Jun 032014
 

Income Tax is Not Necessary to Fund Government

Devvy Kidd
Originally published and copyrighted in June 2001
Updated 01/25/2012

Also available on audio for free; click here.
Download to a CD or IPod and help get the truth to family and friends

Can this statement possibly be true? In order to answer this question, Americans must first understand what is the source of the money that funds the government and where it goes. Contrary to the sound bites issued by the two mainstream political parties, the reality of how the system actually works will not only open your eyes, but hopefully stimulate the American people to demand that the thievery underway come to an end.

Where do your “income” tax dollars go?

The best place to look for an answer to this question would be a government report, so let’s take just one at random:

President’s Private Sector Survey On Cost Control
A Report to The President (Reagan)

January 15, 1984. Available from the Congressional Research Service.
The excerpt below can be found on page 12.

  • “Importantly, any meaningful increases in taxes from personal income would have to come from lower and middle income families, as 90% of all personal taxable income is generated below the taxable income level of $35,000.
  • Further, there isn’t much more that can be extracted from high income brackets. If the
    Government took 100% of all taxable income beyond the $75,000 tax bracket not already taxed, it would get only $17 billion, and this confiscation, which would destroy productive enterprise, would only be sufficient to run the Government for several days.
  • Resistance to additional income taxes would be even more widespread if people were aware that:
  • With two-thirds of everyone’s personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Government contributions to transfer payments.
  • In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their government.”

So what we have is a central bank issuing worthless paper “money” that controls our economy, our lives and our future. This private banking cartel was unconstitutionally granted this power by a devious, scheming group of senators back in 1913. In essence what they did was place the American people into indentured servitude by forcing The People to pay usury on worthless fiat currency (paper money created out of nothing), not to fund the government, but to enrich the bankers and fund wars in which America should never be involved. This system exists not to fund the government, but to allow the U.S. Congress carte blanche power to continue funding unconstitutional agencies and programs by providing them with a bottomless source of worthless ink.

The National Debt and the Deficit

These two little bookkeeping items are not the same thing. Few Americans actually know the difference, but the difference is quite important. We continually hear members of Congress, president after president, and political pundits call for “reduction in the debt.” But what does that really mean? Here’s how it works in the most simplified way to fit into this document:

Let’s say that for 2002, Congress and the President decide they want $1.7 trillion dollars to fund this bloated pig called our government. We know that 100% of all personal “income” taxes extorted by the IRS goes to the “Federal” Reserve Banking System and does not fund a single function of the government. So, let’s take the people’s blood and sweat off the table.

What other revenues does the government collect? Corporate taxes, social security taxes, constitutional revenues such as excise taxes on cigarettes, alcohol, tobacco, firearms, tires, etc., tariffs on trade, military hardware sales, and some minor categories. Let’s say that those revenues will total $900 billion dollars. The politicians want $1.7 trillion to spend on their favorite welfare programs, wars and foreign welfare, but have a short fall of $800 billion dollars. This is called the deficit and the deficit, created by the spending of Congress, creates the “national debt.”

How? Because the politicians are $800 billion dollars short, they simply call up Al Greenspan and borrow your children’s and grand babies’ futures. The “Federal” Reserve Banks don’t loan anything of value to Congress. They aren’t banks; they’re really an overpaid, powerful, private accounting service. When that $800 billion dollars worth of ink is transferred to the Treasury, it gets piled on top of the existing “national debt.”

This is how the magical money machine works. Congress overspends. It borrows from this accounting firm called the “Fed” and then turns around and tells you to pay for these crimes against the people. In other words, Congress basically pays the bills with social security and borrowed ink from the “Fed.” Pretty slick scam, wouldn’t you say?

The people of America are also responsible to a large degree for this out-of-control spending. Americans have been bred to a welfare dependent mentality. Special interest groups who have no interest in the U.S. Constitution, demand that billions of dollars be spent on their pet interests. Billions upon billions of dollars have been unconstitutionally thrown to foreign governments, some days our friend, a week later our enemies. They are only our friend as long as the U.S. throws money at their corrupt governments.

Billions of dollars have unconstitutionally been spent on grants to colleges and universities, which in turn sell their research to the highest bidder, paid for by the sweat off the back of the little guy out in America. No, they don’t return any back to the little guy who funded these studies and research programs.

As long as the American people themselves condone continued unconstitutional spending by Congress, the longer they will violate their oath of office, and continue to fund unconstitutional expenditures, placing your children and grand babies in a state of unpayable, massive debt.

Unless The People demand an end to this insanity, our economy eventually will collapse under the weight of this massive, unpayable debt, no matter how much ink the “Fed” transfers into the coffers of the U.S. Treasury. The pain of withdrawal from unlawful government hand-outs will be far less now than it will be down the road.

America became the greatest, debt free nation on earth by a resourceful, independent, self reliant people. Sadly, today we have a large percentage of our population who can’t get through the day without a government memo telling them how, step-by-step, with a redistribution of average, ordinary Americans assets into the hands of the unproductive. A very sad commentary to what made our nation great and prosperous.

But I heard the debt is being paid down?

What you heard and reality are two separate issues altogether. The politicians must continue to fool the American people lest they catch on to this chicanery. Let’s have a look at the numbers so you can see that any utterance that the national debt has been paid down X billions of dollars, is nothing more than bombastic gas, passed from one administration to the next and the latest recycled Congress.

In the chart below, an R next to the amount indicates a Republican President; a D is for a Democrat in the Oval Office. The Democrats had control of Congress from 1954, until the illusion billed as the “Republican Revolution” in 1994. Both houses of Congress were Republican controlled until after the 2000 “election”, but this ended when in May 2001 James Jeffords ‘fessed up to his real political agenda.

Current Congressionally created debt:

01/23/2012
12/31/2011
06/30/2011
12/31/2010
06/30/2010
12/31/2009
08/30/2009
04/16/2009
10/30/2008
11/01/2007
09/29/2006
09/30/2005
09/30/2004
09/30/2003
09/30/2002
09/28/2001
08/08/2001
04/30/2001
02/28/2001
01/31/2001
12/29/2000
09/29/2000
09/30/1999
09/30/1998
09/30/1997
09/30/1996
09/29/1995
09/30/1994
09/30/1993
09/30/1992
09/30/1991
09/28/1990
09/29/1989
09/30/1988
09/30/1987
$15,236,245,309,869.69 (D)
$15,222,940,045,451.09 (D)
$14,343,087,640,008.40 (D)
$14,025,215,218,708.52 (D)
$13,203,473,753,968.10 (D)
$12,311,349,677,512.03 (D)
$11,909,829,003,511.75 (D)
$11,183,899,252,728.00 (D)
$10,530,893,033,778.21 (R)
$9,080,228,573,291.65 (R)
$8,506,973,899,215.23 (R)
$7,932,709,661,723.50 (R)
$7,379,052,696,330.32 (R)
$6,783,231,062,743.62 (R)
$6,228,235,965,597.16 (R)
$5,807,463,412,200.06 (R)
$5,720,324,946,092.23 (R)
$5,661,347,798,002.65 (R)
$5,735,859,380,573.98 (R)
$5,716,070,587,057.36 (R)
$5,662,216,013,697.37 (D)
$5,674,178,209,886.86 (D)
$5,656,270,901,615.43 (D)
$5,526,193,008,897.62 (D)
$5,413,146,011,397.34 (D)
$5,224,810,939,135.73 (D)
$4,973,982,900,709.39 (D)
$4,692,749,910,013.32 (D)
$4,411,488,883,139.38 (D)
$4,064,620,655,521.66 (R)
$3,665,303,351,697.03 (R)
$3,233,313,451,777.25 (R)
$2,857,430,960,187.32 (R)
$2,602,337,712,041.16 (R)
$2,350,276,890,953.00 (R)

The statistics above were obtained from the Bureau of The Public Debt’s web site:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway
As you can see, it doesn’t matter which party is in office, there is no surplus and the debt cannot be paid down, it can only grow exponentially as long as Congress and the President have the central bank at their fingertips.

