National Sales Tax right back where they were in the beginning, i.e., fighting confiscatory taxation and a federal government run amok.

Anyway, the National Sales Tax will not be paid by everyone, as, if it is oppressive, a black market like nothing the government has ever seen will explode on to the scene. The theory that everyone will pay their fair share, is not well-taken. And, if a black market becomes huge, the government will need the IRS to enforce collection of its sales tax. As for returns, you better believe there will be tax returns filed by someone as that is the only way to account for the total taxes collected by a business. Is it really to be expected that our good and great government will just accept a business’ representations as to how much tax it collected on sales transactions?

Those promoting a National Sales Tax boldly proclaim that the tax is constitutional, and could be constitutionally administered, but they wholly fail to explain how. Now maybe it’s just me, but unless the National Sales Tax is going to operate as an excise tax on products, and not sales transactions, I can’t find any constitutional authority for it. (Side note --- excises are specific. That is their meaning. That is their intent. Anyone want an Excise system that lists for excise every single type of product in the Economy? Oh, don't forget that you have to shylock the Supreme Court into believing that excises apply to Services, which they don't.) If this type of tax did not have constitutional problems don’t you think the government would have implemented it long ago? After all, which of its taxing powers hasn’t it already abused?

The National Sales Tax is a classic example of how the people keep giving, and the government keeps taking.

SUMMARY

1. The patriots are winning this war today. This is evidenced by the fact that congress is now seriously looking at replacing this so called tax. The reason is simple: over 30 million people have stopped filing returns, by the IRS’s own spokesman. The income tax is now falling apart. Victory is at hand if we keep our end goal clear. NO INCOME TAX! NO UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAXES! NO REPLACEMENTS!

2. The government is looking now to protect their retirements and other perks that the income tax has illegally provided them all these years. Let’s face it, this has been the corrupt politicians’ cash cow. And what magically appears? A replacement for the income tax that Congress now says has to go. (Give me a break.)

3. As long as the government believes they have the power to implement an income tax, we will ALWAYS have one. With, or without, a so-called replacement. We must continue to teach how this so-called tax uses deception and fraud to take the peoples’ money and get rid of it once and for all, by exposing that there is no constitutional authority to implement such a tax. NOT THEN! NOT NOW!

4. Don’t let those who have been stealing from us, off the hook. By supporting a replacement it looks as if the income tax is legal. And worse, it will make heroes of the very legislators who help bring in a new unconstitutional alternative tax.

5. FULL SPEED AHEAD! GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH."

[lucille]

Third: I see a lot of criticism here, of the tax system; that can be a good thing. However, while you are quick to point fault, you have yet to take the time to address difficult issues such as what public spending IS needed, and how to fund that spending.
Knocking something down is not that hard. If you think it is heroic to tear something down and then leave, I believe you are mistaken. Taking time for critical thought, to see exactly what is needed, and how it could be done, requires strength and intellectual courage.
You are most critical of the present tax system, and indeed it is difficult to use and navigate, and not very user friendly. It could use change. What are your ideas for replacement?

[Kent]

........."According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," Rumsfeld admitted.

$2.3 trillion — that's $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America. To understand how the Pentagon can lose track of trillions, consider the case of one military accountant who tried to find out what happened to a mere $300 million.

"We know it's gone. But we don't know what they spent it on," said Jim Minnery, Defense Finance and Accounting Service. ........


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml

Not 2.3 million, not 2.3 billion, but 2.3 TRILLION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
They find THIS, then we can talk about alternatives!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[lucille]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml

Not 2.3 million, not 2.3 billion, but 2.3 TRILLION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
They find THIS, then we can talk about alternatives!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


No, if you do not talk alternatives, you will be left with nothing, and there are some programs that require planning. Stop taking the comfy way out. Put up a proposal.

[Kent]

No, if you do not talk alternatives, you will be left with nothing, and there are some programs that require planning. Stop taking the comfy way out. Put up a proposal.

Sorry, Lucille, I am not buying.

They are the stewards of OUR money and have failed miserably. Any "alternatives" put in place will only lead to the same shenanigans.

These #$#%#$%)$# v )#$)#$%% have "lost" damn near 3 TRILLION of OUR "dollars".

Would you give $5000 to someone that flings their money out their cars window?

I pretty much guarantee you wouldn't like my "alternatives".

[Thirdeyex]

Solution:

Cut all ties to the World Bank and reclaim our land and resources. Erase the Federal Reserve and the IRS from the face of the earth. Reestablish the jurisdiction of the federal government to its original borders and intent. Try all current and past Judges, Senators, Congressmen, and Presidents for treason. Reinstate the 13th amendment and remove all lawyers from public office. Eliminate the BAR “British Accredited Registry” and institute Justice. Impose tariffs on all communist countries and penalize American businesses that have relocated there. Halt all foreign aid UNTIL we can take care of our own. Back our currency with gold and silver. Voters must be property owners. Enforce all immigration laws. And for the first time have the government audited. That should free up a few trillion.
I’m sorry, each of these areas would require volumes of information to detail there need.

There are no social programs. Socialism is a disease to the body of a free America. As in the past, social programs were from the donations of the charitable. And if we become Americans again, you will find that we are the most charitable, industrious, creative people in the world when we can keep our wealth and property.

I wrote this on another thread:

“A man and woman were walking along a river when they noticed bodies of children being carried by the current. Stunned and horrified they identified that some were still alive but drowning fast. They immediately rushed into the fast moving river to drag out the survivors. But the bodies kept coming. Exhausted but determined they would brave the waters and pull out the survivors. Finally the man began to head up the river ignoring the poor drowning children. The woman looked at the man in astonishment and said “how can you be so heartless, we must save as many as we can” The man looked back and said “I’m going to the source to stop it.”
(author unknown)

[lucille]

Come on. Kent, get the lead out and stand up for what you are saying. I GIVE you that change is needed; but if the old system is trashed, a new one MUST be instituted. What do you think it should be?

Stop dancing around and take this problem on and address it like the man I know you are.....

