Why The IRS Deserves To Be Hated

The following should only be read at your own risk. 

1393829620144

Typically, when the right questions are never answered, the wrong ones are always in the spotlight. But, why are those frivolous questions always wrong? There is nothing difficult about searching the net for the atypical, strategic avoidance methods thereby, resulting in all that conspiracy derived “frivolous” tax answers, however, what is obvious, is actually not that obvious.  Of course, people come up with ridiculous theories, to explain why, they cannot possibly believe, they can owe that vanilla-box stamped “treasury dept.” (via the IRS) a chunk of their gross receipts as taxable income. That’s perfectly natural. Who can blame the millions of people, who find dealing with the unethical IRS to be a miserable exercise in futile irrationality, and may indeed desperately cling to the small hope something will free them from that infamous death grip, thereby Imposed.

One can argue that hating the very idea of the IRS is the patriotic duty of every freedom loving, American Union Citizen, not to be confused with that flim-flam impostor called the U.S. citizen, who simply does everything that it is told. Why that miserable peon has to ask permission just to wipe his “under that jurisdiction” nose. Uncle Sam is one mean SOB when you owe his fat bastards some of that INCOMES money, and he don’t care about none of those silly details acting like pins under the fingernails. The sad fact is jury nullification would have stopped this illegal gravy-train a long time ago, were it not for the fact those very same U.S. citizens are bunch of yellow-bellied, chickens. Well, that and the fact they are not allowed a jury trial in a Tax Court.

Typically, only American Union Citizens have the stones to tell those bean-pinching, confiscation agents to go pound sand. Sadly, the government forces a false representation of the actual facts to trick people into claiming the wrong thing for the right reason. Thus, those brave souls go to prison not becuase they are wrong, or morally challenged, but because they failed to understand a U.S. citizen never wins a round with his Master.  Never— the U.S. citizen is in the pod.When you tell a judge you are not under the jurisdiction thereof, and you are still in that pod… well he thinks your an idiot.

Oh, the irony.

Constitutionally fortified Union Citizens know damn good and well, this is a Nation of Public Laws not private law masquerading as an insult to our collective prosperity. Those men in black-hats know the Achilles heel of any political body is determined by that old adage, “who benefits”— which is also synonymous with He who stands to lose the most money had better gain control of the House Rules. The ultra-filthy rich have played the game so well, with such fabulous results, how can any one possibly accuse them of cheating? Why such paragons of virtue surely regard the peon-masses as whiny, little bitches who should have found a better job, or two as the case may be. The Normative Question as always is treated as the ugly, step-child of grand economic theory. The silence is surely deafening when those wretched questions so posed cannot be answered.

If the 16th went bye-bye tomorrow, the super-ultra rich would still be exactly the same wealth wise— and if there is no difference in that asset minus liability equation, why pretend the 16th made any difference. The give away was the damn thing passed. If it had really posed any danger to the filthy rich it would have never made it out on the floor to even be debated. Now why would the arch-villains of Income agree to their own demise? For the exact same reason a wolf agrees to guard the hen house. It was their only way in…. yeah, and the American people fell for it hook-line-and-sinker.

More proof of that deeper insult: America’s Secret Multi-Trillion Black Op’s Fund

According to another recent article, concerning income taxes:

“Roughly half pay no federal income tax because they have no taxable income, and the other roughly half get enough tax breaks to erase their tax liability, explains Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center.

The top 1 percent of Americans, who have an average income of more than $2.1 million, pay 43.6 percent of all the federal individual income tax in the US; the top 0.1 percent — just 115,000 households, whose average income is more than $9.4 million — pay more than 20 percent of it.”

It’s a no-brainer that those who have the  most taxable income, do indeed pay that skin-flint, Uncle Sam accordingly. The next graphic/statistic, that always needs to be displayed with such articles, is the one which shows how much of the that total wealth is owned… by those very same taxpayers.

Say like this one from a few years back:

How Rich Are the Super rich?

A huge share of the nation’s economic growth over the past 30 years has gone to the top one-hundredth of one percent, who now make an average of $27 million per household. The average income for the bottom 90 percent of us? $31,244.

The richest controls 2/3 of America's net worth

Note: The 2007 data (the most current) doesn’t reflect the impact of the housing market crash. In 2007, the bottom 60% of Americans had 65% of their net worth tied up in their homes. The top 1%, in contrast, had just 10%. The housing crisis has no doubt further swelled the share of total net worth held by the super rich. ” It’s the Inequality, Stupid

There is a multitude of studies/articles, examining the causes for the “Inequality Gap” all over the net, and I am proof positive the filthy wealthy know, we know, what they pretend not to know, is indeed known. The comedy routine of that Rumsfeld guy always comes to mind when the house crooks realize that they need to lose 2.3 trillion dollars, like yesterday. Whose pocket needs a new lining is the real question never asked. It really is too simply to just pretend it never existed as claimed. As if it really was just that easy to lose trillions without a trace. That would mean it never arrived and was already a ghost on the big books, when it was diverted somewhere else.

—“Over the last decade, a huge share of America’s income and wealth gains has flowed to the top one-tenth of the richest 1 percent, the wealthiest one out of a thousand households.

Within this group, our richest 400 individuals command a dizzying amount of wealth, defined here as total assets minus liabilities. The annual Forbes 400 ranking provides a unique insight into the extreme wealth concentration at America’s economic summit. Forbes began publishing its top 400 ranking in 1982. The total wealth of the latest 400 adds up to $2.34 trillion, a new all-time record and more than the GDP of India, a country with a population of over a billion.

Many members of the Forbes 400 have amassed wealth in their lifetime through successful companies and innovation. But all of the Forbes 400 have also benefited enormously from a system of tax, trade, and regulatory rules tipped in favor of wealth holders at the expense of wage earners. Tax policies, for instance, routinely favor capital income over wage income, and these policies disproportionately benefit the Forbes 400, especially those working in finance.

The United States is becoming, as the French economist Thomas Piketty warns, a hereditary aristocracy of wealth and power. As a society, we must intervene. We need focused public policies to slow and reverse these trends and protect our democracy and social stability.” Peak Inequality

Take an extra look at the bold text “Tax policies, for instance, routinely favor capital income over wage income and ask the simple question, is that by accident or design that these two very unlike “incomes” are now claimed to be the same? Did those super-rich labor for every one of those billion-dollars one lousy, menial hour at a time? Gosh, what a miracle of sweat shopping that is… not.

Unlike comparisons of wealth are useless as base metrics. How do you compare two guys economically where one receives millions per minute and the other a minimum wage per hour, resulting in a huge cultural privilege. What an insult to common intelligence it is to suggest that million-dollar a minute guy is earning his wages like a commoner. Co-mingling economic terms has not improved understanding of the critical cultural issues impairing inequality. When it comes to money, one income is never culturally just like any other, like two peas in a pod.

When the tax system becomes an immutable object, societies deform [often violently] under the increasing disparity of unequal Income meanings. The gross income disparity proves the tax system is a total failure due to policies, which cannot solve the very problems they intentionally create. Taxes are actually really bad at solving government revenue problems in a good way. Policy always follows the stink of money and the hyper-concentrations of power, manipulate outcomes, to serve the highest bidder of prestigious influence.

Therefore, the smart money is on good old political sin which demands the question– If tax policy, is unethically favoring the ultra-wealthy to protect their never-ending advantages of super-sized, all powerful Incomes of fabulous Wealth, the proof is in the shiny gold cup not the pudding. Perpetual national Indebtedness by Peonage, served up with a slightly left-political twist, is the ugly truth never to be spoken. Why were those slave-wagers just re-classified as wage earners by sheer accident? Not likely. So why doesn’t the IRS recognize Slave Income as earned by Peons? Oops wrong cultural question.

—§ 3944. (R. S. § 1990.) Peonage abolished.