A “balanced budget” is nothing more than good political rhetoric, but in reality, it’s a pipe dream strictly for public consumption. How can you balance your budget if you have no money to spend and are trillions of dollars in the hole? You can’t. It’s just another well crafted illusion to keep the masses pacified.

You can fool some of the people some of the time, but the American people have awakened to this monumental theft and are demanding the only real solution that can be implemented: Abolishing the central bank, and a return to a constitutional monetary system with no income tax.

No “Fed,” no need for a direct tax

Without the central bank siphoning off the wealth of our nation, there would be no need for a personal income tax.

President Andrew Jackson booted out the central bank; his speech can be read here:

http://alpha.furman.edu/~benson/docs/ajveto.htm

This battle fought by Jackson was a huge deal back then and he refused to back down. Jackson was the last honest president with the guts to stand up to the international bankers who are literally stealing US blind.

“The greatest party battle of Jackson’s presidency centered around the Second Bank of the United States, a private corporation but virtually a Government-sponsored monopoly. When Jackson appeared hostile toward it, the Bank threw its power against him.

“Clay and Webster, who had acted as attorneys for the Bank, led the fight for its recharter in Congress. “The bank,” Jackson told Martin Van Buren, “is trying to kill me, but I will kill it!” Jackson, in vetoing the recharter bill, charged the Bank with undue economic privilege.

“His views won approval from the American electorate; in 1832 he polled more than 56 percent of the popular vote and almost five times as many electoral votes as Clay.”

Please note that the words “a private corporation but virtually a Government sponsored monoploy” comes directly from the White House’s web site. What a huge admission!

On line, you can also read Congressman Louis McFadden’s indictment on the Federal Reserve Corporation. It is a very concise explanation of how the international banking cartel has been sacking this country’s wealth since 1913.

Don’t be fooled by this chant around the country for a flat tax, a consumption tax, sales tax or any other kind of personal income tax. There is absolutely no authority in the U.S. Constitution to implement any of these forms of taxation without apportionment. It is for this reason and this reason alone, that when it became apparent that the 16th Amendment was not going to be ratified by the states, fraud was committed and it was simply “proclaimed” ratified by then Secretary of State Philander Knox.

We don’t need any direct taxation and these popular mantras are just new lies to replace old lies. Any one of these forms of taxation will still feed the cancer: the central bank. Any one of these forms of taxation is just another way to fleece the American people to enrich the pockets of the international banking cartel. Please consider the words of Congressman Ron Paul:

    “Strictly speaking, it probably is not necessary for the federal government to tax anyone directly; it could simply print the money it needs. However, that would be too bold a stroke, for it would then be obvious to all what kind of counterfeiting operation the government is running. The present system combining taxation and inflation is akin to watering the milk: too much water and the people catch on.”

Please don’t fall for these alternative taxing SCHEMES. The banking cartel doesn’t care what form it is they fleece your hard earned dollars (flat tax, fair tax, sales tax, etc.) – just as long as they continue to steal from us:

Beware alternative taxing schemes
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43242

Make IRS check payable to stockholders of private Fed
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43820

Today is April 15 … again
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44036

What we need to do is take away the magical money machine called the “Fed,” which will force Congress to live within its means and fund only those activities specifically enumerated by the supreme law of the land in Art. 1, § 8 of the U.S. Constitution:

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, borrow Money on the credit of the United States, regulate commerce (trade), naturalization, bankruptcy laws, coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign Coin, fix the Standard of Weights and Measures, punishment regarding counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States, establish Post Offices and post Roads, Promote [Editorial note: “promote” does not mean fund] the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries, constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court, define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water, Raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years, provide and maintain a Navy, make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions, provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress, Exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings, 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. **

There is absolutely no authority for the federal government to legislate in areas of the environment, education, the NEA, the FDA and many others. It may surprise you to find out that agencies such as FDA, DEA and the EPA all derive their jurisdiction from international treaties. When the powers that be wish to circumvent the U.S. Constitution, they do it either through an executive order or international treaties. We strongly encourage you to investigate this issue thoroughly.

Prior to the Federal Department of Education, America had the finest schools in the world. Since this disastrous and unconstitutional grab for power, we can all see that a quadrillion dollars a year will not fix our schools, and they continue to decline faster than the feds or states can shovel money into them. Even if a direct tax were necessary, only by keeping it at its lowest possible percentage would it ever benefit this nation:


“The point now emphasized is that the evil effects of high surtaxes fall not upon the individual whose income is seized and taken, but ultimately almost entirely upon the mass of the people who are thereby deprived of the benefits which would result from the free flow of commercial transactions and the use of the additional capital which would be available for productive enterprise.
“Freedom of business transactions essential.

“The revenues to be obtained by the Government from this class of taxes depends upon transactions in trade and commerce which bring about income available for payment of taxes. It is highly desirable, in the interest of the production of revenue, that the volume of business transactions giving rise to gain shall be as great as possible, and to this end it is essential that the natural laws of trade and commerce and the free flow of business shall not be interfered with or prevented.


The excerpt below is from pgs 19-20, Annual Report of the Secretary of the Treasury on the State of Finances for 1921:


“But the direct effect of these very high taxes is to hinder and prevent business transactions which would otherwise take place. A man may have property which he has held for years and which has greatly increased in value, and he would like to sell it, but if he does a large part of the gain would have to be paid out in taxes. He would rather keep the property than sell it, pay the tax, and invest what is left in something else. At the same time the party desiring to buy this property, if he obtained it, would improve it with buildings.

What is the result? The transaction does not take place, and the community loses the advantage which would come in the stimulation that would arise from the transactions resulting from the buyer’s improvement of the property, and it also loses the advantage of the seller’s putting his money into some other form of investment, which in turn would give rise to business transactions. The same thing on a much greater scale is true in manufacturing and mercantile lines. Men have built up enterprises to the point where they are highly successful. They would like to take their profit and turn the business over to younger men to carry on.

These transactions are highly desirable not only for the parties but for the community, yet they are absolutely stopped, because if made the seller would have to pay in one year a tax on a gain which has been the result of perhaps the better part of a lifetime of effort. And in all such cases the Government gets no tax, whereas if the rates were reasonable the transactions would take place and the Government’s revenues would benefit accordingly.

The free interchange of property in business transactions is essential to the normal prosperity of the country, and each such transaction has a direct tendency to bring about others of like character with the result of increasing the amount of gain or income available for taxation; but when the tax is so high as to act as a deterrent against usual and desirable business transactions, and the volume of such transactions is thereby lessened, the inevitable result is for the tax to become less and less productive.

It is for these reasons that, particularly in the higher brackets, a lower tax rate will produce more revenue in the long run than excessive rates. So long as the high rate stands in the way of accomplishing bargains and sales, the Government receives no tax; but at a lower rate the transactions proceed and the Government shares in the profits.” (End of excerpt.)


Today Americans are being fleeced to the tune of approximately 52% of every dollar going for local, state and federal taxes. The day is rapidly approaching when making even $1,000 per hour will not be enough to survive. How much longer are the people of this nation going to put up with this state of affairs? We say enough is enough!

A Pioneer on the withholding issue

Vivien Kellems was a woman before her time who knew the grand theft taking place against the working man’s paycheck. [For more information on Ms. Kellems, see: http://www.vivienkellems.org/]. The following excerpt from pages 41-46 of her book, Toil, Taxes and Trouble, published in 1952 is legally right on point:

    “Since a capitation means a tax of the same amount for every person, this provision makes doubly sure that all federal taxes must be at the same uniform rate for everybody. This limitation that direct taxes be levied by the Federal Government must be in proportion to a census and apportioned among the States in accordance with numbers, is the only provision in the Constitution that is stated twice.