[Kent]

Come on. Kent, get the lead out and stand up for what you are saying. I GIVE you that change is needed; but if the old system is trashed, a new one MUST be instituted. What do you think it should be?

Stop dancing around and take this problem on and address it like the man I know you are.....

Well, well, well! :dgrin:

What thirdeyex said, and add

1) revoke all executive orders. They are misused. Originally intended only as rules for the executive branch but have evolved into a law making device applicable to the entire country.

2) trash the Dept of Education. Return power to the states where it belongs
In fact, ALL cabinet level postitions need to be reevaluated.

3) The federal gov is to promote the general welfare, not provide it. Proberbs says it best: if a man will not work, let him not eat. Sorry folks, laziness is NOT a disability. If a person CANNOT work, help him/her. No problem.
Hunger is a good motivator.

3) the pharmaceutical industry needs "some looking into" since medicare/medicaid is a big expense. We're getting reamed BIG TIME there...

What ThirdeyeX said plus this would be a good start. Then we can think about tax alternatives when we know the TRUE expenses.

[Kent]

I would also add
4) end the regulatory authority of federal agencies. This is another way around the legislature to enact "laws", and are not accountable to the public.

Some of these only affect taxes tangentially. They restore freedoms lost and will go a long way towards increasing the standard of living, when the artificial roadblocks are removed.

[lucille]

Kent, you and Third did a good job verbalizing what you think.
There are huge changes that y'all propose. I would like to ask a question or so at a time just to see where your thoughts are on some particular matters. First, Third's abolition of the IRS; I believe that there needs to be SOME public spending; where do you get the funds, and who collects them?

Second; the removal of attorneys from public office; you have your rights to think as you wish, but I am not sure where it would help you to prevent honest and concerned citizens like myself from doing my part. Most public attorney positions, btw, like DAs and so on, pay far less than an attorney can get in the private market. Are you really saying you do not want people like me, who are asking, studying, planning, and gathering information in the hopes of being able to help do my part in the future?

OK, let's talk about these, but y'all have provided LOTS of thought provoking ideas in the last few posts....

[Thirdeyex]

What public spending are you talking about?

As for your second question many have said it better than myself.

INTERNATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION
In Colonial America, attorneys trained attorneys but most held no "title of nobility" or "honor". There was no requirement that one be a lawyer to hold the position of district attorney, attorney general, or judge; a citizen's "counsel of choice" was not restricted to a lawyer; there were no state or national bar associations. The only organization that certified lawyers was the International Bar Association (IBA), chartered by the King of England, headquartered in London, and closely associated with the international banking system. Lawyers admitted to the IBA received the rank "Esquire" -- a "title of nobility". "Esquire" was the principle title of nobility which the 13th Amendment sought to prohibit from the United States. Why? Because the loyalty of "Esquire" lawyers was suspect. Bankers and lawyers with an "Esquire" behind their names were agents of the monarchy, members of an organization whose principle purposes were political, not economic, and regarded with the same wariness that some people today reserve for members of the KGB or the CIA.
Article 1, Sect. 9 of the Constitution sought to prohibit the International Bar Association (or any other agency that granted titles of nobility) from operating in America. But the Constitution neglected to specify a penalty, so the prohibition was ignored, and agents of the monarchy continued to infiltrate and influence the government (as in the Jay Treaty and the US Bank charter incidents). Therefore, a "title of nobility" amendment that specified a penalty (loss of citizenship) was proposed in 1789, and again in 1810. The meaning of the amendment is seen in its intent to prohibit persons having titles of nobility and loyalties to foreign governments and bankers from voting, holding public office, or using their skills to subvert the government.
HONOR
The missing Amendment is referred to as the "title of nobility" Amendment, but the second prohibition against "honour" (honor), may be more significant.
According to David Dodge, Tom Dunn, and Webster's Dictionary, the archaic definition of "honor" (as used when the 13th Amendment was ratified) meant anyone "obtaining or having an advantage or privilege over another". A contemporary example of an "honor" granted to only a few Americans is the privilege of being a judge: Lawyers can be judges and exercise the attendant privileges and powers; non-lawyers cannot.
By prohibiting "honors", the missing Amendment prohibits any advantage or privilege that would grant some citizens an unequal opportunity to achieve or exercise political power. Therefore, the second meaning (intent) of the 13th Amendment was to ensure political equality among all American citizens, by prohibiting anyone, even government officials, from claiming or exercising a special privilege or power (an "honor") over other citizens.
If this interpretation is correct, "honor" would be the key concept in the 13th Amendment. Why? Because, while "titles of nobility" may no longer apply in today's political system, the concept of "honor" remains relevant. For example, anyone who had a specific "immunity" from lawsuits which were not afforded to all citizens, would be enjoying a separate privilege, an "honor", and would therefore forfeit his right to vote or hold public office. Think of the "immunities" from lawsuits that our judges, lawyers, politicians, and bureaucrats currently enjoy. As another example, think of all the "special interest" legislation our government passes: "special interests" are simply euphemisms for "special privileges"

Learn more:
http://users.frii.com/gosplow/13th.html

[Kent]

IRS agents (mis)represent themselves as agents (representatives) of the federal gov. They commit perjury every time they testify as such. They are not a part of the Treasury dept, like most think.

I -believe- that the Congressional Record (may be another .gov publication) lists all .gov agencies. The IRS is not listed. Trying them for extortion, followed immediately by drawing and quartering would be appropriate. The only real argument would be whether we arrange their heads alphabetically or by seniority. (That argument could get a little heated....)

Something I do not know: Who collected taxes before the IRS? Once the tax code is cleaned up, collecting taxes shouldnt be a problem, IMO.

FWIW, I do not mind the income tax per se. What I object to is the way it was implemented, and the total lack of fiscal responsibility of our beloved leaders. Why should I or anyone else subsidize that?

I realize that it takes money to fund the constitutionally mandated functions of the Federal .gov and it takes taxes do this. I would gladly pay my share if I knew it was being used responsibly.