The holding of any person to service or labor under the system known as peonage is abolished and forever prohibited in the Territory of New Mexico, or in any other Territory or State of the United States; and all acts, laws, resolutions, orders, regulations, or usages of the Territory of New Mexico, or of any other Territory or State, which have heretofore established, maintained, or enforced, or by virtue of which any attempt shall hereafter be made to establish, maintain, or enforce, directly or indirectly, the voluntary or involuntary service or labor of any persons as peons, in liquidation of any debt or obligation, or otherwise, are declared null and void. Act March 2, 1867, c. 187. § 1, 14 Stat. 540.— 4. “Peonage” defined.—Peonage is a status or condition of compulsory service based on the indebtedness of the peon to the master. Clyatt v. U. S. (1905) 25 Sup. Ct. 429, 430, 197 U. S. 207, 49 L. Ed. 726.—The essence of the thing is compulsory service in payment of a debt. A peon is one who is compelled to work for his creditor until his debt is paid.”—If the reader gets what I am pointing to —- you too may be a Neo.

Never-ending debt requires an endless supply of hopeful, pie-in-the-sky peons. And why was the economic Mercantile system engineered directly for this devious purpose? Ever wonder why the government not only tolerates excessive illegal immigration, but actually encourages such exuberance by every means possible? It’s a numbers game after all. Every newly minted U.S. citizen is just another unwitting peon paying on that endless compounding debt. Yeah, it really is just that simple.

* As of December 30, 2015, the official debt of the United States government is $18.8 trillion ($18,825,061,664,536).[1] This amounts to:

  • $58,361 for every person living in the U.S.[2]
  • $151,100 for every household in the U.S.[3]
  • 104% of the U.S. gross domestic product.[4]
  • 539% of annual federal revenues.[5]

If you are one of those individuals that can pay off your “share” of the federal debt, which would be anyone in the top Income brackets, you are officially not a peon. Since every peon is liable for the National and by extension State debts, and those debts are more than any peon can earn in any taxable year (even if their entire wage was sent to that treasure dept.) the evidence of Indebtedness by Peonage is a provable fact for most U. S. citizens so born.

—“The former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, testifying before Congress, was quite open about the role of debt peonage in keeping workers passive. Greenspan pointed out that since 1980 labor productivity has increased by about 83 percent. Yet real wages have stagnated. Greenspan said this was because workers were too burdened with mortgage debts, college loans, auto payments and credit-card debt to risk losing a job. Household debt in the United States is around $13 trillion. This is only $2 trillion less than the country’s total yearly economic output.”— Maybe that old shark might have mentioned personal debts plus National Debt equals financial slavery by legalized tax imprisonment.

Under the Code the U.S. citizen is the simple-minded, politically manipulated peon and the Congress is its abrasive “exclusive legislating Master” who expects that very same peon to obey its every whim and demand, especially in regards to those Debts never to be questioned again.

In general, personal liability for only the U.S. citizen is exclusively due to the 14th amendment, not the 16th as assumed, or implied by IRS propaganda scams. Remember there is no enabling clause for the 16th for a reason! The revealing liability statement is tucked up front in the CFR 1998 version, where apparently even those IRS goons never think to look. I also traced it back to previous versions of the CFR. This liability clause is why that little check box labeled U.S. citizen is found on every document so required, dealing with the fed, or state contractual agreements. In 1954, the “Codes” had to be re-arranged to hide the deeper tricks, only possible by confusing the true relationships of peons, Individuals, persons, citizens and eight varieties of aliens under that U. S. jurisdiction thereof.

The Supreme Court, not Congress defined “Incomes” so stated in the 16th. This is a provable fact according to the actual Congressional records preceding the passage of 16th. So the major trick, used after 1954, is to confuse the meanings of “public and private Terms of Art” as used, to deflect attention away from the glaring absurdities in plain site. The common right to work is not an excise event, but commoner income from wages became taxable by fiat. The exemption was simply lowered until anyone earning a penny of wage was now liable for the entire income tax.

“An income tax is neither a property tax nor a tax on occupations of common right, but is an excise tax.”

“The legislature may declare as “privilege” and tax as such for state revenue, those pursuits not matters of common right, but it has no power to declare as a “privilege” and tax for revenue purposes, occupations that are of common right”   Simms v. Ahrens, 271 SW 720 (1925)

“The 16th Amendment does not extend the power of taxation to new or excepted subjects, but merely removes the occasion for apportioning taxes on income among the states. Neither can the tax be sustained as a tax on the person, measured by income. Such a tax would be by nature a capitation rather than an excise.” PECK v. LOWE, 247 U.S. 165(1918).

—“According to tax historian John Witte, “In 1939, about 15% of the people paid income tax. That’s all, period. At the end of the war, we had 80% of our families paying income tax.”

In 1944, the Victory Tax was repealed by section 6 of the Income Tax Act of 1944 after it had been renewed. But, for some strange and unknown reason, Congress decided to keep it on the down low. Because most people didn’t know about it, they just kept paying taxes.”—

—“The Revenue Bill of 1942 further reduced the exemption, added a Victory Tax on “gross income” of $624 or more and instituted the withholding provisions; all in the name of preventing inflation while creating inflation through deficit spending and increased taxes.“—

—{However, in addition to the Revenue Bill of 1943 Congress enacted a separate piece of legislation requiring the payment of taxes in the year the income is earned, instead of the following year in which the taxes were normally paid. Basically the “Current Tax Payment Act of 1943 (H.R. 2570), deals with the “pay-as-you-go” concept of tax collection. In order to accomplish the transition, without collecting two years taxes in the same year, Congress had to come up with a workable plan. Part of that “plan” was the “withholding” provisions similar to that used by the Social Security Act. This is the beginning of our current “Collection of Income Tax at Source on Wages” (26USC3401) requirement. In addition, this is where the “estimated tax payment” requirement comes from. The Committee Reports provide a detailed explanation.

“Some, no doubt, have heard of the “Ruml” plan and the proposal to forgive one year’s taxes in order to facilitate the move to a “pay-as-you-go” collection system. It did not happen. Instead Congress lowered the taxes due from 1942 income, based upon the 1941 schedules, and implemented the “withholding at the source on wages and salaries” provisions for the collection of taxes on current income (based upon gross receipts, or income under the new terminology). In addition, the provision for filing and paying estimated taxes was developed to facilitate the collection of current taxes from those acquiring their income through the operation of business and financial transactions (based upon net-income, or income under the old terminology). In other words, the tax would be taken from the paycheck of the employee on a scheduled basis as it was earned, whereas the sole-proprietor would file a quarterly statement and pay an estimated tax amount.”

—It is interesting to note that the “withholding” provision applicable to “wages”, in relation to the Victory Tax, was based upon the “personal exemption” of $624 single, $1,248 married, and $312 in the case of a dependent. Whereas, for the net-income tax provisions the exemptions were $500, $1200, and $350, respectively.  The reasoning used was that the “Victory” tax was based upon the gross income of wages and salaries, and temporary in nature. Therefore, the personal exemption allowance was based upon the statistical cost of “food and a little more”, whereas under the net-income tax provisions the personal exemption was based upon an arbitrary amount. In other words, the Victory tax is where the value of the “personal exemption” changed from an amount adequate to cover the “personal living and family expenses” of the majority of the population, to an amount that barely covered the yearly cost of food. It remains that way today.}—943: The Current Tax Payment Act

The greater the mental-voodoo involved , the more incomprehensible the demands in writing must become, which is why no diagrams, color charts, or any other VISUAL presentations to clarify said demands, or obligations, as required, are apparently allowed. Think about this deliberate method of obfuscation very carefully— what has to be hidden still has to be in plain site…. or the whole shebang goes down in flames.

Case in point, ever check out the code sections for say… Trusts? Where there is no financial Uniformity— lies the tapeworm of Direct taxes—- on a U.S. citizen not protected by a Union State constitution. So ask the obvious question… why was a “liability” via a non-tax amendment, artificially created for only the lowly U. S. citizen? Let me guess… ’cause that’s the only  one that can’t fight back against the injustice where it festers like a puss, riddled sore on the body politic. Sure beat up on that defenseless U.S. peon, conveniently shackled to that inexhaustible debt, so he knows Congress can kick his ass at any time and apparently anyplace as well.