    “The only reason that our Constitution required a census to be taken every ten years was to count the people to determine how many Representatives should go to Congress, and how direct taxes should be levied. I wonder how many Americans thought of this in 1950 when those little busybodies came knocking on their doors, asking ten thousand impudent, silly questions which were none of their, or Washington’s, business.

    “There is absolutely no power granted in the Constitution which enables a top-heavy bureaucracy of empty-headed simpletons, and worse, to invade the privacy of the American people in such a monstrous manner.
This census is just a preview of what is really in store for us if they actually take over, which they most certainly will do unless we uproot and vote them out.

    “The census was to count the people – that was all. The number of people determined the number of Representatives in Congress and the apportionment of direct taxes among the states.

    “For a long time I asked myself, ‘Why were Representatives and direct taxes linked together and apportioned among the States in accordance with population?’ It was understandable that Representatives should be chosen in accordance with numbers but why should taxes be apportioned the same way? And then one day, out of the blue, it came to me crystal clear. All at once I understood the plan to safeguard the future freedom of the nation, conceived and executed by those scholarly men.

    “I read again: ‘Representatives and direct taxes shall be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers…’ ‘No capitation, or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census of Enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken.’ And in those two sentences our forefathers bound fast the hands of Congress and secured the liberty and freedom of the American people. How? By making it utterly impossible to levy an income tax.

    “An income tax is certainly a direct tax, probably the most direct tax of all since it cannot be shifted but must be paid by the person receiving the income. By specifying that direct taxes must be levied in accordance with the number of people, not upon what they produced, as in the days of ancient Egypt, an income tax was simply out of the question. It cannot be levied upon a man but must be levied upon what he receives.

    “Our forefathers designed and incorporated in the Constitution a new system of government. It was built upon a revolutionary idea; the conviction that the government belonged to the people and existed only by their consent. Its genius lay in the careful system of checks and balances among the three departments, the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial. And it went further and maintained a balance between the powers of the individual States and the Federal Government. In addition it carefully reserved to the States and to the people all rights and powers not specifically delegated, or prohibited to the Federal Government and further stated that because certain rights were enumerated in the Constitution it did not mean that others not mentioned were still not the property of the people.

    “However everything in the Constitution was arrived at by compromise. The interests and concerns of the thirteen states varied widely and each delegate was sent to Philadelphia to protect the commerce, industry and agriculture of his particular state. It required months of patient discussion, argument and forbearance to finally produce the finished document, which when completed, comprised a system of government to protect the people in the rights and liberties set down in flaming words in the Declaration of Independence. It is a wonderful document, the best system of government ever devised for human beings, but it could have varied in some respects and still have worked satisfactorily……

    “The supreme achievement of the combined brains of all those men were written into those two sentences and the freedom and liberty of the American people were secured in them. For in those two sentences the right of the free man to own something was made inviolate. This was his distinguishing mark, the only criterion of freedom in all the world, the right of the common man to retain for himself the fruit of his labor.

Now this is how it worked. Every man was given a vote with which he could vote for his Representative. Originally only Representatives were elected, Senators were appointed by the State Legislatures and it’s too bad we changed that provision.”

(Editorial Note: We didn’t. Like the 16th Amendment, the 17th Amendment is a fraud–it was never ratified by the states. Therefore, we have not had a lawfully seated senate since 1913.)

    “That Representative having to stand for election every two years was close to the people and responsive to their wishes. That is why he was given the power to tax; all bills of revenue arise in the House. And that is why he must come home every two years and give an accounting to the people.

    “But his power to levy direct taxes was limited by an ironbound restriction: that tax must be apportioned among the States in accordance with the population. Since all taxes were to be at a uniform rate, Congress simply could not penalize one section of the country, or one group of citizens for the unfair advantage of another.

    “When Congress levied a tax, everybody had to pay and at the same rate. The amount would vary with the wealth of an area, as it does today with the different values of real estate, but the rate was the same for all and the tax was distributed among the States according to population.

    “The men who wrote our Constitution did not found a democracy. They feared the so-called ‘Democrats’ of their day as much as we fear the Communists today. They did not believe in mob rule, or government by the unintelligent, irresponsible mass. They founded a republic and they made certain that the right to vote should be curbed and controlled by the necessity of paying taxes. Scheming politicians could not take taxes from a helpless minority and buy themselves back into office with the votes of the tax exempt majority. When a Representative voted a tax, he voted to tax everybody because the tax was based upon numbers, not upon dollars.

    “This was the most brilliant plan ever conceived for guaranteeing the freedom of a nation. It protected every person in his right to private property, rich and poor alike, and under this protection we built the richest, most powerful nation on earth. We achieved and maintained for the majority of our people a standard of living undreamed of before, the hope and the envy of the whole world.

    “And we accomplished something even more important: we developed a vigorous, self-reliant, self- respecting race of people. An American citizen would have been ashamed to ask for a handout from his Government. The Government belonged to him, he did not belong to the government.

    “And then what happened? We chucked our carefully safeguarded right to own something out the window, and we passed the income tax amendment. Gone was our apportionment among the States in accordance with population, and also gone was our principle of uniformity. Income ‘from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration’ could be taxed and without limit. And when we passed this income tax amendment the slow, distilled poison of tax slavery dripped into our veins. We sowed the seeds of our national decay which is rapidly coming to maturity before our eyes today. The heritage of freedom so carefully insured for us by our forefathers is gone; it has been taxed away.” (End of excerpt.)

The “General Welfare” Clause of the Constitution

The majority of unconstitutional spending is justified by the “general welfare” clause of the constitution. Shawn O’Connor of the Free Enterprise Society summed up this misconception in one of his speeches, paraphrased below:

“Discussion of the general welfare clause of the Constitution by the courts relies upon the Federalist Papers. This term simply means: Taxation was to protect the individuals’ life, liberty and ownership of private property. One can go to Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 1 of the constitution and read the general welfare clause. Then one can do some history research and see what the Anti-Federalists had to say about this clause:

“That this clause conveys absolute power to the central government. Patrick Henry was very vocal in his opposition to putting this kind of language into the constitution. Madison, however, assured Henry and others that all the general welfare clause represented was a preliminary introduction prior to the enumerating the specific powers the delegates were about to grant to this new federal government and that the general welfare clause granted no new power to the government whatsoever. It was simply an introductory statement.

The Anti-Federalists still weren’t satisfied. Hamilton and Madison came back to re-state that if the general welfare clause conveyed absolute power to the government, why would they go on to list the specific powers they were going to grant the government? That wouldn’t make any sense at all if they were going to give absolute power to this government. It was finally conceded by all at the convention that the general welfare clause conveyed absolutely no power to the government.” [End of comment.]

The general welfare clause of the constitution has been misused for personal gain by special interest groups to enrich the pockets of the banking cartel, by politicians hoping to “get that vote,” and an all out push to turn America into a socialist country, beginning with the “New Deal” implemented by FDR and supported by a weak Congress. Lyndon Johnson took the quest to turn America into a socialist nation to new and grotesque heights.

How would you fund the government without any direct taxation?

The powers that be know it’s just a matter of time before the truth reaches enough Americans about the voluntary income tax system. Already trial balloons are being floated to once again fool the people into some form of alternative tax in order to feed the central bank.

America functioned very well without an income tax throughout the history of this Republic. The answer to the question of funding without a direct tax is found is Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution since 1787. It provides for Congress to pass a legislative bill for tax money to be paid by each state in proportion to its population.

Proper, constitutional funding will allow large amounts of money to fund a limited form of Republican government. To continue on the path of this massive and unconstitutional spending will bring a final and total collapse of the economy. Make no mistake about it.

Has your government been truthful?