As far as the lawyers, I realize that there are good and bad in any occupation. I don't think I have ever said otherwise, but if I did then I was wrong (or being a smartass)
If they do their best to protect the public, I like them. If they are in it for their own enrichment then thats another story

[Thirdeyex]

When the Constitution was established, it gave Congress full and all embracing taxing powers. Except for the prohibition against taxing exports. The Constitution laid down two rules by which the two classes of taxes were to be governed. They were the rule of apportionment as to direct taxes, and the rule of uniformity as to indirect taxes (duties, imposts and excises). However, when the MONEY-CHANGERS (bankers) took over control of our Treasury in 1913, they needed a way to collect the interest (tribute) from our nation. It was just a coincidence the 16th Amendment (Income Tax) was also passed in 1913? The IRS is nothing more than the collection agency of the tribute the Federal Reserve charges us on their "worthless" paper money.

[Kent]

When the Constitution was established, it gave Congress full and all embracing taxing powers.

I knew and understand that, but were the checks written to congress or was there a genuine fed agency? I tried to find this info myself with no luck

[Thirdeyex]

I knew and understand that, but were the checks written to congress or was there a genuine fed agency? I tried to find this info myself with no luck

No. There was a real U.S. Treasury when our money had value. The check went there.

[lucille]

What public spending are you talking about?

As for your second question many have said it better than myself.

INTERNATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION
In Colonial America, attorneys trained attorneys but most held no "title of nobility" or "honor". There was no requirement that one be a lawyer to hold the position of district attorney, attorney general, or judge; a citizen's "counsel of choice" was not restricted to a lawyer; there were no state or national bar associations. The only organization that certified lawyers was the International Bar Association (IBA), chartered by the King of England, headquartered in London, and closely associated with the international banking system. Lawyers admitted to the IBA received the rank "Esquire" -- a "title of nobility". "Esquire" was the principle title of nobility which the 13th Amendment sought to prohibit from the United States. Why? Because the loyalty of "Esquire" lawyers was suspect. Bankers and lawyers with an "Esquire" behind their names were agents of the monarchy, members of an organization whose principle purposes were political, not economic, and regarded with the same wariness that some people today reserve for members of the KGB or the CIA.
Article 1, Sect. 9 of the Constitution sought to prohibit the International Bar Association (or any other agency that granted titles of nobility) from operating in America. But the Constitution neglected to specify a penalty, so the prohibition was ignored, and agents of the monarchy continued to infiltrate and influence the government (as in the Jay Treaty and the US Bank charter incidents). Therefore, a "title of nobility" amendment that specified a penalty (loss of citizenship) was proposed in 1789, and again in 1810. The meaning of the amendment is seen in its intent to prohibit persons having titles of nobility and loyalties to foreign governments and bankers from voting, holding public office, or using their skills to subvert the government.
HONOR
The missing Amendment is referred to as the "title of nobility" Amendment, but the second prohibition against "honour" (honor), may be more significant.
According to David Dodge, Tom Dunn, and Webster's Dictionary, the archaic definition of "honor" (as used when the 13th Amendment was ratified) meant anyone "obtaining or having an advantage or privilege over another". A contemporary example of an "honor" granted to only a few Americans is the privilege of being a judge: Lawyers can be judges and exercise the attendant privileges and powers; non-lawyers cannot.
By prohibiting "honors", the missing Amendment prohibits any advantage or privilege that would grant some citizens an unequal opportunity to achieve or exercise political power. Therefore, the second meaning (intent) of the 13th Amendment was to ensure political equality among all American citizens, by prohibiting anyone, even government officials, from claiming or exercising a special privilege or power (an "honor") over other citizens.
If this interpretation is correct, "honor" would be the key concept in the 13th Amendment. Why? Because, while "titles of nobility" may no longer apply in today's political system, the concept of "honor" remains relevant. For example, anyone who had a specific "immunity" from lawsuits which were not afforded to all citizens, would be enjoying a separate privilege, an "honor", and would therefore forfeit his right to vote or hold public office. Think of the "immunities" from lawsuits that our judges, lawyers, politicians, and bureaucrats currently enjoy. As another example, think of all the "special interest" legislation our government passes: "special interests" are simply euphemisms for "special privileges"

Learn more:
http://users.frii.com/gosplow/13th.html

Irrelevant BS. I was asking YOU about ME. We know of each other; and instead of making an honest assessment of me and my proposed future in helping others as an attorney, you are copying and posting obfuscatory BS, much like I believe you view the gov't as doing.

Now, put away all the posing and let's talk person to person. I know you've got it in you somewhere. :)

[Rich Z]

I would propose a REAL flat tax. Not one of the fake ones with a flat percentage but a FLAT $$ charge per person. Run the government like a business should. Figure out your budget for the year, then figure out your projected revenue (via the census, they should know approximately how many people are living in the USA) Divide the budget by the number of USA citizens and you come up with a figure per person needed to run the government for the year. Send each person a bill for that figure. If you want to be a USA citizen for that year, you pay the bill. If you don't, well use the money instead to pay for passage to the country of your choice.

It's not fair because you won't use all of the facilities that someone else does? How would that be any different then it is now? You say the rich should pay more then the poor? Why? What are they getting for spending more money to run the government? Why should the tax system be a disincentive for people to earn more by working harder?

Just the money and effort alone that would be saved on what it takes to figure out your taxes and try to determine which deductions you can take and how you can sidestep paying some via an obscure loophole would be some REAL money the GNP could use for other things. No muss, no fuss, you get a bill on January 1 and you have till April 15th to pay it. All the IRS would have to do is to figure out who didn't pay their bill on April 15th and go after them. You pay your bill, and you are off their radar screen.

There is NO cheating on taxes, you either paid or you didn't. There are no bogus tax writeoffs, that's the bill you owe with no discounts or exceptions. No keeping complicated records and getting tax forms that require other forms for every line item on the original tax form. You get the bill, write the check, and you are done with it for another year.

Yeah, the devil will be in the details, but can it possibly be any worse then it is now?