This lack of any lawful defense begs the unpopular question, was this state of citizen control produced only by sadistic design? Why that would mean low-down conspiracy by legalized, scheming policy, as if a slimy, political conspiracy was just atypical, bureaucratic ineptness by over-worked, duplicitous civil servants. That pompous golden crown sure does look like it needs a fresh coat of moral paint. The apologetic polishers might want wipe the bloody stain off their noses.

Did the feds start specifically taxing the “U.S. citizen” prior to the 16th?  Curiously, if those attempts were not successful, why not? The 16th is clearly an indirect reach-around, excise tax on corporate incomes— read the address of President Taft to Congress— there is no doubt it is an excise on privileges, plural, and not one word about wages, however earned by peons at large.The balance was supposed to be found in the exemption. Clearly, that was a lie. The  exemption was never sacred, or even dedicated by lawful measure. The exemption clause was too weak to be taken seriously, and lawmakers continuously reneged on the deal as if it was never there at all. That’s the lie which needs to be rectified.

Hence, no Cultural Uniformity is even possible between the peons and the owners of that Capital, by lawful application of unequal political rules. So why is that cultural distinction so important in solving the bigger economic puzzle? Easy— the super-ultra- rich already had a fix on both sides of that Golden Coin long before that 16th ruse was passed. They were never actually at risk. They also had nothing to fear when they lend their money for your money which is really their money so returned with compound interest.

A living person has Natural Rights —basic logic stipulates— that which has no mind of its own has no authority over that which does— that which has no conscience cannot Speak for one that does, that which sheds no blood to defend others, has no right to demand of others, that which it cannot do for itself and that which has no force of Will is forever bound to that which does—Hence, living People so endowed by their Creator with Natural Rights, have inherent Unalienable Rights, Constitutionally protected Inalienable Rights and civil alienable citizen rights all at the same Time. Our Founders did not Crown the federal in the Name of the King. Or themselves. And who came first? We the People….  who also created those treasonous civil servants now chanting superior authority, but only for themselves. Apparently the law has become an ass of itself.

A corporation is a State created fictional person/citizen and all of its rights are permanently alienable. All States are also fictions and have enumerated rights, all of which are alienable. Disagree… then go ask that State to Speak for itself. Nature does NOT create fictions called States— which is why atheists claiming supreme state authority are collective idiots.

The sordid truths of the economic system as Imposed are found in the dark, cultural absurdities never properly questioned.

Thus, proving why the typical wage worker has been royally screwed is easy. Unfortunately, the average Joe has been tricked into believing by way of assumptions and dire threats to agree to the public game of voluntary self assessment— by the tyrants,  private Creditor RULES of course. If you agree to those pirate credit terms that’s the whole of the private law game.

So this amazing legal creditor trick of “debt income’ predicated upon taxing culturally free Union state persons as politically imprisoned  “fed citizens” is based upon using an amendment only meant to Lawfully apply to corporations, those that own them in whatever capacity and foreigners in general. So the real question is: why did the 16th do the exact opposite as claimed? And if you think about it… that is one hell of a trick. The proof is in that wealth disparity unchanged culturally from then till now.

If the jurisdiction of the federal was so all encompassing, that just any old citizen was liable for the tax so imposed, why make any distinctions where none are needed? The liability clause for U.S. citizens is found in previous versions of the CFR:

“(c) [Who?] is a *citizen. Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction [thereof] is a *citizen.”

–“The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. The amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws, and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War.”

—“The Fourteenth Amendment addresses many aspects of citizenship and the rights of citizens (primarily who were slaves).  The most commonly used — and frequently litigated — phrase in the amendment is  “equal protection of the laws“, which figures prominently in a wide variety of landmark cases, including Brown v. Board of Education (racial discrimination), Roe v. Wade (reproductive rights),  Bush v. Gore (election recounts), Reed v. Reed (gender discrimination),  and University of California v. Bakke (racial quotas in education).”

Also take notice of the proper reference, “State of the United States” and why the proper form is not used when required which will become very clear further on.

14th — Section 1. [Green additions to show  missing logical elements/conflicts]

—“All persons [but not any individual] born or naturalized in [not any State ] the United States (not of America), and subject to the jurisdiction thereof(false for Union Citizens), are citizens of the United States  (not of America) and of the state (lower case) wherein they reside(not domiciled). No state (Not a Union State) shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of **citizens of the United States(sounds quite foreign as compared to the several States); nor shall any (foreign) *state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

*How very odd that this form was not used: State of the United States and their jurisdictions not its. And the switch to persons, not citizens, or even individuals. From this reading it actually makes more sense if the section in question was addressing foreign states, not Union ones. This is worded exactly as one would expect to warn foreign states your class of protected citizens are to be left alone. A citizen grab requires better “privileges and immunities” then the next booth over. Re-read that section as if you were some poor, non-U.S. non-English speaking/writing peon looking for a better deal of “citizenship” in dangerous revolutionary times. What a sweet deal until you finally understand all that fine print.

—“The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution states that “the Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”—This clause proves not only was there NO such thing as a U.S. citizen, there was no need to make any class of citizens different from any other and no ‘under jurisdiction thereof’ as a condition for any Citizen to be a Citizen of the several States. Any inferior fed citizen would be very jealous of those other Citizens for the inequality alone. Once again who came first— The Union State Citizen or that impostor who took its place.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1

**Note the subtle changes of Citizens, States, several States to lower case in any description were duplicity is the means to an end.

     —Immunity — n. exemption from penalties, payments or legal requirements, granted by authorities or statutes. Generally there are three types of immunity at law: a) a promise not to prosecute for a crime in exchange for information or testimony in a criminal matter, granted by the prosecutors, a judge, a grand jury or an investigating legislative committee; b) public officials’ protection from liability for their decisions (like a city manager or member of a public hospital board); c) governmental (or sovereign) immunity, which protects government agencies from lawsuits unless the government agreed to be sued; d) diplomatic immunity which excuses foreign ambassadors from most U.S. criminal laws.

So once again, the question is WHY not state the obvious in regards to laws or regulations tying together assets of wealth not just liability and taxable incomes? Wealth is the cultural disparity and measuring that wealth only by the economic term “Incomes” is how the ultra-wealthy dodged the real intent of that public tax soaking, while laughing at the uninformed peons, who had no idea how they were culturally fooled simply by empty, meaningless economic terms alone.

Any sentence, using the political term “citizen”by the 14th amendment wording, is not addressing a cultural Citizen of the several States. Any cultural law by definition, that fails to specify why a U.S. citizen by economic default is in a defective person-class (by omission of genuine cultural Citizen Rights) is a purposeful deception upon those persons so born.

That each cultural class of “citizens/Citizens” is lawfully exactly the same is the false economic assumption the reader is intended to infer. So do not assume that intended similarity to be true. When a textual description only says one thing and nothing else, Inclusion and Exclusion are the only rules providing cultural clarity.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

The really interesting question: is the clause “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” actually the wrong assertion for entry into a State of the United States? And when did they become culturally equal?

—“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” If the intention was to elevate freed slaves to equal cultural status of whites why not just say so? Why is state citizenship secondary (weak) if State citizenship equality was the actual goal? And once the freed slaves were elevated to whole Citizen status the federal demand of jurisdiction is Constitutionally untenable, in any of those several States. Why is “state” a sneaky political distinction not a geographical cultural one?

“All persons born or naturalized in any State of the United States, and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States thereof, cannot be citizens of the United States, or of any state wherein they reside.” In this example the negation of U.S. jurisdiction, a State Citizen cannot be a United States (federal) citizen, or reside in any other state under its jurisdiction.

Since Union persons are already Citizens of the State where they are Domiciled, Congress never had jurisdiction to change State  citizenship by any legislative act, and they did not. Typically, only foreign persons who can be “Subjects to” the jurisdiction of Congress, and only after the prescribed specific conditions—born or naturalized—especially if in foreign lands and on the high seas, may become U.S. citizens.  So many researchers have noted again and again, that most of the IRS Code, aside from corporations, primarily deals with foreign persons under that jurisdiction and to a much lessor extant, Union Citizens doing business in foreign jurisdictions.