Do you know why the “withholding tax” system was put into place? Let me provide you with just one shocking example of how things work behind the scenes:


Declassified (Confidential Committee Print)
Withholding Tax Hearing Before A Subcommittee of The Committee on Finance,
United States Senate, 77th Congress, Second Session on:
Data Relative to Withholding Provisions of the 1942 Revenue Act, August 21 and 22, 1942
(Printed for the use of the Committee on Finance)
United States Government Printing Office, Washington 1942
SUMMARY/Contents Statement of:
Friedman, Milton, Division of Tax Research, Treasury Department
Hardy, Charles O., of Brookings Institution
Jacobstein, Meyer, of Brookings Institution
Paul, Randolph E., Treasury Department

Overview

Because the war effort resulted in increased production and employment, which caused a sudden large influx of money into circulation, the Federal Government and Federal Reserve System had to find a method of “mopping up excess purchasing power” thereby control inflation and obtain immediate funds for the Treasury. Several plans were put forth before the House, Ways & Means Committee and the Senate Committee on Finance to accomplish this purpose.

The following points were made by the Senators and those testifying before the committee:

1. The overall purpose was to obtain immediate money for the war effort, to control inflation and to get the income tax on a current basis instead of being one year behind.

2. To accomplish this goal, it was recognized that a scheme was needed to reach the largest number of people.

3. That the scheme, regardless of whether it was a “coupon,” “stamp” or “withholding of income tax at source,” would constitute a “forced loan” to the Federal Government and it would apply to taxpayers and nontaxpayers alike, with exceptions.

4. Where an individual had money withheld and ultimately no tax liability, the individual would file an income tax return and that income tax return would constitute an automatic claim for refund.

5. The proposed plan was an emergency war time measure.

Hearing Experts, Beginning Page 99

Statement of Meyer Jacobstein of Brookings Institution

“It is obvious that it is necessary to mop up the excess purchasing power of the community, not only because of it’s effect on the price situation but because the Treasury needs the money and needs it quickly.*

Obviously the Treasury can collect from the consumers as the purchases are made and the Treasury has the use of those funds long before it would obtain them by the income-tax method.

Now, there are many ways, of course, of mopping up this surplus purchasing power…Now, there is the withholding tax at the source based on payrolls.”

Senator Clark: “Doctor, what this plan is, it is essentially a compulsory savings plan based on sales tax methods, is it not?”

Mr. Jacobstein: “I should say that is a fair description of it, yes. It is the use of a sales tax method without being a tax.”

Senator Clark: “So far as the impact on the public is concerned, it is precisely the same as a sales tax, except you give the money back sometimes.”

Mr. Jacobstein: “That is right. That is a very fair statement, I think. Senator Danaher used the word “self-assessment.” If I buy a dollar necktie I pay $1.10 under his plan. A withholding tax is usually withheld at the source. Here you withhold it not at the manufacturer’s end but at the retailer’s end. You are using the retailer instead of the manufacturer to siphon off several billion dollars, depending on the rate of the assessment of a tax.

It may be that several systems can be used. Any one of them might be very useful to the Treasury in accomplishing this purpose. But…for siphoning off purchasing power into the Treasury from day to day, or week to week, or month to month; and it has that advantage.

Now, there is an aspect to this question which was not brought out in the original memorandum which would make the scheme perhaps a little more palatable if certain deductions were made by any method, either by the withholding tax method or direct sales tax method or by Senator Danaher’s proposal….”

Statement of Charles O. Hardy of the Brookings Institution

Mr. Hardy: “First…mainly for the purpose of providing an exemption from the tax or forced loan, either one. Now, as has been stated a moment ago, this is a forced loan. It should be pointed out, I think, that you can do the same thing with the mechanics of any other tax, that is, under the income tax you can give out bonds or coupons redeemable in bonds instead of giving receipts for the income tax. You can do that, as far as I can see, with any tax, for the whole schedule of taxes.

I would like to say…that we have to bring about a readjustment of consumption in the country to the amount of consumers goods and services that we can spare the resources to produce under war conditions. First, we have got to devote our productive energies to the war.

Or, you can use the mechanism of the sales tax, as far as I can see, by mopping up the increased purchasing power that is created by the rising amount they receive in their paychecks. On the other hand, if the money is stored up, whether it is in the form of these stamps or in the form where people haven’t spent it because they have had no way to spend it, in either case if it is too large a proportion you are going to have the problem, whenever you do turn it loose, that you have now in the other case, namely of having a lot more purchasing power than you have goods and services to make it good with.

That is the answer, I think, to the question that might be raised as to why not carry this principle through and apply it to income tax, corporation tax, and everything else. Obviously, this has the advantage that this definitely sews up the purchasing power in such a way that it cannot be released until we discover the proper way to release it.

I think it has a great advantage over the deficient spending program. This program just postpones the problem of administration, in deciding how much purchasing power is available to release and to what extent it will create the old wartime inflation over again.”

Senator Danaher: “Let me ask you this question: Considering the withholding tax, simply the treasury withholds it currently and applies the proceeds against the tax due in a given year…”

Mr. Hardy: “The deduction from salaries and interest, and so on, at the source?”

Senator Danaher: “Yes.”

Mr. Hardy: “Yes.”

Senator Danaher: “That is a currently applied method of withholding so much of the consumer purchasing power as is represented by the tax collected or withheld.”

Mr. Hardy: “That is right.”

Senator Danaher: “And the applied as against the tax due.”

Mr. Hardy: “Yes. The withholding tax provision has the effect of withholding purchasing power at the time the income is realized rather than a year hence through the income tax structure.”

Senator Danaher: “And if it were in effect for 1 year it would apply only 1 year?”

Mr. Hardy: “I assume so.”

Senator Danaher: “Yes. Whereas this proposal is a continuing thing.”

Mr. Hardy: “It seems to me the essential difference is that the withholding tax plan applies at the point of receipt of income, and this applies at the point of expenditure of income.”

Senator Danaher: “Of course, you withhold not only from taxpayers but nontaxpayers.”

Mr. Hardy: “Yes. Some people that I talked to about this plan, Federal Reserve people, have been rather favorable to the idea.”

Mr. Jacobstein: “Don’t you want to add that Mr. Selko pointed out that such difficulties as are encountered in the States are, partially at least, overcome when you have a uniform Federal tax? Where you have a uniform tax all over the country by one administration, the Federal Government, it is easier to administer than a sum total of 48 states. Now that was Mr. Selko’s conclusion.”

Statement of Milton Friedman, Division of Tax Research, Treasury Department

Senator Danaher: “I have only one other thought on that point. In the event of withholding from the owner of stock and no taxes due ultimately, where does he get his refund?”

Mr. Friedman: “You thinking of a corporation or an individual?”

Senator Danaher: “I am talking about an individual.”

Mr. Friedman: “An individual will file an income tax return, and that income tax return will constitute an automatic claim for refund.” End of document excerpts.

What bald faced lies. “Mop up purchasing power”? Fleecing Americans dry is a more accurate way to describe this terrible injustice against US. How about letting Americans decide to save the fruits of their labor? No, the government wants it all.

* Art. 1, Sec. 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to issue money, not the private fed: “To coin money, regulate the value thereof,” Cut out the middle man (“Fed”) and the Treasury wouldn’t “need the money.” What a con game.

T. Coleman Andrews. Mr. Andrews (a Democrat) was Commissioner for the first 33 months of the Eisenhower Administration, stated the following in an article for U.S. News & Report, May 25, 1956:

“….We’re confiscating property now….That’s socialism. It’s written into the Communist Manifesto. Maybe we ought to see that every person who gets a tax return receives a copy of the Communist Manifesto with it so he can see what’s happening to him.”

Beardsley Ruml, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York stated in one of his speeches in 1946:
“The second principal purpose of federal taxes is to attain more equality of wealth and of income than would result from economic forces working alone. The taxes which are effective for this purpose are the progressive individual income tax, the progressive estate tax, and the gift tax. What these taxes should be depends on public policy with respect to the distribution of wealth and of income.