[lucille]

The basic idea is good, but it may turn out to be too regressive if the total bill (are we saying there is no corporate tax?) turns out to be, let's say, $20,000/year. Rich folks will have no problems with that, but young people just starting out, those with low paying jobs,etc. will have a difficult time, as will the medically ill and mothers who choose to stay at home.
Details, details......but the basic idea is solid. Any ideas of how to take the regressive edge off?

[Kent]

IMO it's pointless to speak of alternatives until the mess is cleaned up. If they lost track of nearly 3 TRILLION dollars, what good are replacement schemes? It will happen all over again, money will just "vanish". Unless this is cleaned up, who knows how much money is needed?

Put another way, someone comes in to your OR with a cut femoral artery. Will you treat his acne first? We have to stop the hemmoraging(sp?) before anything else.
We're bleeding to death here.

[Rich Z]

Well, I did a quick search for the figures needed and here's what I came up with.

Current US Budget proposed for 2005 = 2.6 Trillion dollars.

US Census as of year 2000 = 295,869,128

Bill to be sent to every US citizen = $8,787.67.

OUCH!! Obviously the US government needs to stop spending so much! :rolleyes:

So maybe the government needs to go about this differently from what I first proposed. Instead, use the census figures, multiply that times a reasonable figure for everyone to pay, and THAT is their budget.

[lucille]

What about Schaefer-Tauzin, where you tie some sort of rebate to the poverty line? Or is that a slippery slope to different treatment of different folks, just like we have now?

[Thirdeyex]

Irrelevant BS. I was asking YOU about ME. We know of each other; and instead of making an honest assessment of me and my proposed future in helping others as an attorney, you are copying and posting obfuscatory BS, much like I believe you view the gov't as doing.

Now, put away all the posing and let's talk person to person. I know you've got it in you somewhere. :)

Objection.
Idle banter has no relevance.
The defendant does not recognize nor will address the problem. :smash:
Just kidding

Lucille,
Trying to be a little bit socialist is like being a little bit pregnant.

You keep speaking of the poor and elderly.(social programs) :sobstory:

Let’s take a look at America during the depression. (Poorest condition)
If you read history the values of the past were the extended family. Children stayed home until young adulthood many times having children but the extended family was designed to handle this situation. The elderly would look after the children passing on the values and history giving the elderly purpose and the children a SAFE environment to be raised. The parents could save enough money to buy their own property or the entire family would by property together. We have witnessed the deliberate attack on the traditional family unit and its values, simply look at what this country has reaped from the “progressive” thinkers.

We must have value to our currency and that value needs to be in the hands of the people.
Fiat currency ALWAYS FAILS! If you do not have the right to own property and keep your wealth you are a subject, slave, and chattel.
(If you do not know what Fiat currency is, its time to study!)

Quit saving the drowning children and go to the source.

You cannot stop crime by becoming a criminal. The current law system is designed to protect the fraud that has been perpetrated on the American people. You are in a catch 22. If you work in the system, you will continue the fraud and if you expose the system you will be disbarred and cannot practice law. This system has been very effective in silencing those who wish to tell the truth. If you try to publish information on constitutional law they will say that you are giving legal advice which in turn is practicing law and again will be disbarred. All cases that expose and/or beat the system have been sealed and no other person can sight them. If I remember correctly, you cannot sight case law before 1938 and have it received as such. There were 5 Geneva conventions 1929-1933 of which the countries involved declared bankruptcy turning there assets over to the world banking organization. A new system of law was superimposed over the existing system and all they needed was a case law decision to provide a foothold for contractual law to take over. They had to wait 5 years for this case:

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

304 U.S. 64
Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

No. 367 Argued: January 31, 1938 --- Decided: April 25, 1938

1. The liability of a railroad company for injury caused by negligent operation of its train to a pedestrian on a much-used, beaten path on its right-of-way along and near the rails depends, in the absence of a federal or state statute, upon the unwritten law of the State where the accident occurred. Pp. 71 et seq.
2. A federal court exercising jurisdiction over such a case on the ground of diversity of citizenship, is not free to treat this question as one of so-called "general law," but must apply the state law as declared by the highest state court. Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet. 1, overruled. Id.
3. There is no federal general common law. Congress has no power to declare substantive rules of common law applicable in a State whether they be local in their nature or "general," whether they be commercial law or a part of the law of torts. And no clause in the Constitution purports to confer such a power upon the federal courts. Except in matters governed by the Federal Constitution or by Acts of Congress, the law to be applied in any case is the law of the State. And whether the law of the State shall be declared by its legislature in a statute or by its highest court in a decision is not a matter of federal concern. P. 78.
4. In disapproving the doctrine of Swift v. Tyson, the Court does not hold unconstitutional § 34 of the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789 or any other Act of Congress. It merely declares that, by applying the doctrine of that case, rights which are reserved by the Constitution to the several States have been invaded. P. 79.

It is vitally important to understand how the government has turned our lives upside down and have made us believe that we are subject under them; when in reality they are subject to We the people. I will summarize and you need to do your homework. (If you really wish to make a difference)

1868 The 14th amendment which created a new class of citizen. All “men” (and woman) are created equal as stated in the constitution (a Sovereign) now became “a person” subject to the Federal Government.

1871 The federal government formed itself into a CORPORATION and pulled itself from under the constitution.

1913 the Federal Reserve was created. (privately owned)

1933 President Roosevelt put into effect the “Trading with the enemies act” this applied only for federal citizens.

1933 President Roosevelt took the gold away from the people. Leaving the people without real “money” to pay debts.

March 9, 1933 Senate Document No. 43, 73rd Congress, 1st Session states: “The ownership of all property is in the State; individual so called “ownership” is only by virtue of government i.e., law amounting to mere user: and use must be in accordance law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.

President Roosevelt passed HJR 192 June 5th, 1933 (This is lengthy, but simply put) Since the government had taken the gold, the people had no “Money” The government would pay the “debts” for the people DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR thereby giving the people unlimited credit.