The curious factor here has been lost to history— sending freed slaves to “states” clearly exterior to the geographic United States of America— for slightly, unethical cultural reasons. The language of the 14th hid the real cultural intent, plus the forcing of passage by military intervention, the denial of suffrage, all point to a rotten cultural purpose made nice by false intentions of political good.

—-“During the next few decades, thousands of freed slaves came from Canada, the West Indies, and other parts of West Africa to the Sierra Leone Colony, and in 1820 the first freed slaves from the United States arrived at Sierra Leone. In 1821, the American Colonization Society founded the colony of Liberia south of Sierra Leone as a homeland for freed U.S. slaves outside of British jurisdiction.—- Gosh, what a surprise.

——“”So many people in the North said we will not accept emancipation unless it is accompanied by colonization,” said Mr. Burlingame, adding that Lincoln himself had always made clear colonization would be voluntary and nobody would be forced out of the United States.

—The newly released documents underscore just how hot a topic colonization was in the 1800s, when prominent statesmen debated whether blacks and whites could ever live together in a functioning society.

—Earlier in the century, the American Colonization Society already had organized efforts to ship thousands of black Americans to Africa to the colony of Liberia, and the debate over colonization raged even within the black community.

Frederick Douglass, one of the country’s most prominent free blacks, generally opposed colonization, though Mr. Burlingame said on a couple of occasions he showed signs he might embrace it — including appearing open to a venture in Haiti during the Civil War.

—Still, Douglass also rejected the argument that blacks and whites couldn’t live together, and he pointed to places in the North as examples of where it already was happening.

—Mr. Burlingame said some abolitionists viewed colonization as a plot to preserve slavery by getting rid of free blacks in the North, while others saw it as a way to undermine slavery by fundamentally questioning the principles slavery was based on.

—Mr. Magness, a researcher at the Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University, said he first got wind of Lincoln’s efforts while researching a meeting between the 16th president and Union Gen. Benjamin Butler in the waning days of the war, at which colonization had been discussed.

—-Most of the U.S. documents about the Belize and Guyana deals have gone missing, but Mr. Magness and his co-author tracked down what he called an “almost untapped treasure cache of Civil War-era records” from the British side that showed Lincoln’s deep involvement in the planning and authorization. With 4 million blacks in the U.S. at the time of the war, colonization would have been a tricky and pricey move.”—

The language of the 14th section 1  clearly anticipated a much greater colonization effort, under federal jurisdiction, due to freed slaves migrating, in addition to all those other valuable economic possibilities needing U.S. citizens. Only the political goals intended never fully materialized culturally as planned for freed black slaves. Also colonizing foreign territories where slavery existed with newly minted localized U.S. citizens may well have been part of a more ambitious plan to take control of such persons previously under “Other” jurisdictions. An army of civil citizens under U.S. jurisdictions, in foreign lands would have had quite the advantage to gain access to raw materials, plus other forms of wealth by diverse property acquisitions. Political control of new geographic zones occurred after defeating the Spanish and taking their booty.

Citizen protection equals exuberant empire building in foreign lands and those ambitions provide a viable explanation for the confusing language and awkward claims of jurisdiction. The manipulations of lawful intent is much easier when dealing with sole jurisdictional matters, especially when citizenship cultural liability, was twisted once again, for a different economic purpose; to take in yet more revenue for world war number two.

A foreign person who is not yet a subject to Congress, clearly has not been born in any State of the United States, but may well be from a possession or territory so conquered and therefore, would be under the jurisdiction thereof as a direct result.

A person who is not under the jurisdiction thereof is not a subject–American people are also Union Citizens, who are not subjects of congress, as they are impersonal sovereigns as a class group, “We the People” — so perhaps the exchange of Foreign subjects is merely a condition, which had to change in International Law, thus required persons to become a U.S. little (c) citizen, thereby financially severed from a previously foreign political jurisdiction.

—“The next major surge in debt coincided with the US Civil War. The federal government was nearly debt-free before the war. The public debt surged from about $65 million in 1860 to $2.76 billion in 1866. (The Lincoln administration also signed into law the first income tax in the country’s history in 1862, which was repealed 10 years later.) The debt would never get below $900 million again. But a surge of late-19th-century economic growth, with a bit of inflation, helped the US gradually reduce the the Civil War debt as a percentage of economic output.

WORLD WAR II

The debt-to-GDP ratio hit its all-time record of 113% by war’s end. Debt was at $241.86 billion in 1946, about $2.87 trillion in current dollars. Unlike after World War I, the US never really tried to pay down much of the debt it incurred during World War II. Still the debt shrank in significance as the US economy grew. It would take the debt-to-GDP ratio until 1962 just to get back to where the US was before the war. And with some fits and starts the debt load declined until hitting its recent low in 1974 at 24%, when the debt outstanding held by the public was $343.7 billion ($1.61 trillion, in current dollars.)”  The long story of U.S. debt

Most people, unless so required, do not spend a whole lot of time unraveling a knot of seemingly no real concern. But tax laws are expertly written to dodge a basic truth, and that deeper truth concerns constitutionally protected property of State Citizens. The 14th amendment is not what it pretends to be and the language as used causes more confusion than clarity precisely because it was never honest to its claims. The above chart shows how public debt and war go hand in hand— and with that debt is the need for U.S. citizens paying on the debt-war racket, by any means possible even IF that requires tossing all of those Cultural Rights into the toilet. Or at least the appearance— which is why it is all wrapped around the taxpayer like a Gordian Knot, so identified as a US. citizen.

By example lets use a red apple to represent Union State Citizens  and a picture of any other apple to represent a U.S. citizen. One is Natural and the other is a photocopy/fiction — now lets say there is a table with a dozen boxes marked Items and Sources of “taxable” income from a grouping of Incomes. The game is to place  apples in the correct boxes. The Rules determine which form of apple goes where, and emphasize over and over, the penalty for choosing the wrong boxes. You, the person playing the game, pore over the instructions which are quite convoluted, not unlike a maze for the mind with no visual clues, that specific words as used, do not mean what they imply by common usage.

You are of course never told there is no box for the real apple and you mistake one form of apple for another due to the context of the demands. Since the game is based on psychological terms and phrases, mixed with difficult, conflicting math statements, interspersed with spaghetti tossed regulations, you choose the easy, well marked place-holders, indicating the best box answer, just to preserve your sanity. People are fooled by the well-marked boxes which only seem to be in harmony with the incomprehensible instructions. One is easy to find… the other overtly complex to determine. Is it any surprise that fake complexity is the proof of the trick hereby imposed?

Even more proof of these “tricks” in action is found in the following sections, see how many you can spot:—

[§1.1-1   Income tax on individuals.

(a) General rule. (1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States and, to the extent provided by section 871(b) or 877(b), on the income of a nonresident alien individual. For optional tax in the case of taxpayers with adjusted gross income of less than $10,000 (less than $5,000 for taxable years beginning before January 1, 1970) see section 3. The tax imposed is upon taxable income (determined by subtracting the allowable deductions from gross income). The tax is determined in accordance with the table contained in section 1. See sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph for reference guides to the appropriate table for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 1964, and before January 1, 1965, taxable years beginning after December 31, 1964, and before January 1, 1971, and taxable years beginning after December 31, 1970.

—In certain cases credits are allowed against the amount of the tax. See part IV (section 31 and following), sub-chapter A, chapter 1 of the Code. In general, the tax is payable upon the basis of returns rendered by persons liable therefor (sub-chapter A (sections 6001 and following), chapter 61 of the Code) or at the source of the income by withholding.

(b) Citizens or residents of the United States liable to tax. In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, [and all resident alien individuals] are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States.

—Pursuant to section 876, a nonresident alien individual who is a bona fide resident of a section 931 possession (as defined in §1.931-1(c)(1) of this chapter) or Puerto Rico during the entire taxable year is, except as provided in section 931 or 933 with respect to income from sources within such possessions, subject to taxation in the same manner as a resident alien individual. As to tax on nonresident alien individuals, see sections 871 and 877.