It is important, here, to note that the estate and gift taxes have little or no significance, as tax measures, for stabilizing the value of the dollar. Their purpose is the social purpose of preventing what otherwise would be high concentration of wealth and income at a few points, as a result of investment and reinvestment of income not expended in meeting day-to-day consumption requirements. These taxes should be defended and attacked it terms of their effects on the character of American life, not as revenue measures.
Taxes on corporation profits have three principal consequences — all of them bad.”

Does the average man or woman in America know this?

What do we mean when we say that the IRS is not a government agency? Read this quote
from an U.S. attorney submitted in court documents in a tax case up in Idaho:

Betty Richardson, United States Attorney, Box 32, Boise, Idaho 83707. Civil No. 93-405-E-EJL, United States’ Answer and Claim re: Diversified Metal Products, Inc., Plaintiff v. T-Bow Company Trust, Internal Revenue Service and Steve Morgan, Defendants, page 4, paragraph #4:
“Denies (the U.S. government) that the Internal Revenue Service is an agency of the United States government …”

If the IRS is not an agency of the federal government, just what is it? In a nutshell, the income tax is international in scope and not incumbent upon domestic Americans. That is a provable fact. The IRS for more than 80 years has been misapplying the IRCode against unsuspecting Americans and back up their unlawful activities with brute force. This must stop.

What can you do?

The federal government must generate revenues to operate what our Founding Fathers created: A limited form of Republican government. State constitutions are all guaranteed a limited form of Republican government. America is not a democracy. We believe America is a nation of laws, not lies. We can’t have it both ways for political expediency or to please any and every special interest group that bribes politicians at all levels with the politically correct “PAC money.”

Sometimes it’s difficult to be the messenger of news that people would rather not hear.

However, Americans can no longer remain in their comfort zones because the message isn’t what they want to hear. If your house is on fire, you don’t sit and continue to watch the television set, you call the fire department. America: Our house is on fire and it is the obligation of every American to safeguard the liberties and freedoms given to us by those who paid the ultimate price. Please join the growing numbers of millions who are ready to take back our country and stop the assault on our rights.

Nov 042013
 

NSP – Oct 5, 2013 – Guest: Bernard von NotHaus and Co-hosts: JT & Calvin

Posted on October 5th, 2013 by Calvin

GuestBernard von NotHaus, the “domestic terrorist” you can call a hero, who founded and operated the Liberty Dollar. In part 2 of the podcast, co-hosts JT & Calvin join to discuss a myriad of topics.

Show Notes:

  • Background of the judge and jury [coercive parties] that led to a honest businessman, who was earning a living on 100% voluntary trade [non-coercive party], to exit the Orwellian sphincter as a “unique form of domestic terrorist.”
  • 15-year anniversary of the Liberty Dollar.
  • Properly describing the “charges” of the STATE in objective terms.
  • The Liberty Dollar was meant to be a parallel currency, not a competing currency.
  • Anne Tompkin’s ceremonial, PR role on the FBI’s prepared predetermined-verdict press-release.
  • The lack of actual violence in Bernard’s case despite their smear campaign of “a unique form of domestic terrorist.”
  • The inherent lying nature of prosecuting attorneys.
  • Applicability of the constitution and codes, or otherwise known as jurisdiction, was not addressed before or during the trial.
  • The severe abundance of ineffective council from two “dumb and dumber” cult-members spawned from the STATE-cult bar.
  • The sensational theatrical performance of the prosecuting attorney’s opening and closing statements and remarks.
  • Being judged by a jury that is dependent on the judge’s and prosecutor’s income revenue.
  • Sissy prosecutors that don’t believe in objecting during a closing argument.
  • Objecting to everything that exposes the facade of fairness and impartiality of the judge, who is paid by the same party as the prosecutor. [conflict-of-interest much?]
  • How do you go about proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr.___ actually violated the code if you haven’t first determined whether the code actually applies to Mr.___?
  • Despite the lack of a deceitful nature required to convict someone as a fraud, how can you call a $10 product that appreciated to a $30 value a fraud?
  • Selective witness testimony allowed in favor of the prosecution.
  • Qualifying the witnesses by their personal firsthand knowledge on certain elements of the charges.
  • Examining and evaluating the judge’s fairness and impartiality.
  • Circumstantial evidence that suggests the jury did not read the jury instructions from the judge.
  • No objections from the DOJ on the motion for acquittal filed after the sham trial.
  • A surprise letter flood and to the judge and numerous favorable op-ed articles in support of Bernard.
  • Filing a Brady request to disqualify witnesses that have a known history of dishonesty while on the stand under penalty of perjury.
  • Looking forward to getting back to business after a fair acquittal.
  • Reviewing Bernard von NotHaus’ Liberty Dollar persecution for his rampage of voluntarily trading with his customers.
  • The business network that worked with and supported the Liberty Dollar.
  • Statism: Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.
  • Threats made during Bill’s hearing: “I’ll be the last friendly face you see.”
  • Using abstract terms (reification) to obfuscate the gun in the room.
  • Ditching abstracts to objectively define each character’s roles in a typical legal attack.
  • “I know a guy, who knows a guy, who knows a guy,” and other predictive logical fallacies judges and prosecutors revert to for establishing jurisdiction.
  • Vox et praeterea nihil: voice and nothing more. So in practical terms; beyond your say so, where’s the evidence that your laws apply to me?
  • Conditioned behavioral responses to authoritah who justify their demands by claiming “its the law.”
  • The Chaser’s War on Everything experiment of people who blindly accept illusions of authority and end up accepting citations for “douche-bag tattoos.”
  • Larken’s contribution to destroying illusions of authority with his video “I’m Allowed to Rob You.”
  • Examining the biased opinions, and lack of objective criticism, from those who’s entire lives are dependent on the STATE’s blood-money.
  • Building your opinions on facts and evidence.
  • Statist double-standards when identifying failure in a case when the judge rules against them.
  • Their words, according to the government’s own mandate (the founding and guiding documents), and how it conflicts with what they actually say and do in reality, like proceeding with an unjusticable case.
  • The STATE prosecution accuses Marc of arguing abstractions while he’s attempting to decipher their abstractions.
  • The bar association cult.
  • The jealousy of attorneys that don’t get as reproducible results as those of us who persistently question the evidence without spending tens-of-thousands on a law degree.
  • Pro per-litigant felony cases that have been kicked out of court by questioning the evidence without having to get to the point of trial.
  • Why do they say that jurisdiction can be challenged at any point of litigation, but they don’t allow the challenge of jurisdiction in reality? Why is it part of their cannons?
  • Keeping CITIZENS dependent on the STATE by use of intimidation and fear control techniques.
  • Replacing monopolized STATE services with voluntary alternatives.
  • Defining psychopaths in accordance with the medical definition.
  • Bureaucrats that don’t feel the need to answer any questions despite them destroying innocent lives.
  • Do we need a group of psychopaths ruling over us?
  • The Angola Three: a story the lucid epiphanies of surviving 40+ years of solitary confinement: the world is a prison, the security-level is the real difference.
  • Government Explained inspired by Larken Rose’s talk at the Free Your Mind Conference 2011.
  • ‘Rowdy’ Roddy Piper Drops Bombshell: “They Live” Was A Documentary.
  • The logical parallels between the Idocracy court scene and Quatloos rhetoric.
  • Replacing mass extortion [taxes] with a voluntary system.
  • Fined via taxes for opting-out of Obamacare.
  • Dirty tricks from the tax bureaucrats.
  • Your stolen income at work: agorist-based Silk Road shut down by the Feds.
  • Government offenders of child-exploitation.
  • Government, that commits massive murder-for-hire everyday, condemns an individual for alleged murder-for-hire. Double-standard much?
  • European Parliament Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs hearing on NSA revelations: Jacob Appelbaum, Thomas Drake, Jesselyn Radack, and J. Kirk Wiebe.
  • Steven Colbert’s Jon Stewart’s interview with Richard Dawkins about the likelihood of mutually-assured destruction by the sociopathic ruling-class before making contact with extraterrestrial beings.
  • Death by bureaucrat as documented on many websites like CopBlock.org.
  • It doesn’t matter if the deadly intruder is costumed or not when they choose to invade your home, protect yourself with the necessary force required to neutralize any imminent deadly threats.
  • How the government “shut-down” is affecting Marc’s work.
  • Increase in traffic efficiency and safety when BORG government traffic lights are removed.
  • Lack of chemtrails due to the government “shut-down?”
  • FAA strikes law for powering down electronic devices before takeoff and landing.
  • The collective conformist perception that its extremist to be anti-authority or anti-government, but somehow its acceptable to be anti-authoritarian or anti-NAZI.
  • New study shows that it doesn’t matter on intelligence, people would alter their answers based on the confirmation bias based upon their political beliefs.