1938 Erie vs. Tompkins made CONTRACTS the rule in our courts (the above case)

1946 We lost our government and courts to the Administrative Procedures Act.

1965, silver was taken away as a means for paying DEBT, the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) became the supreme law for Amerika, concerning the banking system, the courts were pulled together in Administrative/Admiralty and Civil (Contract or Commerce/Corporation), and the Act and Intent were brought together thereby taking away your plea of Innocent. That means that now you are guilty until proven Innocent.

(You’re lucky I’m not billing you for this :duck: )

I know you are a person that cares but you must understand the problem before making decisions. If you decide to ignore this, you do so at your own peril. Ignorance of the REAL law is no excuse.
This is just a rough outline. Now, if you truly have honor and a caring heart you will research this for yourself and I will leave it to you and your conscience to make the right decision.

If we ever get this country back I hope that your bones will not be among the lawyers and attorneys that will be turned into wind chimes from the nearest trees and telephones around the country.

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget ye were our countrymen.”

Samuel Adams

“Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course other may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death.”

Patrick Henry, Speech in the Virginia Convention March 23, 1775

Good luck Lucille! :D

[Kent]

Good post Third. This is why it is pointless to discuss alternative tax schemes until this mess is cleaned up, but the cancer has already spread and it may be too late. I think we're dead. I cant see ever getting it back, because Joe and Suzie Sixpack think that all is well. Their willful ignorance scares the hell out of me.

You have done your homework and have a better grasp on this than I do.

[lucille]

(You’re lucky I’m not billing you for this :duck: )



Third:

I am a student in poverty, but you are entertaining enough that I would definitely cook you a nice dinner if you ever came to town in return for your tireless efforts in my behalf.
Besides being an ace attorney-to-be, I am a terrific cook when it suits me. :)

[Thirdeyex]

I would be honored to share in your kind and most generous hospitality.
If I’m ever down Texas way I promise to look you up.

I’ll do my best to be entertaining. :dancer01:

Yours truly,
Thirdeyex

[Rich Z]

The problem is that we are fighting self interest. We are asking the judicial system (which gets paid from the actions of the Legislative branch) to make decisions that will affect their own livelihood. Kind of like asking legislators to vote on their own salary increases.

As long as the government is a single organism that values it's own life above everything else, and is asked to decide on issues that could sacrifice that life, the outcome is pretty much predictable. Positive changes will not come from within the system. The APPEARANCE will be there every now and again (like income tax simplification), but the reality will be much different.

The government will no sooner voluntarily give up the power to tax then it would take their own lives. It is the source of all their power. It is the money to do what they want as well as the iron fisted threat to keep you in line. Certainly, the threat of the eternal tax audit has silenced more then one person.

Probably the time to do anything about it has long passed. We would not be ALLOWED to become a group cohesive enough and large enough to effect any meaningful changes. The war on terrorism has basically declared open season on anyone who would actively try to thwart the future they have in store for us. The definition of "terrorist" is sufficiently broad enough to cover just about anyone they would want it to cover.

[lucille]

There are avenues for change; how realistically effective they are I do not know, will have a better idea after my tax course this summer. I do know that the tax code is changed fairly frequently although wholesale modifications have been done few times. But even those who work with it agree that it is cumbersome and in need of change.

One problem I see with big change is that those with an interest in the status quo are very well organized with ties into the system; just like Rich said above, we are fighting self interest.

In contrast, those who wish to reform are disorganized, cannot agree among themselves as to what should be done. For instance, some make sweeping statements wanting to remove the entire present system without sufficient thought put into alternatives.

It is easy to make sweeping statements, to just indulge in magical thinking, to fool oneself into airbrushing problems and saying 'it would all be OK if only they __________' (fill in the blank with your proposed solution).

To me, that is just mental masturbation, a rush of adrenalin designed to make one feel better and it is actually worse than not doing anything, because it gives the feeling that this magical change is an actual choice.

It is hard to learn, to think about the problems presented, to try to find solutions and then work to implement them.
Is it too late for sweeping tax change? It would be hard to do, there are a LOT of people interested in keeping things exactly as they are now. It takes work. It takes understanding. And it takes an ability which the fierce individualists here might not have: the ability to agree on an acceptable compromise which can be realistically implemented.

Too, (and this is not a criticism on y'all, just an observation) those who go into politics and are willing to work with lobbyists and big business and so on find a ready made brotherhood, and that there are plenty of contributions to election campaigns.

On the other hand, those who come to the people, ask questions, listen, and really want to do what is right, simply become targets for verbalized dissatisfaction. I hear from many here, bitching about taxes, politicians, lawyers. I understand how you feel, but it is difficult not to get discouraged when there is not enough support offered for those who, like me, want to get the right things done.

I believe in the American people, and I think that if enough of them want change, it will happen. Not magical, easy change; like the wishes we had when we were children;
but rather responsible, thoughtful change; done with as much thought and time as our founding fathers gave; and I believe this could make a better world for us, and our children.

[Thirdeyex]

Lucille,

Do you understand how our current “money” system works? I’m not putting you on the spot, the government has done a masterful job of duping everyone. The greater majority don’t understand. If they did there would be an immediate revolt!

And do you know how the IRS fits into this scheme?

Here’s a hint:
The “money” the IRS collects from the people does not go to the U.S. government.

If you understand our current system of fiat money there is no need to debate the issue of taxation.

But if you would like to learn more get ready for more homework!

(Insert HUGE cut and paste and LOADS of sited cases and TONS of history) :roflmao1:

You have to understand how the system works before you can fix it. You don’t replace an engine in a car because someone has siphoned out all of your gas.

You, of all people, should be an expert on the monetary system if you are a student of “poverty”.

I know it’s hard to here these things when we have been taught the contrary. It took me years of study and skepticism to discover this information. I wish the internet was available during my study! Now it’s readily available but you will have to cross-check your internet references to hard copy. I’ve found that there have been cases of “data massaging” in some areas.

Believe nothing, question everything, and never stop learning. (you will find your own truth) :)

[Kent]

To me, that is just mental masturbation, a rush of adrenalin designed to make one feel better and it is actually worse than not doing anything, because it gives the feeling that this magical change is an actual choice.