(c) Who is a citizen. Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen. For other rules governing the acquisition of citizenship, see chapters 1 and 2 of title III of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401-1459). For rules governing loss of citizenship, see sections 349 to 357, inclusive, of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1481-1489), Schneider v. Rusk, (1964) 377 U.S. 163, and Rev. Rul. 70-506, C.B. 1970-2, 1.

—For rules pertaining to persons who are nationals but not citizens at birth, e.g., a person born in American Samoa, see section 308 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1408). For special rules applicable to certain expatriates who have lost citizenship with a principal purpose of avoiding certain taxes, see section 877. A foreigner who has filed his declaration of intention of becoming a citizen but who has not yet been admitted to citizenship by a final order of a naturalization court is an alien.
(d) Effective/applicability date. The second sentence of paragraph (b) of this section applies to taxable years ending after April 9, 2008. {Pursuant to section 876, a nonresident alien individual who is a bona fide resident of a section 931 possession (as defined in §1.931-1(c)(1) of this chapter) or Puerto Rico during the entire taxable year is, except as provided in section 931 or 933 with respect to income from sources within such possessions, subject to taxation in the same manner as a resident alien individual.}
(di) [T.D. 6500, 25 FR 11402, Nov. 26, 1960, as amended by T.D. 7332, 39 FR 44216, Dec. 23, 1974; T.D. 9391, 73 FR 19358, Apr. 9, 2008] —

The absurdity is that by extending inferior rights to a fiction of the real, those real Rights for real people somehow no longer apply. The Federal Constitution cannot be invalidated by any Legislative Act, no matter how pious the reasons may be— therefore, giving inferior, implied municipal rights to freed slaves, simply cannot remove the BILL of Rights from everyone else. A picture cannot replace the real thing, or no one would need the real thing. However, dense confusing written codes can fool people into accepting conditions without realizing, when or which citizen/Citizen is being literally referenced.

The issue buried in the background is this: Culturally whites and blacks have different values— this clash in cultures was not addressed by the 14th,  nor did the 14th resolve the economic antagonism’s so suffered and of course, was never intended too either. The freed slaves were always culturally inferior Citizens of the States where they lived. White Citizens considered them inferior by belief alone not law. The freed slaves found themselves still under an oppressive cultural bias which a U.S. citizenship did not change.To accommodate another alien culture, which had no foundations in the prevalent culture, is like throwing meat balls into chicken soup. The correct principle was never addressed by the wrong political demands. Both sides were set up to fail. Miserably so with prejudice. To exploit the Capital Labor Market in foreign jurisdictions was no easy feat.

The 14th was a naked power grab based on politically adverse economic adjectives not morally based ones. The goal was to strip away the fundamental protections of all American Citizens, while pretending to defend the civil equality between two different cultures. Human slavery was not just a bad idea, it was an evil idea and a fatal defect to every Rule of law depending on equal Rights for all Citizens of the United States. Federal citizenship is an inferior solution to a cultural bias that cannot be solved by political gimmicks at the voting booth. The pain is from the thorn so Imposed from a foreign Master getting on its revenge the old-fashioned way—- destroying both cultural and economic domestic harmony.

The 14th is not a taxing law and sure in the hell did not give the federal bosses a new  TAXING power never before contemplated. But for a foreign banking Syndicate, it absolutely was necessary. And yet, the reference to the 14th amendment is very specific and tied directly to the infamous clause “And under the jurisdiction thereof” translated Exclusive Legislation. This begs a deeper question never answered: Why is an inferior form of political citizenship the only operational hook for the 16th amendment as applied culturally to “We the People” of the several States? Why not state the obvious? What is keeping Congress from simply applying the tax they really want IF they already had that specific taxing power as claimed? Easy— the 16th purposely has no enabling clause and is dependent on the 14th by regulation fiat. That fake dependency is the fatal defect which has to be downplayed or the economic gig is up.

—“Now, Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the U.S. Constitution, of course, plainly and clearly provides the enforcement authority for these indirect Article I taxing powers:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18

“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof”

This Article I clause of the Constitution of course, is the enabling enforcement clause that allows the federal government to enforce by written law, as appropriate legislation, the indirect taxing powers of the federal government that are granted in Article I, Section 8, clause 1, i.e.: the power to tax indirectly by impost, duty or excise.

       However, if this is the empowering enforcement clause that serves as the enabling enforcement clause that gives the government (IRS) the enforcement authority to lawfully operate under to enforce the collection and payment of the federal personal income tax as an indirect tax, then, of course, and obviously, it then becomes absolutely necessary to identify how the IRS has determined that any specific individual person is subject to one of these indirect taxing forms, i.e.: an impost, duty, or excise.

The problem here of course is that American citizens are not normally subject to any impost, duty, or excise tax, simply as a result of exercising their Right to Work.

Maybe this explains why the federal personal income tax was not paid on work (generally) or employment (specifically) by any American citizens until after World War II.”—

If the only authority as needed was the 16th, then the question of  jurisdiction is actually totally unnecessary. However, since both are being used I call this the “Pinch Effect” as neither power does the trick all by their lonesome. The consequence of this Gordian knot is what drives rational people to the deep-end of the pool. One of these “powers” doesn’t belong there, the other has no enabling clause and the feds know this confuses people to their advantage. The challenge will be in convincing people to stop reading into the language what they have been taught, and instead see how clever another purpose entirely was laid down in the 14th in anticipation of future conquests.

—The Supreme Court has definitively settled the legal issue of the constitutional scope of the legal authority of the Congress to tax by excise.   It was specifically held in the Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911)[1] ruling, that excise taxes are:

taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges … the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of the privilege and if business is not done in the manner described no tax is payable…it is the privilege which is the subject of the tax and not the mere buying, selling or handling of goods. ” Cooley, Const. Lim., 7th ed., 680.” Flint, supra, at 151″—-

Now for the other evil twin:

“The Congress shall[may] have power to lay and collect taxes on income(s), from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” Note the lack of an enabling clause… how odd? And oddly still, by this example the feds do not need to share the bounty of foreign revenue with those several States. The negative carries a whole other meaning if purposely excluding tax revenues from States. Think about that very carefully until the aha light comes on or in.

Also left out was of course the main contention —corporate privileges which can in fact be taxed under excise rules. This omission is easily proven.

—“I therefore recommend an amendment to the tariff bill Imposing upon all corporations and joint stock companies for profit, except national banks (otherwise taxed), savings banks, and building and loan associations, an excise tax measured by 2 per cent on the net income of such corporationsThis is an excise tax upon the privilege of doing business as an artificial entity and of freedom from a general partnership liability enjoyed by those who own the stock. [Emphasis added] I am informed that a 2 per cent tax of this character would bring into the Treasury of the United States not less than $25,000,000.

The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Spreckels Sugar Refining Company against McClain (192 U.S., 397), seems clearly to establish the principle that such a tax as this is an excise tax upon privilege and not a direct tax on property, and is within the federal power without apportionment according to population.  The tax on net income is preferable to one proportionate to a percentage of the gross receipts, because it is a tax upon success and not failure.  It imposes a burden at the source of the income at a time when the corporation is well able to pay and when collection is easy.

Another merit of this tax is the federal supervision, which must be exercised in order to make the law effective over the annual accounts and business transactions of all corporations.  While the faculty of assuming a corporate form has been of the utmost utility in the business world, it is also true that substantially all of the abuses and all of the evils which have aroused the public to the necessity of reform were made possible by the use of this very faculty.  If now, by a perfectly legitimate and effective system of taxation, we are incidentally able to possess the Government and the stockholders and the public of the knowledge of the real business transactions and the gains and profits of every corporation in the country, we have made a long step toward that supervisory control of corporations which may prevent a further abuse of power.

I recommend, then, first, the adoption of a joint resolution by two-thirds of both Houses, proposing to the States an amendment to the Constitution granting to the Federal Government the right to levy and collect an income tax without apportionment among the several States according to population; and, second, the enactment, as part of the pending revenue measure, either as a substitute for, or in addition to, the inheritance tax, of an excise tax upon all corporations, measured by 2 percent of their net income.