Apr 292013
 

The BORG is ready for War with YOU!

By Morpheus – with Bob Podolsky

Fargo is North Dakota’s largest city, yet its placid lifestyle seldom sees the chaos common in other urban communities.  This quiet city has averaged fewer than two homicides a year since 2005, and there’s not been a single international terrorism prosecution in the last decade.

But that hasn’t stopped BORG Agents in Fargo and its surrounding county from going on an $8 million buying binge to arm police officers with the sort of gear once reserved only for soldiers fighting foreign wars.

Borg Police armored truck

Every paramilitary BORG squad car in Fargo, is equipped today with an assault rifle and Kevlar helmets, able to withstand incoming fire from battlefield-grade ammunition. BORG officers can now summon a new $256,643 armored truck, complete with a rotating turret. The truck is used at the annual city picnic, where it’s been parked near the children’s bounce house. This way the BORG can CON-vince the populace what a great investment it has made by spending stolen funds, known to the BORG as taxes, granted to the city by the federal government.

“Most people are so fascinated by it [the armored truck], because nothing happens here,” says Carol Archbold, a Fargo resident and criminal justice professor and spokesperson for the BORG at North Dakota State University. “There’s no terrorism here.”  In reality the eyesore activates the Reticular Activating System in the brain that stimulates levels of FEAR in the minds of unawakened people in the quiet town.

Thousands of other local police departments nationwide have been amassing stockpiles of military-style equipment in the name of homeland security, aided by more than $34 billion in Stolen Funds by federal grants since the False Flag terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

The buying spree has continued the transformation of local peace keeping departments into paramilitary-like forces, and using intimidating equipment to strike fear into the minds of civilians is no doubt part of the overall psychology of the BORG agents.  Without this constant low level of fear, concerning a problem that the BORG created in the first place, what need for this parasite would there be?

“The argument for up-armoring is always based on the least likely of terrorist scenarios,” says Mark Randol, a former BORG terrorism expert at the Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan research arm of Congress. “Anyone can get a gun and shoot up stuff. No amount of SWAT equipment can stop that.”  It needs to be noted that the government’s passage of such freedom destroying legislation such as SB 1867, turns all Americans into potential terrorists. SB 1867 follows in the footsteps of Bill of Rights nullifying “Patriot Act” with provisions to murder and detain INDEFINITELY any malcontented American to places like Guantanamo, Cuba without trial or due process.

BORG Agents and their PR firms known as “The News”, aptly known as the “Lame Stream Media” (LSM), become hostile at the mere suggestion that police agencies have become “militarized”.  They justify the need by citing examples for these upgrades in firepower and other equipment by claiming it is necessary to combat criminals with more lethal capabilities. Or at least criminals not franchised by the BORG.  They never seem to mention that governments kill more people than all other criminals combined!  They point to the 1997 Los Angeles bank robbers who pinned police for hours with assault weapons, the gun-wielding student who perpetrated the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007.  The LSM are generally complacent in mentioning examples where armed members of We the people have thwarted criminal activity.

The new weaponry and battle gear, they insist, helps save lives in the face of such threats. “I don’t see us as militarizing police; I see us as keeping abreast with society,” former Los Angeles Police Chief (and BORG Agent) William Bratton says. “And we are a gun-crazy society.”  In reality, the BORG is scared to death of the populace, as one day they may wake up from their mass hypnosis and realize the BORG is the problem – not the solution.

BORG agent and Police Lt. Ross Renner, who commands the regional SWAT team: “It’s foolish to not be cognizant of the threats out there, whether it’s New York, Los Angeles, or Fargo. Our residents have the right to be protected. We don’t have everyday threats here when it comes to terrorism, but we are asked to be prepared.”  Actually the BORG asked themselves and they agreed with the decision they made already:  to continue to inspire FEAR into the hearts and minds of people everywhere as a mechanism to continue the extortion by stealing money from We The People to “protect us” from the boogeyman they, the BORG, created in the first place.  It is Paramount to note when the populace WAKES UP and gets uppity about being robbed from, their rights being turned into privileges, and being turned into SLAVES, the BORG have all the necessary hardware to quell any SLAVE rebellion.

The skepticism about the Homeland spending spree is less severe for Washington, D.C., Los Angeles and New York, which the BORG, have determined to be their likely targets. The nagging question persists:  is the stolen tax money handed out without any regard for risk assessment or need?  Adding insult to injury is gap in accounting for the decade-long spending spree. The BORG-U.S. Homeland Security Department says it doesn’t closely track what’s been bought with its tax dollars or how the equipment is used. BORG in State and local governments don’t maintain uniform records either.  The BORG have no problem monitoring every single phone call, email and financial transaction We The People make; but when it comes to monitoring how the money (taxes) stolen from We the People is spent on military hardware, that’s not even a little bit necessary.

05 Government is here to help you

 

Government is here to help you

COMFORTING LIES #5 & #6

Government leaders are honest, wise, and caring.

Government generally acts in the best interests of the public.

The evidence that refutes the validity of these myths is so vast that it is amazing that anyone still believes them. Most of us have met reptiles more honest, wise, and caring than the political leaders we know. Yet millions of people are still comforted by this lie, so we need to address it here.

Oscar Ameringer said many years ago, “Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich, by promising to protect each from the other”. Another commentator, economist Frederick Bastiat, explained that government is the mechanism by which everyone tries to spend everyone else’s money. Let’s begin our analysis of these and similar assertions by examining some obvious facts.

a) It is an unending source of humor in this country to point out in various ways that politicians almost never keep the promises that they make to the public when they campaign for election to public office. Mark Twain was famous for such humor, as were Joe E. Brown and Groucho Marx. Night-time talk show hosts on television often joke about this widely recognized fact. Yet the lying politicians are never held accountable for their lies. They spend billions of dollars on surveys and polls to find out what the public wants to hear. Then they tell us the comforting lies that we want to hear in order to receive our votes.

They know that they are lying and have no intention of keeping their promises to the public, but there are no penalties for engaging in this practice; so they continue undaunted and unscathed.

b) For generations our government leaders have claimed that they possess the uncommon wisdom necessary to solve the serious problems that our society faces. In their (seeming) attempts to do so they have passed thousands of laws and promulgated scores of thousands of regulations. In attempting to enforce these laws and regulations they have spent trillions of taxpayers’ dollars.

What is more, in passing their laws and attempting to enforce them they have violated almost every provision of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Worse still, they have violated, and continue to violate, every one of the ten Ethical Principles. Yet, in the final analysis, government has failed to solve even one societal problem. They don’t even claim to have succeeded. Not one politician has gone on record to say, “Look! This problem is finally solved.”

In fact the major problems have escalated dramatically over recent decades. War, violence, terrorism, poverty, hunger, drug addiction, street crime, corporate corruption – you name it – all have gotten worse and worse as the years have passed. Today the likelihood that humanity will annihilate itself with weapons of mass destruction is greater than it has ever been in the past. It isn’t even controversial to state that government has utterly failed to solve any major societal problem. The only controversy to discuss is, “Why has government failed to attain any of its stated objectives to help the people by solving our problems?”