No, How can anyone talk about alternatives to the current tax system, when we dont even know the true expenses involved in running our own .gov? We must know the amount needed and tailor any tax plan toward recovering that amount, and NO MORE.

The changes needed (to the tax system AND our political system) are sweeping and very drastic (you say "magical") , if this country is to survive. And no, I do not feel good or get a rush of adrenaline by saying this. It sucks and I hate it.

This thread could have gone into the survival forum, because if this isn't fixed, the S will HTF. It's only a matter of time...

[Thirdeyex]

Lucille,

At this point, I’m under the impression that you wish to feel better about yourself. You say you want to HELP the poor and needy and make a difference. But you won’t address the PROBLEM (or you choose to simply ignore it). The Federal Reserve is a private entity sucking the wealth from this nation utilizing the IRS as its private collection “goon squad”. The World Banking Consortium is spreading its tentacles to every nation creating little Federal Reserves to do exactly what it has done here. (We just finished the creation of a central bank in Baghdad. (Hmmm… I wonder what they want to own there?)
If you would like documentation on this, just ask! (we can start a new thread)

Debt based economies, over a period of time, will relinquish ALL of their resources to the creditor.
(that means “poverty” the thing you want to fight)

If you want to make a REAL difference, help to bring the illusion to an end and secure a future for all men, women and children. America desperately needs smart women like you!!! :D

If not:
Get your law degree, make some money, play “I’m making a difference”, and live happily ever after. I don’t fault you for this path. The majority of women prefer security over freedom. (God love em) :-poke:

Not magical, easy change; like the wishes we had when we were children;
but rather responsible, thoughtful change; done with as much thought and time as our founding fathers gave; and I believe this could make a better world for us, and our children.
Maybe you will believe this guy.

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

Thomas Jefferson

So tell me, is the Federal Reserve and the World Bank a friend or foe of America?

Stop treating the symptoms and cure the disease.

We need you Lucille!

[lucille]

[QUOTE=Thirdeyex]




If you want to make a REAL difference, help to bring the illusion to an end and secure a future for all men, women and children. America desperately needs smart women like you!!! :D

If not:
Get your law degree, make some money, play “I’m making a difference”, and live happily ever after. I don’t fault you for this path. The majority of women prefer security over freedom. (God love em) :-poke:

QUOTE]


I cannot believe that you just wrote that.

[Wylycoyte]

Get your law degree, make some money, play “I’m making a difference”, and live happily ever after. I don’t fault you for this path. The majority of women prefer security over freedom. (God love em) :-poke:

Yeah, go out and make a difference, like us men of action!

[Kent]

and what action would you suggest wyly?

[Thirdeyex]

I used the POKE smilie to get a response.

I know how you love the sexist issue :)

I guess you’re not biting. :nyah:

[Wylycoyte]

and what action would you suggest wyly?

A lot of fast and furious posting on the internet, what else?

[Kent]

SPecifics, wyly, specifics. What part of this thread are you having trouble with? Maybe you're just trolling?

Who knows. Maybe you're right. I think we will find out soon enough.

[Rich Z]

If the cage you are in is comfortable enough, and concealed well enough, you will never think you have a reason to try to escape.

[Kent]

Rich

Good quote! I am going to keep that one. Is it yours or someone elses?

[Magnum88C]

Thirdeyex:
Maybe you could post some of those actual sources.
If you're worried about the cut & paste police :-poke: , just PM me would ya? :D

[lucille]

The cut and paste thing was just a comment, jeez, please post what you will.
I mentioned an opinion about large amounts of copy, but opinions are like belly buttons, everyone has one. PLEASE by all means, say your say..... :)

[lucille]

I used the POKE smilie to get a response.

I know how you love the sexist issue :)

I guess you’re not biting. :nyah:

Third:
The tax issue is sufficiently serious that I thought that completely hijacking this thread to address issues of sexism would be a derogation of responsibility. Perhaps a separate thread might be interesting at some point.

That being said, you will, someday, reap what you sowed :nyah:

[Thirdeyex]

Thirdeyex:
Maybe you could post some of those actual sources.
If you're worried about the cut & paste police :-poke: , just PM me would ya? :D
There’s a lot of info so I’ll let my favorite author, Eustace Mullins, do the speaking on the subject. He has, close to, 50 years of research on this subject. He is author of many books but I would recommend; The Secretes Of The Federal Reserve and The Creature From Jekyll Island, by G. Edward Griffin to address this subject.
I found a web page that has some info posted for free. :)
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm
There is a Q&A at the bottom of the page that will answer a few questions.

The Secretes Of The Federal Reserve, by Eustace Mullins.
(1955-This is the only book to be burned in Europe after WWII)
The burning of the book was upheld April 21, 1961 by judge Israel Katz of the Bavarian Supreme Court. The U.S. Government refused to intervene, because U.S. High Commissioner to Germany, James B. Conant (president of Harvard University 1933 to 1953), had approved the initial book burning order.

(You know you’re over the target when you’re taking flak!)

Welcome to the onion of the World Banking System, the more you peel away the more you cry. :bawling:

If you have something in particular you are looking for just ask.
I’ll do my best to dig up the info. :D

Third:
The tax issue is sufficiently serious that I thought that completely hijacking this thread to address issues of sexism would be a derogation of responsibility. Perhaps a separate thread might be interesting at some point.