Wm.  H.  Taft

—“Twice during the debates on the 16th Amendment (S.J.R. No. 25 and S.J.R. No. 39), Congress rejected the idea of bringing direct taxes within the authority of the 16th Amendment.  Then twice more, on July 5, 1909, Congress rejected the idea by direct vote of the Senate.  Despite this congressional hostility to the idea, the IRS and the lower courts admit they are collecting a direct tax.  At a minimum this is scandalous.  In reality it is probably criminal.

“Acts of Congress are to be construed and applied in Harmony with and not to thwart the purpose of the Constitution.”  [Phelps v. U.S., 274 U.S. 341, 344 (1927)]”— Nor does the 16th Amendment have an enforcement clause, as it does not convey a new power to Congress, but only clarifies a theory of taxation.”

The popular theme of that time was “soak the rich” and the 16th was a clever “Trojan horse” that did the EXACT opposite as any Trust baby can affirm. The very wording of the 16th is purposely vague to convey an assumption that is easily refuted. Any indirect tax following the rule of Uniformity does not require a census, much less, apportionment. The language dances around both rules without actually saying anything of substance about either “Incomes” which is plural(tangible wealth versus intangible wealth) or sources unknown. The extreme wealth of that period, which was held in intangible forms, thus escaped States taxing powers and federal indirect taxing powers, was still untouchable by Trusts.

Since this was an excise tax on corporations this logical version is what counts for clarity: “The Congress shall[may] have power(exclusive legislation) to lay and collect [excise}taxes on income(s), from whatever source derived, from the gains and profits of every corporation in the country. This is an excise tax upon the privilege of doing business as an artificial entity and of freedom from a general partnership liability enjoyed by those who own the stock.”

Is there any confusion as to whom the tax is laid, or why? Is there any theory involved here at all? No— intent meets language meets law— Q. E. D.

So why is there any controversy— oh, that’s right, Congress and the IRS disregard the facts, in favor of a Policy that actually Defeats the Law. So while the code as written does not implicitly violate the law, the inferences as enforced, by policy alone, are downright criminal. Legal extortion is not a new power under the authority of Congress.

A simple test of basic logic— If the U.S. citizen tag is removed from the Code– why does the 16th amendment claim immediately fail? Easy— where in the 16th does it state or specify a condition upon a U.S. citizen period? Do you see any mention of that U.S. Individual? How about that U.S. Person? The language also  avoids any mention of a Citizen of the Several States. Now how hard would it have been to have expressed the intent using the correct form of language? When is simplicity too hard to understand?

Why is clarity omitted where it is essential to the goal?

The 16th was specifically about including corporate {incomes} under the established excise taxing power, which incidentally does NOT need a test of citizen status, or the 16th would be predicated upon that specific necessity. An excise can fall on any person (Natural or artificial) engaged in the taxable event or activity. Easy example: buying a pack of cigarettes does not require a U.S. citizen test. The tax is uniform on any purchase by any person, regardless of where they are from or even why period. A test for “U.S. citizen Liability” easily proves an excise of this form cannot be Uniform, specifically, due to being too directly exclusive upon political citizenship.  This is a Direct citizenship tax and would be quite unconstitutional as currently enforced.

This begs the next major question, why is a phantom political membership the object of an excise tax? A common right does not require federal membership to exercise. To deny this fact is an absurdity.

Interestingly enough, a federal class of political citizens not under the restrictions of a Direct tax, are by the same rules, also not under the rules of a Uniform tax either. Those Congress critters can make up any damn rule they want under their fictions of limited authority. But just because Donald Duck sends you a tax form from the District of Columbia, does not mean it’s real.

Another absurdity arises as a direct result of claiming a Union State Citizen is liable for a tax under two separate Amendments which do not actually apply. Is the trick as used now clear? If the authority to tax “U.S. citizens” was enabled by the 14th the FEDS did not need the 16th period. Vise versa if the 16th was sufficient the 14th would be redundant. People argue against the wrong things for the right reasons but the Courts are silent on the wrong. Did they ask for proof of a US. citizen membership? Not exactly. Do any of us have a card that states specifically “This person is a U.S. citizen?” I have never seen one. So what makes it official?

What people need is a State card that says [name] _______ is a Sovereign State Citizen of ___________ . It really is that simple if done officially of course. And that is where the fight has to be laid and won. And what is being defended is not trivial in the least.

A superfluous absurdity is also the basis for overkill. How many amendments does it take to KILL the Bill of Rights? Answer none— the Unalienable and Inalienable Rights cannot be questioned therefore any amendment which  causes the Constitution to void itself  cannot be allowed. So how can the 14th VOID the rest of the constitution— short answer— can’t happen. But people are weak, easily confused and stop caring.

Another question is why is only one part of the 16th repeated—  as if this phrase was made out of magic words to be liberally sprinkled over any regulation as needed, and presto, the Fed’s get what they want and those U.S. citizens aka Peons can go pound sand. How very one-sided all things considered and purposely anti-democratic as a result. Conditioning is so obvious it stopped being obvious.

An obvious absolute trap is tyranny by any name. And the greater absurdity is the 16th amendment over the last one-hundred years is a colossal, stupendous failure on purpose. Why is that not obvious?

“And while corporations such as Citibank and General Electric loot the Treasury they exact more pounds of flesh in the name of austerity. General Electric, as Nader points out, is a net job exporter. Over the past decade, as Citizens for Tax Justice has documented, GE’s effective federal income tax rate on its $81.2 billion in pretax U.S. profits has been at most 1.8 percent.

Because of the way General Electric’s accountants play with tax liabilities the company actually receives money from the Treasury. They have several billion dollars paid to them from the federal government into company bank accounts—and these are not tax refunds. The company, as Nader argues, is a net drain on the Treasury and a net drain on jobs. It violates a host of environmental and criminal laws. And yet Jeffery Immelt, the CEO of General Electric, was appointed to be the chairman of Obama’s Jobs Council. Immelt’s only major contribution to the jobs initiative was to get rid of 37,000 of his employees since 2001.

Jim McNerney, president and CEO of Boeing, who also sat on the Jobs Council, has cut over 14,000 jobs since 2008, according to Public Campaign. The only jobs the CEOs on the Jobs Council were concerned with were the ones these CEOs eradicated. The Jobs Council, which Obama disbanded this week, is a microcosm of what is happening within the corridors of power. Corporations increasingly terminate jobs here to hire grossly underpaid workers in India or China while at the same time stealing as much as fast as they can on the way out the door.” Breaking the Chains of Debt Peonage.

What obtuse rule is silently working in favor of such a tiny minority, and furthermore, why has the Congress allowed this imbalance to increase for so long while only pretending the 16th solved the problem? How does reducing the working classes to Peons— literally, fulfill or promote the General Welfare of the Nation?

A power to tax when ABUSED causes the very ills so suffered, and yet, the Courts and Congress do nothing, and say nothing as the People are treated as Perpetual Debt-citizens/slaves. As the share of debt always rises so too must the taxes to feed the debt-beast.

Most people fail to understand that the Direct tax was sent to the STATES, not any individual — the States were free to choose how the tax would be funded/collected upon the citizens of each respective state. This arrangement proved the Direct tax did not encompass anything within the “jurisdiction” of the several States and in fact never pretended to do so. The Taft address to Congress, where he specifically outlined in exact detail what the 16th was explicitly intended to accomplish, was ONLY about corporations and the Incomes so generated by their ownership and whatever source that income might encompass, both within the domestic sources, and without international, aka foreign sources. The privilege of being Under the “international jurisdiction” of the federal authority is protection— therefore, doing business anywhere in the world allowed those seeking this advantage, to enjoy the Profits and the protections so provided, and are naturally expected to Return, from their Profits and Gains, the “Excise Tax,” so attached.

While the tax code is expertly written to give an illusion of Uniformity, in fact, it does no such thing. Corporations have tremendous advantages over natural persons, especially in regards to how that FINAL product, the widget called taxable (income) is Produced… as shown in that GE example,  just like any other  widget on an assembly line. A perfected ruse to fool the ever gullible public is still always wrong and using sleight-of-hand semantic tricks, is the proof the dark,  over-lords know exactly what they are doing.