There are several equally applicable answers to this question.

Government leaders are neither honest, wise, nor caring.

a) Government actions consistently employ unethical means in their efforts to solve problems for the public. The most obvious example is the use of taxation to raise money to succor the poor (albeit the rich are succored in this way more than the poor). The end result of this practice is that almost without exception the outcome is the opposite of that which was supposedly intended…and the public suffers more instead of less. And the final, and most important answer to the question is:

b) Helping people by solving societal problems has never been the true objective of government.

To explain this statement we must consider the fact that government as we know it today was invented in the country of Sumer (now southern Iraq) some eight thousand years ago. That government was an outgrowth of tribal society and primitive kingdoms that had previously existed in the region. At that time government was comprised of those individuals who had amassed enough wealth to buy weaponry and to pay and/or coerce strong young men to wield them.

Up until that time these individuals engaged in costly, and often bloody, competition with one another. This state of almost constant warfare sapped their resources and threatened the security of both their assets and their power to rule their individual domains. In this “might makes right” environment they were also frequently attacked by lesser members among their ranks who envied their wealth and power and sought to take over rulership for their own benefit.

To alleviate this problem, the leaders of these disparate and competing groups decided to form a shared monopoly of their power over their constituent subjects. To accomplish this (unethical) end they invented the hierarchic mechanism that we call “government”. The method was simple. All power over others was vested in the leaders who acted as power brokers by delegating authority to their more-favored subjects in return for their cooperation and help in keeping lesser subjects under control and collecting material resources (taxes) from those who had still less power in this hierarchic scheme.

Government is a Power Brokerage Cartel

Such a shared monopoly, whether it be a monopoly of political power, money, oil, electricity, or any other industry, is called a cartel in modern times. So what are the true objectives of a cartel? There are only two:

a) To maximize the profits and power of the members of the cartel, and

b) To stabilize and enhance the position of the cartel’s members in the marketplace that they monopolize.

With these objectives in mind, let’s now ask the question, “Has government succeeded or failed to meet its (true) objectives?” Has government maximized the profits of its members? And the answer is, “Yes. It certainly has done so”. In the United States at the beginning of the 21st century AD,  fully one half of the wealth generated by the taxpaying public is turned over to the government to spend as it sees fit. In some other countries, more “socialized” countries, this figure runs as high as 75% or even more. When taxation was first instituted in this country it only usurped about 1% of the nation’s wealth. So we see that government has been very successful in steadily increasing its profits at the expense of the public.

Has government been successful in stabilizing and enhancing its members’ positions in the power-brokerage business? Again the answer is “Yes. Indeed it has.” Today all countries are run by power-brokering governments that operate on similar principles in order to achieve similar goals. So the trend that began in Sumer eight thousand years ago continues today.

The European Union, is an attempt to join the government cartels of Europe into a super-cartel with the power of all its individual government cartels flowing into the hands of a much smaller group of govern-ment leaders.

The United Nations is a similar effort on the part of a much larger group of governments to create a cartel that could eventually take control of the entire world. If permitted to succeed, the UN will eventually constitute an empire whose rulers control the day-to-day lives of every man, woman, and child on the planet. You may ask, “Could such a thing actually happen?” And the answer is, “Yes. It is already happening.” UN plans exist for a world military organization, a world bank, a world court, a world charity, and so forth. Portions of these organizations are already up and running today.

So the upshot of this awareness is that, while government has failed to meet its publicly stated objectives, it has, in fact, been very successful in achieving its true objectives of maximizing its profits and stabilizing its members” positions in the power-brokerage market. This observation and those preceding prove conclusively the falsehood of the fifth and sixth “Comforting Lies”.

Return to The 12 Comforting Lies

Taxation is Slavery

 

WHY TAXATION IS SLAVERY

By Robert E. Podolsky

Government is a Criminal Enterprise

I have maintained for some time that taxation is government’s most criminal enterprise and that it is, in fact, a form of slavery.  Yet it continues to baffle me that so many people cannot or will not see the obvious truth in these statements and insist on arguing that taxation is necessary to humanity’s well being and that it is not slavery at all.  “The greatest good for the greatest number” goes the usual utilitarian refrain…which I maintain is one of the greater falsehoods…for the usual reasons.  But since these reasons are so elusive to the greatest number I have decided to explain my reasoning in language that (hopefully) anyone can understand, thus settling this dispute once and for all in the eyes of any reasonable person.

While a whole book might easily be devoted to this subject, it is my intention to present here only a brief treatise on the subject in order to make the information as accessible as possible.  I present herein three separate, but not entirely independent, arguments to make my case.  I call them respectively:

1.     The Property Rights Argument,

2.     The Robin Hood Argument, and

3.     The Smart Business Argument.

The Property Rights Argument

Property Rights is the one usually presented by libertarians in the manner of the late Murray Rothbard. Unfortunately, Rothbard presupposed that most people would accept intuitively that people own their own bodies. From this assumption he then reasoned that this implied the existence of property rights and hence absolute ownership of whatever the individual might create or produce.  While the reasoning behind this argument is correct, few people accept it because it is counter-intuitive.  It is counter-intuitive because as children it is obvious to us that our parents own our bodies, rather than we ourselves.  When we go to school our teachers appear to own us.  And when we grow up and become employees it often seems that our employers own us.  We also observe as adults that if we refuse to pay taxes we can involuntarily lose possession of all our assets, thus demonstrating that government has a higher claim than we do to whatever we would like to believe we own.  In the midst of such a society it is hardly surprising that most of us are unconvinced that we have any property rights not mitigated by government decree.

So it follows that if indeed we have any property rights worth discussing we will need some other way to discover this fact than simply agreeing with the Rothbard assertion that we own our own bodies. Fortunately there is another avenue of reasoning that we can call upon for this purpose.  It begins with the definition of an ethical act:

An act is ethical if it increases the creativity of anyone, including the person acting, without limiting or diminishing the creativity of anyone.

As I have shown elsewhere, this definition is logically equivalent to similar definitions in which the word “creativity” is replaced by “love”, “awareness”, “personal evolution”, or any of a potentially large set of resources that are logical equivalents of creativity.  I have also conclusively shown elsewhere that the utilitarian definition defining an ethical act as one that does more good than harm is invalid, and that because of this that it follows by simple logic that ethical ends cannot ever be attained by unethical means no matter who (or how many) benefits from such an act[1].

Now let’s ask the question, “Might it be ethical to steal someone’s possessions, either by force or by deceit?”  And the answer is a resounding, “NO!”  The scientist depends on her computer.  The poet depends on his word processor.  The artist needs her brushes and paints.  Steal these things from someone and they are rendered less creative.  By definition such an act is unethical…bad…evil.  It follows logically from this that if we have the “right” to be treated ethically then we must have the “right” to own whatever we are able to acquire without stealing from someone else…and that therefore no one has the right, for any reason, to deprive us of the fruit of our bodies’ labor.  By similar reasoning it follows that we do indeed own our own bodies and that any act which abrogates that right of ownership is an act of slavery because it diminishes our self-ownership.  If our physical and financial possessions indeed contribute to our creativity, then it follows that the systematic removal of any such resources from our possession is evil and is a form of enslavement.  Taxation is just such an act.

The Robin Hood Argument

The Robin Hood Argument is even easier to understand.  We begin the discussion with my asking you the question, “Would it be all right with you if I stole your assets?”

And of course your answer is, “No.”

Next I ask, “Would it matter to you whether the theft was by force or by fraud?”

Again you answer, “No.” Then I ask, “Would you care what I did with the money?”

Again, “No.” Then I ask, “What if I gave the money away…would that make it okay?”