That being said, you will, someday, reap what you sowed :nyah:
Well said Lucille!
With Rika and you I’m sure to have many battle scars. :twohammer

[Thirdeyex]

Back to the tax issue:
First we must end the current monetary system “THIS IS KEY”. (Fractional Reserve Banking of the Federal Reserve)
We must return to a form of currency that is backed with VALUE and put the lending institutions back in the hands of the people.
"If the American people knew tonight, exactly how the monetary and banking system worked, there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."
Abraham Lincoln
"Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is the absolute master of all industry and commerce." He furthermore warned that: "Banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies."
US President James Garfield
"The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight-of-hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in iniquity and born in sin. Bankers own the Earth.".....He continued and concluded..... "But if you want to continue to be slaves of the bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let the bankers continue to create money and control credit."
Sir Josiah Stamp. The Bank of England.
Congress can abolish the Federal Reserve by means of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. It may buy back the stock for (don’t quote me on this) 600 or 700 million. (ultra cheap) and that means that the 7 trillion (that doesn’t legally exist) vanishes. Of course the Banking institution will have countries, that it has control of, wage war on us (both military and economicly); but at least we will have something to fight for.
Taxes, unfortunately, are a necessity. But I would have to agree with Rich Z. a flat rate is the only thing that can be utilized by a free people. Say 10-15%.
In the early 19th century, renowned Scottish economist John Ramsey McCulloch wrote, "The moment you abandon the cardinal principle of extracting from all individuals the same proportion of their income or of their property, you are at sea without a rudder or compass, and there is no amount of injustice or folly you may not commit."

Supreme Court Justice Stephen J. Field wrote, "If the Court sanctions the power of discriminating taxation and nullifies the uniformity mandate of the Constitution...it will mark the hour when the sure decadence of our government will commence."

Nelson Hultberg writes, “The reason why the Founders and all the prominent intellects of our history opposed a progressive income tax is because it violates the principle of "equality of rights under the law," which is dramatically enshrined in the Declaration of Independence as the fundamental axiom of our nation’s existence. Because different classes of society are assessed different rates under a progressive tax system, American citizens are denied an equal right to the disposal of their property (i.e., their income) and thus denied equal protection under the laws of the land.

In light of the above, it should be obvious that a progressive income tax is incompatible with "equality under the law." It is therefore unconstitutional and unjust. It goes contrary to everything our country stands for. It has no moral justification, and it has no practical ground upon which to stand.”

http://www.armslocker.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=6174&stc=1

Happy April 15th

[lucille]

.
Taxes, unfortunately, are a necessity. But I would have to agree with Rich Z. a flat rate is the only thing that can be utilized by a free people. Say 10-15%.



It is good to gather support, but it is also good to be mindful of the wishes of your constituency.

A quote from Rich, infra, page 3, post #23:
"I would propose a REAL flat tax. Not one of the fake ones with a flat percentage but a FLAT $$ charge per person.."

[Rich Z]

Rich

Good quote! I am going to keep that one. Is it yours or someone elses?

Mine. Just thunk of it myself, but I am sure there are other similar quotes out there that I may have read at sometime or another and paraphrased.

Thanks.

[Thirdeyex]

It is good to gather support, but it is also good to be mindful of the wishes of your constituency.

A quote from Rich, infra, page 3, post #23:
"I would propose a REAL flat tax. Not one of the fake ones with a flat percentage but a FLAT $$ charge per person.."
Whoa, Sorry Rich Z, I guess I don’t agree with you.

Speaking of constituency:

According to the Dallas based Institute for Policy Innovation’s calculations (UPI Impact, November 1997), the bottom 25% of the population in America presently pays zero taxes. This means they get their government services free, which means their demand for those services is infinite.

According to the IRS Statistics of Income Division, the next 25% tier pays only 3.97% of total income tax revenues. This means that they get their government services almost free, i.e., for pennies on the dollar.
Thus 50% of the American electorate pays zero or next to zero taxes, which creates infinite demand for government services among these voters. (50% Socialist)

We now have 50% of the population dependant on the government and another percentage partially dependant. That gives the majority to the supporters of socialism.

In a democracy (mob rules) format I guess we would have to become socialist. Fortunately we are a constitutional republic that had its freedoms secured from such exploits.

Now Lucille, what do you want to do? Support freedom and our Constitutional Republic or would you side with the 50+% voting block of Socialist.

Of course you want to fight for freedom! That is why it is so important that you help to expose the fraud.

Then again you could have attended one of those liberal colleges (is there any other?) and believe in the communist idea of wealth distribution by force.

[Rich Z]

How could any taxing system that charges one person $10 and another person $100,000 for the same services be considered as fair? What does the person who pays $100K get for his (I am using this in a generic sense, so in all cases it COULD be "his/her") money to make it worthwhile? Because he is a better producer and earns more (meaning people are willing to PAY him more for what he does or is worth), he should have to pay more for the same services that someone who can barely hold down a minimum wage job? Why?

If you are going to do this anyway it all with a non-flat tax system, do it the opposite way. Charge an underproducer MORE for taxes as an incentive to become more of a producer and correspondingly worth more to us as a whole. The taxing system is already a complicated means of providing economic incentives, so why half step and reverse step by penalizing exactly those people who have proven their worthiness to the economy in general? As it is now, a person is rewarded for non productiveness with welfare, little or no taxes, food stamps, subsidies, and anything else you can think of. This presents an insurmountable barrier to MANY people because in order to get over the hump of making enough money to make working worthwhile to them, they have to pass through a period of earnings that will be much LESS then they are bringing in by NOT working. Most of those people will never have the initiative, much less the incentive to work hard enough to get over that hump. And why should they? The government is telling them their value and basically forcing them to stay where they are on the economic ladder.

Here's how the government gets what it wants. Give people money. Any way you can, give it to them. Let them get used to getting that free money until they become dependent on it. Then, start making demands. Demands, that if not met, will mean you lose some of that money. So give EVERYONE some money. Not a whole bundle but enough that people look forward to getting it and the money becomes needed to some extent. Each year, everyone files a tax return. How much did you earn this year? Nothing? Well, OK, next year you don't get your money from the government. And you sir, you earned $5,000? Well you get 20 percent of what you got this year. And you? You earned $15,000? Well you get 50 percent in your next check. And so on.

Yeah, it is another government subsidy, but guess what? It is subsidizing productivity and giving incentive to earn a living. It gives people a reason to produce an income instead of the current system that only gives incentive to stay unemployed.