The classic question is why wages can be classified as pure profit BEFORE any expense is even allowed to be deducted. Since every business is allowed by Law to REMOVE from gross, all expenses, BEFORE a net can be called gain, or profit— the Rule of Uniformity is twisted like a pretzel, when applied to personal expenses. Naturally, the working stiff is just supposed to buy this lame assertion and never question the principle — so expressed as the Zero Cost basis.

It has long been held, as recognized by Justice Fields in his supporting opinion in the Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895), decision, at pg. 599, that under the Constitution:

“There is no such thing in the theory of our national government as unlimited power of taxation in congress. There are limitations, as he justly observes, of its powers arising out of the essential nature of all free governments; there are reservations of individual rights, without which society could not exist, and which are respected by every government. The right of taxation is subject to these limitations. Citizens’ Savings Loan Ass’n v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655, and Parkersburg v. Brown, 106 U.S. 487, 1 Sup. Ct. 442.”

“The inherent and fundamental nature and character of a tax is that of a contribution to the support of the government, levied upon the principle of equal and uniform apportionment among the persons taxed, and any other exaction does not come within the legal definition of a ‘tax.’”

“Hamilton says in one of his papers (the Continentalist): ‘The genius of liberty reprobates everything arbitrary or discretionary in taxation. It exacts that every man, by a definite and general rule, should know what proportion of his property the state demands; whatever liberty we may boast of in theory, it cannot exist in fact while [arbitrary] assessments continue.’” 1 Hamilton’s Works (Ed. 1885) 270. Pollock, supra, at 596

“The Justices, here in the Pollock case, are simply making note of the well known and long-established fact that the income tax, like any other tax under the Constitution, must be either a uniform indirect tax, or an apportioned direct tax. It cannot be both. Under the Constitution, no tax can be both a direct tax – where it is apportioned to the State governments for collection, and an indirect tax – where it is uniformly collected from subject parties involved in activities subject to indirect taxes laid as duties, imposts and excises. The income tax must, and can only, be one or the other, never both.”

“The Federal Regulations governing I.R.S. conduct acknowledge these limits on the federal taxing power, and preserve the Fifth Amendment protections of the individuals. At 26 CFR § 601.106(f)(1) it clearly specifically and states:

(1) Rule 1. An exaction by the U.S. Government, which is not based upon law, statutory or otherwise, is a taking of property without due process of law, in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Accordingly, an Appeals representative in his or her conclusions of fact or application of the law, shall hew to the law and the recognized standards of legal construction. It shall be his or her duty to determine the correct amount of the tax, with strict impartiality as between the taxpayer and the Government, and without favoritism or discrimination as between taxpayers.

In Botta v. Scanlon, 228 F. 2nd 304 (1961), the court recognizes in its decision the very real limits of the statutory powers of the federal employees to make arbitrary determinations of liability for federal income tax, without relying upon statutory provisions to serve as the legal foundation for the determination, invoking both a recognition of the limits of power of the federal employees to create liability for tax through their own actions, and to provide fundamental due process in the form of judicial review.

“The reasonable construction of the taxing statutes does not include vesting any tax official with absolute power of assessment against individuals not specified in the statutes as persons liable for the tax without an opportunity for judicial review of this status before the appellation of “taxpayer” is bestowed upon them and their property seized.”

“How Did Income Taxes Spring Up in One Generation?

—Phil Hart’s book outlining the history of Congress’ IRS scam    explains it. The 16th Amendment was passed in 1913, yet it took a generation for most Americans to be snookered into believing it was their civic duty to fund a RICO scam. Also see the Donald Duck article at the bottom of this blog, to see that Amity Schlaes concluded the same thing in her book The Greedy Hand.

—It seemed odd to me: although the tax industry apologists and gurus love to claim that the 16th Amendment made everyone *liable, the history of tax revenue numbers don’t support that assertion. What happened? An entire generation passed before Congress, the tax industry, and government schooling could flummox the whole productive population. If you read Phil Hart’s book you’ll be blood-spittingly furious at the U.S. Congress…and at every tax accountant and attorney you know.

—In her sworn testimony before the Senate Finance Committee in 1997, Shelley L. Davis, the only official IRS Historian in the history of that agency, said the IRS is systemically lawless and corrupt.

—Former IRS employees have learned the truth about Congress’ IRS scam, left the agency and are now spokesmen for Tax Honesty including Treasury and CID agent Joe Banister, IRS agents Clifton Beale and John Turner, IRS fraud examiner Sherry Jackson, IRS attorney Paul Chappell, and IRS auditor Matthew McErlean.

—In the same 1956 interview for U.S. News & World Report, IRS Commissioner Andrews said, “I don’t like the income tax…every time we talk about these taxes we get the idea of ‘from each according to his capacity and to each according to his needs.’ That’s socialism! It’s written into the Communist Manifesto…  Maybe we ought to see that everybody who gets a tax return receives…  a Communist Manifesto with it, so he can see what’s happening to him.”

— “The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. . . . The individual’s rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed.” Redfield v. Fisher, 292 P. 813, 135 Or. 180, 294 P.461, 73 A.L.R. 721 (1931)

In 1939, “only 3.9% of the population” of the United States were covered by the income tax . . . only a small portion of the population” (Treasury Department’s Division of Tax Research 23 ).
How can that be when far more than 3.9% of Americans in 1939 provided labor or services for wages? That is because wages were not then, and are not today, lawful “income,” and only 3.9% of the population in 1939 were wealthy enough to actually have true “income” (unearned wealth, or a corporate profit) or income “derived from” their principal, or savings).—

Here is the quote used as an example for the Zero Basis:

Wages to be taxable must pass the same type of examination. For example, if John Doe works 5 hours for $5.00 per hour, is the $25.00 he receives taxable income to him? As we have seen in the above analysis, we must determine if there has been a gain which is realized and recognized.

To see if there was a gain we do not look only to the fair market value of the labor, but rather we determine the difference between the fair market value and his basis (cost) in the labor. Generally one has a zero basis in one’s own labor. Therefore, Doe’s gain is $25.00(fmv) minus 0, or $25.00. This gain is realized when Doe is paid or has right to receive payment.

The gain is recognized specifically in IRC § 61(a)(1) (compensation for services) and there is no [non-recognition] section which is generally applicable to wages. Therefore, John Doe has $25.00 of taxable income.

 

This is a very clever truism indeed– Generally one has a zero basis(cost) in one’s own labor. Stated another way– Generally, one does not purchase ones own labor. Bob cannot pay his costs to himself– which is to say, the cost of his own chores, washing his own car,  or working in a family garden are all personal costs. Gosh, if a man did pay himself for his own costs (basis)— WHY would he ever need to work for anyone else ever again! The IRS  uses an absurd example to convince people to argue the wrong principle. Personal and business liabilities operate on separate principles of operation. To untwist the false assumptions reveals two very different forms of that cost basis at work.

If an employee refuses to work, or is not performing as required his personal liability results in personal loss. If Bob gets fired for not doing what he was told,  or expected, or required during the work period his personal basis is measured by his loss of money not gain. So his work-hour as employed is the time-liability every employee must suffer. Bob has a constant hourly-liability while on the job, which is his personal basis. Jim has a business basis not personal therefore, Bob and his boss Jim who share a contract relationship have a Co-Joined Basis as a result.

A Co-joined basis recognizes— That without one there cannot be the other— as in reciprocal functions which define costs. If Bob was not an employee of Jim, he has no job and has no wage—and  his gain basis is indeed zero. Jim needs an employee to help run his business. Both are in fact Co-Dependent, on the same revenue leading to gross receipts. Bob as the IRS cynically points out, cannot pay himself for his own labors and Jim cannot force Bob to work for nothing. Bob’s pay comes from the business gross receipts of Jim’s business.  Funny how that IRS example leaves out the actual relationship of why any money is earned at all.