Again, “No.” “Suppose I gave half the money to a lot of poor people and they liked it and wanted more.  Would that make the theft okay with you?”

Still, “No.” “Suppose all those poor folks elected a bunch of congressmen and I gave the other half of your money to them to spend as they wished.  Would that make the theft okay with you?”

Still, “No.” “Finally, suppose those congressmen got together and wrote a piece of paper saying it was all right for me to steal from you and give away the proceeds; and they called that piece of paper a ‘tax law’.  Would that make the theft okay with you?”

At this point I hope you have the good sense to continue saying, “No. NO. NO!”

Now I put it to you that the above description is exactly the reality that you face in relation to government as we know it today.  The “I” in the example above is the IRS.  It takes away your money by means of coercion, intimidation, and force and gives it to others who claim to legitimize the theft on the basis of majority rule, public benefit, wealth distribution, homeland security, etc., etc., etc.  To the extent that the above description is correct, the government is a thieving parasite and you are its host.  To the extent that you don’t get to keep the fruit of your labor the government owns it, not you; and to that extent you are a slave.

I should say a few words here about how the government steals from you.  It does so in three ways.  First it taxes you directly by means of income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, parking and traffic tickets, court imposed fines, school and utility district assessments, licensing and registration fees, gasoline, alcohol, and tobacco taxes, etc.  Then there are taxes passed on to you indirectly.  Most of these are taxes paid by the businesses which make or import the things you buy.  Every time the government requires a tariff for the importation of foreign goods or raw materials it requires you to pay more and get less.  If your Toyota dealer pays a tariff, then you are paying more for a car than the free market would charge.  If you save yourself the added expense by buying a Ford, then in effect your government insists you settle for an inferior product so that Ford can make a bigger profit.  This amounts to an indirect tax.  Either way value is taken away from you and given to someone else who didn’t earn it.

Hidden Taxes

And finally there are hidden taxes.  The most blatant example of a hidden tax is inflation…the illusion of rising prices. Every time the Federal Reserve prints money for the government to spend, the government gets the full value of each Federal Reserve “dollar” printed.  But shortly after the money is spent by the government it is absorbed by the economy and the value of every dollar in your bank account is diminished. In effect the government thereby steals the buying power of all of your money without your even knowing that you are being taxed[2].

All in all, if one includes direct, indirect, and hidden taxes, the average American gives up about 50% of their gross income to local, state, and federal authorities by way of taxes.  That means that fully half the fruit of your labor is forfeit whether you like it or not. Is it any less odious to be a half time slave than it would be to live as a full time slave?  I think not?  Slavery is slavery.

Smart Business Argument

The Smart Business Argument starts with a fantasy.  Imagine I am a slave owner and you are one of my hard-working slaves whom I use as labor in my agricultural business.  They (and you) plant my fields and harvest my crops, which I sell at a substantial profit.  My business depends on them.  While you may think that slave labor is free to me, the fact is that it is not. Besides the initial purchase of my slaves, I have to maintain them.  I feed, clothe, and house them…albeit cheaply, but it’s not free.  I pay for whatever medical expenses I decide to invest in their health and I pay for their management, which includes the services of bounty hunters who round them up for me when they escape. I also have to pay for the tools and implements that my slaves use and the seeds that they plant.  All in all it’s an expensive operation.  What is more, I am limited in the geographical scope over which I can deploy my slaves, so my business is pretty much limited to the acreage contiguous to my home.  This limits my profits still further.

Not wishing to remain so limited I consult a savvy business adviser and soon create a labor cartel together with a number of my colleagues.  The cartel in turn goes into partnership with the government.  Soon thereafter I round up all my slaves to attend a meeting at which I make the following announcements: “As of today your life will be different.  Subject to certain rules and conditions, you and all other slaves will hereby be set free.  The purpose of the rules is to reimburse me and my colleagues for the investment that we have made in you.  When that debt has been paid, you will be completely free for all time.  These are the rules:

1. You can live anywhere in the world you wish.  As of today you can live in any housing you can afford.  You pay for your own.

2. You can do any kind of work you want to do. You will work whatever hours you and your employer agree upon.

3. You will attend school through at least the age of 18 in preparation for your work.  You will pay for your schools through taxes.

4. You may own a business if you so desire and are able to acquire the capital needed to start it.

5. You will carry an identification token all your life and through it your income will be tracked. I will know where you are working and for whom.  I will know how much you earn and where you bank.

6. Directly and indirectly you will pay me and my colleagues 50¢ out of every dollar that you earn.  This will apply toward payment of your debt to me.

7. If you need to borrow additional money and can convince a bank that you are a good ‘credit risk’, money will be created for you with the stroke of a computer key. This money costs the bank nothing to create and represents no risk to the bank, but if you fail to repay it with interest the bank will take away your house, your car, or any other assets you have that the bank required as collateral for the loan.

8. When the government needs to spend more money than it has collected in taxes, it will ‘borrow’ it from the Federal Reserve System which is a cartel of the world’s biggest banks. It will not need your permission to do this, but you and your descendants will be responsible for repayment of the loan. It will simply be added to whatever you already owe [3].  Naturally the value (buying power) of all the money (Federal Reserve Notes) in your possession will steadily diminish as the Fed continues this practice, so of course your debt to me and my colleagues will never be repaid in full.

9. In order to maintain your sense of freedom you will participate in general elections at regular intervals.  The majority vote will determine who occupy the positions of elected officialdom. But the rules above will never be changed to your advantage…only to the advantage of the banking and labor cartels that are actually the owners of the whole system (including you).  Accordingly, discussion of these rules will never be part of the general debate at election time.

10. The local, state, and federal governments of the United States will be responsible for enforcement of the rules above in keeping with its partnership in the banking and labor cartels.  The courts will adjudicate any conflicts that arise; but discussion of these rules will be forbidden in court and any reference to them will be deemed ‘frivolous’ by the courts.  In this way the rules become in themselves a form of law more potent and inviolable than the state and federal constitutions and local charters that might otherwise interfere with the working of the rules.”

The rules above are just “smart business” from the viewpoint of the modern slave owner.  Costs are held to a minimum.  Productivity is maximized.  The slaves manage themselves.  There are no rebellions to be concerned with.  And yet the slaves are easy to manipulate and control using modern methods of scholastic indoctrination and media communication.  What a blessing that most of the slaves have no inkling whatever that they are in fact slaves.  This fact alone makes the whole system worth whatever sacrifices the slave owners have made to create it, because there are no organized modes of resistance to the system. Even the organized religions don’t protest the half-time slavery imposed on the public.  What a deal for the owners of the system!

In Conclusion, I ask you not to feel too badly if you didn’t get it before now…if you didn’t realize that you are a slave.  Most of us don’t get it and billions of dollars are spent each year to keep us in the dark about it.  By maintaining the illusion that we are not slaves the system’s owners remain free to continue their perpetuation of the system, with the eventual (though not too distant) goal of taking over the whole world.  If we don’t act promptly and with vigor that goal will be attained…very probably within your lifetime.  As the goal is neared the deceit will become less and less subtle and the limitations on our freedom more and more pronounced.  With the exceptions of 1865 and 1920 (emancipation and suffrage) we have had less freedom every year than the year before.  This series of books [4] points the way to the only viable solution that I can see to the, otherwise inevitable, outcome of global slavery and the concomitant degradation of the social and physical environments of the world…to the detriment of all…including those who will be world’s rulers.  It is a universal characteristic of parasites that, in the end, they destroy their host and with it themselves. Now let’s look at another atrocity – the attacks of 9/11/2011.

[1] See Appendix B of “BORG WARS” by Robert E. Podolsky

[2] See The Creature from Jekyll Island, a Second Look at the Federal Reserve System by G. Edward Griffin,

[3] Fully one half of your direct federal taxes today go to pay the interest on such loans.

[4] Titania™, the Bloodless Revolution by Robert E. Podolsky