On another slant of this, how many people are actually employed by the people (our government) who extract the taxes? How many of those people probably realize that if there were no taxes, or taxes get decreased substantially, they will be out of a job? How many of those people are going to VOTE to have their jobs removed by voting for lower taxes? If the majority of the people in this country wind up having government jobs, then that majority will always want to maintain the status quo, regardless of the tax situation.

I don't know. Tax rates keep going up. Unemployment is rising. More and more people are getting government jobs. Where is the real money coming from that pays for all of this? Who is actually doing the work and doing the producing of real income? Is this all just smoke and mirrors fueled by a 24/7 money making machine at the Federal Reserve Bank printing out funny money?

I remember talking to a guy at a gun show a while back. We were discussing doing a trade. The guy just looked around the show and said "You know, everyone here today is seemingly just trading guns from one hand to another. Somewhere along the line, someone has to get some money for this stuff to pay to put food on the table."

All we are doing is trading paper money. But where does the real value come from? What determines what a $100 bill is really WORTH?

[lucille]

Then again you could have attended one of those liberal colleges (is there any other?) and believe in the communist idea of wealth distribution by force.

Real man?? Feh!!! When you learn some manners and tact to go with your good mind, perhaps I will talk to you again. Perhaps not. I ought to demand roses as an apology; then again, you are fairly aggravating at times, perhaps I should just put you on 'ignore'; I only used that feature, temporarily, on one person here and I didn't THINK you were much like him, however.......

[lucille]

Rich: When you did the division for your flat money tax, it came out a bit pricey but not totally out of reach for many. Along with some fiscal responsibility, it might be a workable idea.
Are there any refinements that could be added to that to weight the taxes at all, that are acceptable?
I realize if a lot of that is done we will be back where we started, but I think many agree that there are some people who do not earn temporarily. While families should take care of their own, sometimes that does not happen, I can't see that the elderly or infirm or very ill should die of want because they have no family ties. What ideas do you have?

[Thirdeyex]

If we had to utilize reverse social engineering, a gradual walk back to independence that would be accepted by the masses a 10-15% flat tax would be the first step. The disparity of “wealth” has been widened to a point where the middle class has become the minority. The undue gain was perpetrated by the government and without it’s machinations the wealth would have never have been consolidated in the hands of the top 5% of the population. This would allow us to de-construct the Federal Gov. a piece at a time until the States regain there Sovereignty. (starve the beast) and not completely devastate the 50% of people that are on the take from the Gov. (140 million)
Post Revolution, Rick Z is right on the “money” no pun intended. If we remove the District of criminals, oh, I mean District of Columbia and return to a pre recontructionalist Amreica the cost of the Gov. would be minimal and easily handled by the masses. The flat tax would be the final solution.
No matter what you do the people that rely on the Gov. handouts with suffer until stabilization is reached under the reform. Church and charity originations were the social nets for the “people” you speak of during the depression. (and somehow we survived) They will survive again.

Until we can eliminate the current monetary system tax reform is a mute point. Debt based, fiat, Fractional Reserve, money is the disease and the symptoms of social, economic, and even cultural problems stem from this blight on humanity.


Real man?? Feh!!! When you learn some manners and tact to go with your good mind, perhaps I will talk to you again. Perhaps not. I ought to demand roses as an apology; then again, you are fairly aggravating at times, perhaps I should just put you on 'ignore'; I only used that feature, temporarily, on one person here and I didn't THINK you were much like him, however.......
My wife thinks that you are in your twenties and told me not to play to rough with you.
She, also, would like one of those ignore buttons too.:roflmao1:

As for the apology;
Please forgive my overt masculine attempts to stir heated debate by attacking the foundation of socialist views that I detected and capitalized on in a spree of testosterone driven, sarcastic, and inflammatory remarks that were utilized to provoke counter points to the ideas expressed. :D

Sincerely,
Thirdeyex
http://www.armslocker.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=6175&stc=1

[lucille]

Thank you for the apology and the beautiful rose.
Tell your wife
I will be 52 in May and I can play with the bad boys because I can just send them to their rooms if they get too rambunctious. I am just a sweet old Texas nurse but I won't put up with any guff.
I will continue our substantive discussions after Monday, I have a paper due then and it is not ready.
Take care and thank you again for the pretty flower,
Lucille

[lucille]

As for the apology;
Please forgive my overt masculine attempts to stir heated debate by attacking the foundation of socialist views that I detected and capitalized on in a spree of testosterone driven, sarcastic, and inflammatory remarks that were utilized to provoke counter points to the ideas expressed. :D

Sincerely,
Thirdeyex
http://www.armslocker.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=6175&stc=1

Just finished my paper. 50 pages. About the pharmacist, I described the problem around here somewheres. Hung him out to dry (hope he isn't reading this, lol)

Anyway, your apology....."testosterone driven, sarcastic, and inflammatory remarks"
You got the market cornered on that one, sugar, I can't compete... :nyah:

[arebindixie]

Solution:

Reinstate the 13th amendment and remove all lawyers from public office. Eliminate the BAR “British Accredited Registry” and institute Justice.

The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments are illegal, imposed at gunpoint, and rob the people of property while depriving the states of rights.

[lucille]

Reb: I said this early on in this thread and I believe it is still true:

Knocking something down is not that hard. If you think it is heroic to tear something down and then leave, I believe you are mistaken. Taking time for critical thought, to see exactly what is needed, and how it could be done, requires strength and intellectual courage.

[Thirdeyex]

The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments are illegal, imposed at gunpoint, and rob the people of property while depriving the states of rights.
The 13th amendment was somehow “lost” and replaced read here:
(This had to be done to subvert our system from within)
http://users.frii.com/gosplow/13th.html

Research reconstruction and the establishment of the District of Columbia. The freed slaves became the first federal citizens.
14th and 15th apply to federal “citizens”. Not American “Citizens”.
American “Citizens” are electors not voters. This is the dual system in effect today.
Read any of your legal docs. You are considered a “citizen” (small “c”) a federal citizen/employee.
An American “Citizen” (capital “C” is a soverign).

The devil is in the details.

The 16th was never ratified by 2/3rds majority. (Illegal)