In a factory Bob builds widgets and Jim owns the factory. Bob is a production worker for a skilled wage[labor] and Jim derives a profit from his companies total revenue stream. Bob is being taxed on his full wage-labor and Jim whittles down his business tax liability, while enjoying the personal wealth he has amassed from passive sources of intangible income.   As an owner he is not paying the employee out of “gains and profits” earned, but out of actual “labor” costs added to the price of materials or services, for which he also added overhead costs and profit.

Did Bob add his personal costs and profit to his wage? Not likely… and there is the key difference the tax laws ignore on purpose.

Funnier yet, is how the tax lords use the wrong tools of measure also on purpose to hide that key factor. Where is the method by which Congress converts the annual receipts  (wages) to “gains”, so that the tax is levied upon “the gain derived from labor”, not the “labor” itself?  When real estate is rented or leased the renter or lessor is not the source of the person’s “income”, the property is.  Since a man cannot separate himself from the ownership of his own property, the cynical application of the 16th perverts the very protection of that property as labor! 

Do we use a tape measure to determine the temperature? Do we use a cup to measure the pressure in a tire? No that would be stupid. Is it stupid to measure the [personal cost] by the opposite principle? Indeed, and it sure is wrong to do so. Does a stock buy itself for a profit? Does a car run around the city trying to sell itself for a quick gain? No asset owns itself therefore, by that same principle every non-owned asset also has a zero basis. If an asset did own itself, it is no longer an asset of anyone else, and therefore, cannot be used as a measure of gain, as the material quality of its possession specifically rests in its ownership.

Bob who owns himself, in general, has no allowed Right to measure his personal labor Costs,  by a business basis to determine his personal gain. Nifty trick on him.

  —IRS/Topic 703 – Basis of Assets —Basis is generally the amount of your capital investment in property for tax purposes. Use your basis to figure depreciation, amortization, depletion, casualty losses, and any gain or loss on the sale, exchange, or other disposition of the property.  In most situations, the basis of an asset is its cost to you.

Yes, in most situations except for when the rules are reversed to accomplish which would otherwise be unconstitutional as applied. 

If money is a personal asset and a tax a personal liability– is Income so derived, also an asset or a liability of only employee business? So do we subtract the basis of personal  income from business incomes? If we expend income to make income does it matter which source is in play? Why is source yet another trick word that means nothing and yet is used as if it included the whole of the universe? Does source rules violate the Laws governing Direct and Indirect tax powers by design?  Of course, or the truth would have never been blurred as a result. Now we know why Items had to be used to distinguish where that line is drawn.

A human being is more than the sum of property assets. All factors that are personal cannot be measured by a business basis. And to sever the personal from business for an employee may be just as difficult as to include the personal costs. Life does not lend itself well to fake metrics based on Marxist or other ideological isms completely divorced from daily reality. The personal exemption was meant to keep wages from being taxed as income, which proves the intent of exclusion has been broken by reducing the exemption and ignoring the true costs of inflation on hourly wages.

The federal nuts trying to obtain as much revenue as possible, went down the road of fiscal insanity and never looked back. Who cares about the personal so long as bad policy gains more revenue. Principles of law— why care about them when the needs justify the ends, or the political means to the end. The Federal government had no authority whatsoever to dictate the sole terms of what people need or deserve. Unless, that crown really means dictatorship.Is a federal dictatorship really one of the enumerated powers or just the last implied power now that all the other powers of the Universe have been used up.

The social dictates did not solve the critical issues posed by the Normative Questions, they just ignored them altogether. The Congress, along with their pea-brained, pet bean-counters, just ignored the long term ramifications of running these coded programs on living people and damn anyone who disagreed with the rotten results. The federal social engineering program is also a colossal failure. Too much authoritarianism spoils the freedom pie.

When an employer hires an employee the government has joined their once private contract. By muddying the factual relationship in order to collect as much tax from both sides of this imposed contract as possible, the feds overstepped their authority. They know damn well what they are doing is wrong, or they wouldn’t lie like morons when asked to explain themselves. The personal basis and the business basis form reciprocal relationships, derived from mutual benefit. To determine one is to determine the other. Bob OWES Jim: time to be worked; and Jim OWES Bob: for time as worked.   The rate of ten per hour can also be stated: EACH is owed ten dollars OF Time,  as it is a cost to both. This is a Reciprocal Relationship of two forms of basis: personal owed versus business owed as each is an expense, but operating from a different principle determining parallel Co-joined basis.

The part that angers people is the issue of gain. Because the IRS is following the black-finger method it ignores that “personal gain” has to be measured by the same terms of “personal liability” therefore, all of the personal costs are indeed personal liabilities to derive the personal basis. The example is defective for measuring those living expenses to avoid having to confront the truth. All of Bob’s living expenses are personal and cannot be measured by the same tool used by Jim. Wages are not business incomes and Bob is not paid ten Incomes per hour. Bob does not pay 500 incomes a month in rent, or monthly 325 incomes for his car payment. Is coin a form of mini-incomes? Maybe we should label everything “incomes” and call each other pet-incomes-names as well.

In order to take in as much money as possible the Feds have labeled everything that is not incomes as income. How many fish are there in the seas kind of deal. But wait— we do not name everything in an ocean fish and call it a day. Look at the forest of trees.., yeah they are trees, I see no maples— no furs– just trees.Why how simple the world would be if we just named everything income.

And yet the word “income” is not defined in the code.

Liabilities minus assets determines gain as measured. An income producing venture sounds like a profit margin. Maybe it is money, exchanged maybe something else. Income is an abstract term— do we weigh income like sugar? Do we slice it like a pizza? Do we wring it from a rag? Do we walk along the river and say look there goes some incomes like a fish? How many particles of income does it take to fill a gold coin? Each example is an absurdity of reason. Income has become an absurdity of itself due to its gross misuse and ambiguous usage of net-terms. Since it is not just one thing and distinct by a metric, it has become anything the Feds declare it to be and thus, has become in practice a measure of nothing real.

By leaving out the real costs of personal living an extreme injustice is being perpetuated on anyone who works for a living—personal. The real costs of distorting the truth are born by misery not success. The defect in describing by legal terms different species of liabilities, as exactly the same produces absurdities of proper relationships as a result. If the Feds built a car by the same rules as the Codes, you couldn’t build it in the first place, much less drive it in the second. The paperwork alone would require another car.

So when people look at their paycheck, and see all of those taxes so removed, before the check is even cashed, they know what they already lost was not called net-income. They also know what they buy is not called income-food, or incomes fuel, or some other asinine use of the abstract, undefined word income, or its lumpy cousin called gain. If one cannot measure the personal costs correctly, which diminish the gains, the illusion of yearly income is strictly a fiction of numbers.

When the trick is revealed it is obvious— Bob may have received $20,000 in more wages, but as compared to the year before is what counts. If he started with no savings and ended up with $500 in savings, after all personal expenses, and his business expenses are properly accounted for by the Basis rules on both sides— does he have taxable income? NO — Bob is a Citizen of a Union State and his wages are not an excise event to be taxed. If he takes that savings and invests in corporate bonds and then makes a profit his tax position might very well result in a real Taxable Income liability. There are too many instances where a State citizen is liable for lawful taxes (federal or state) and that is not in dispute or contention.

—“The Internal Revenue Code states that “gross income means all income from whatever source derived,” and gives specific examples.[2] The examples are not all inclusive. The term “income” is not defined in the law or regulations. However, a very early Supreme Court case stated, “Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it is understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets.”[3] The Court also held that the amount of gross income on disposition of property is the proceeds less the capital value (cost basis) of the property.[4]”—

What is earned per year is rather meaningless, when that fiat debt-note itself, continues to lose more purchasing power, thereby, increasing the numbers so received is actually proof of theft, not gain. If income is not defined, much less a dollar, the action of yearly measure is more along the lines of a stupid, magic trick.That is the crazy truth of a system operating by conflicting rules and destructive policies. The system is defective and either it changes or the Nation will continue sliding into the abyss of income dysfunctionalism. That would be no matter how much incomes of ones and zero’s on your Ipod screen you are still dead-ass broke.

fedgraph

In part two —decoding the infamous, yet frivolous CFR 861 section and the notorious section 61.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: