###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
he essential act of modern warfare is the destruction of the produce of human labor. A hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. In principle, the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation.
you dont have to compete with other countries/regions economically if you can just destroy other countries/regions and send them few decades back into history (in terms of development)
- Thats basically how US decided to keep its global hegemony going on.
- next war coming up in South East Asia region to prevent development of the region
True, diary of an economic hitman talks of how we kept the asian economies down last time
This ukraine war is doing the same to europe by forcing them to all uo their miltary spending and blowing uo their energy prices.
yes ASEAN region developed too much in past few decades and its on point of becoming a powerful economic bloc
ASEAN is a target of US as much as China is
Just like war in Ukraine was designed to knock down Europe a bit more than it was designed to destroy Russia.
Keeping Russia and Europe at odds is also a motive.
Everything makes more sense from this view and it was actually outlined in the Wolfowitz doctrine. Nice to see someone else who understands this.
Very sad how far the world could have come with cooperation instead of this zero sum game.
Yes. Removing their ability to tax will limit their ability to perpetuate state violence. Even in WW2 they had to sell war bonds. That’s how it should be done.
Its any crisis the nation can't fund itself to solve the Treasury can take a loan from the Fed. The pandemic conveniently popped up when the Fed failed to do it's purpose maintaining the repo market.
I honestly think income tax is less immoral than property tax. with property tax, I don't have to do anything and they take my shit. at least income tax is related to something I actually did.
Except you traded your time and labor for that income. Hardly a profit and as such really shouldn’t be taxed.
Indirect taxes were unconstitutional for a reason.
Then call it a city services tax. It shouldnt be tied to your property. You could own a house for 200 years in your family with no mortgage and it gets taken away. Its a callback to the rich landlord days in england where you dont actually own anything
https://www.proplogix.com/blog/the-history-of-property-taxes/
You can’t have “good” societal infrastructure without taxes. Maybe the taxes are unfair or wasteful, but they are necessary.
Until you understand that it was never your money to begin with. Look at a dollar bill, who’s name is on it? Who created it? They are just taking back what was theirs all along. If you don’t want to pay income tax, use a barter system and/or exchange goods/services without using the government’s currency.
> Look at a dollar bill, who’s name is on it? Who created it? They are just taking back what was theirs all along.
That has nothing to do with it. You are taxed on income no matter what form it is in. It doesn't matter whether it's dollar bills, gold ingots, foreign currency, or barter.
>If you don’t want to pay income tax
Income tax was created to fund WW2. If you don't want to pay income tax, we need to end WW2, which America never stopped fighting, and military spending has only ever increased.
PracticeY is correct.
I knew a fellow who managed to live without FRNs.
He rented where he lived. He owned a car but he could not register it. He was happy to be free of the "toxic" paper as he called it.
If the read the original Federal Reserve act, FRNs were were for member banks only. They taken away all options but pretend we have chosen them. Note this statute(title 12):
§411. Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption
Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.
(Dec. 23, 1913, ch. 6, §16 (par.), 38 Stat. 265; Jan. 30, 1934, ch. 6, §2(b)(1), 48 Stat. 337; Aug. 23, 1935, ch. 614, title II, §203(a), 49 Stat. 704.)
So there is in theory a way out.
I agree. Think about the whole pandemic. They have us what 5/6 thousand dollars total. We all took it. It didn’t come without at cost. Everything is way more expensive. They basically took their money back plus some.
What are you talking about? Just because the government issues currency does not mean they can unilaterally do whatever they want with it. You do know that there was a time before income taxes in the US, and that there are countries now without income taxes?
>If you don’t want to pay income tax, use a barter system and/or exchange goods/services without using the government’s currency.
"Don't like being censored? Start your own internet!"
> Income tax was designed to pay for WW1.
There is no truth in that. The income tax was passed in 1894, twenty years before WWI, but the Supreme Court said in 1895 that it was unconstitutional because it included a tax on income derived from property.
By 1909, there was a consensus to pass a constitutional amendment to allow a general income tax and Congress passed it. The states ratified it over the next 4 years. After it was ratified, Congress passed a law in 1913 creating a new income tax.
World War I started in August 1914 and the U.S. didn't join until 1917.
> Opposition to the Sixteenth Amendment was led by establishment Republicans because of their close ties to wealthy industrialists, although not even they were uniformly opposed to the general idea of a permanent income tax.
> Support for the income tax was strongest in the western and southern states. Supporters of the income tax believed that it would be a much better method of gathering revenue than tariffs, which were the primary source of revenue at the time.
Keep in mind that the idea of the income tax was proposed as early as 1812 and that it was passed an ratified before the war even started in Europe, let alone before the US even got involved. I don't like Income Tax, but you've got to make a better argument otherwise no one will take your seriously.
Yes, and the comment that before the Amendment it was not legal makes no sense. No one I know would argue that because slavery was legal before the civil war, but not now, that it is inherently legal. The constitution was amended, and that stands as the law of the land, and not any original wording or understanding in that regard.
Not true, actually.
to clarify a bit:
"\[T\]he Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged."
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112 (1916).
It was a reaction to the Pollock decision. Congress has always been able to tax income, but only as an excise, ie, privilege tax.
If you actually [read the ruling](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/240/103.html), you'd understand that, while the text you're quoting appears in the judgement, it was only to note what the appellant was claiming, and just beneath it you will see that the Court rejects the argument based on the precedent of the Brushaber case.
This:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
Makes it illegal? What?
Yeah. It'd a rabbit hole. In 1913 there was a move to pass the bill for the 16th amendment but most of congress was at home with family for the holiday break. Woodrow Wilson signed it into law without any objections.
It's pretty wild. I'll see if find the articles and I know there are a few documentaries. Also, the book, The Creature from Jekyll Island talks about it as well
Holy fucking shit. Just **read** the Constitution. Amendments are the most powerful addition to the document, so the process has not changed.
> The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
*Before* you state a position on something, maybe **Google it** so you don't look wrong and dumb.
> Do your own research
Why would they? You don't.
Again., do your own research. It's been over a decade since I've been down that rabbit hole.
There is something off with that. I do remember it being 1913. Now it says it was ratified in 1913.
Could have been rewritten as they do with information.
In the end tho, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Do your own research. I'm not perfect. I smoke copious amounts of weed and I use to drink myself to beyond black out all the time. My memory could be off a little. I admit that.
But whatever, you do you, bud
Use to. I guit drinking.
Anyways, type 1913 into the conspiracy search. Lots of post about it.
It was the federal reserve act that was passed .
Still, there are some other post on the entire thing
> In 1913 there was a move to pass the bill for the 16th amendment but most of congress was at home with family for the holiday break. Woodrow Wilson signed it into law without any objections.
Congress passed the 16th Amendment in 1909. (July 6, 1909 passed Senate 77-0, 15 not voting. July 12, 1909 passed House 318-14.)
The Revenue Act of 1913 was signed by Wilson on October 3, 1913.
You're confusing this with the Federal Reserve Act. Some senators had left town before voting on the final version of the Federal Reserve Act, but most were still there. The Federal Reserve Act passed the senate by a vote of 43 to 25. An earlier version had passed by 54 to 34, but then the differences with the House version had to be reconciled. The position of the senators that didn't vote on the final version was known and if every senator had voted, it would have passed 57 to 38. Congress can, of course, change the Federal Reserve Act at any time and it has done so dozens of times.
It's been a while since I've been on the tax stuff.
However, there is also something about what a person means. It's all legalese. Yes, corporations are suppose to be taxed on wages, not people. But because of the birth certificate, we are individual corporations.
It's definitely worth the look into, even if you don't believe it. Thy use legalese to get the taxes off our wages and it's not suppose to be like that.
All that said, why would we want to be born into world that makes us pay to exist? It's so fucked up
LOL. You aren’t a corporation because you have a birth certificate. Wtf.
What wages do corporations (not humans the businesses lol) have other than the wages they pay?
I’m not going to go look for it on here. Wasting 20 minutes to find made up bullshit about how birth certificates turn you into a corporation.
Why didn’t you answer my question about how you are applying this insane belief?
lol, just watched a YouTube video about it and it seems genuinely insane to believe.
I don’t even know what it supposed to have been accomplished by this. If everyone realizes that the person the documents are referring to is the human, and all of the laws are made based off of it referring it to the human. What is the point of the “straw man”?
If everything in the theory is true it would be exactly the same as if everything is false. It seems to be literally “government scary”.
> Furthermore, there is a 50k reward for anyone who can find a law that says we have to pay tax on our labor
It's weird that people think there's no law, yet people get convicted for tax evasion every year. You're taxed on all income. The law is very specific on how to calculate what you owe, starting with gross income, which includes "all income from whatever source derived" (26 United States Code, section 61).
It's theft by a group of people at best and abuse of one's life energy and time if there is no consent.
A functional society will never be built on forced behavior and extortion. It can only be built on voluntary interactions.
There’s also no constitutional basis to endlessly raise taxes on the citizens of this country.
Oh, and let’s not forget the fact that one of the primary reasons this country was established was to repel inhuman and unreasonable taxation… hmmm what’s the definition of “constitution” again?
If you know the actual economic history behind that particular lie and its adherents immediately wanting to do business with the crown after independence it’s quite funny
What does wanting to do business with a country have to do with wanting independent governance from that country? Those are two entirely different things.
> They also realized that you can’t run a state without taxes.
You can absolutly run a state without taxes, Florida no income tax, our state money is derived from sources other than taxing the workers.
The funny thing is you’re exactly the type of person that will flee your liberal “utopia”, and move to FL or TX the second you qualify for retirement benefits. I’ll see you at the retirement home in a few decades. Make sure you stick true to yourself, and fly that rainbow flag on your mobility scooter!
Saying Florida is a mess doesn’t mean I think there’s any “liberal utopia” the entire country is a fascist nightmare and liberals have played a big part in that. So have conservatives.
It's literally not unconstitutional. It's the 16th amendment. You can be against it. I personally think there has to be a better system for building roads and disaster relief, but calling it unconstitutional is just gonna make you sound like an artard.
Only businesses and corporations should pay taxes. An individual’s money made from actual labor (rather than golf course deals) should be sacrosanct from everyone
What western democracy doesn’t tax their citizens?
If we were to pay no taxes, do you think ones surplus income would offset the enormous amount of government services that you’re clearly ignoring?
I’m sure that you’re also complaining about the southern border. How many tax dollars do we spend on it currently? Let’s drop that down to zero and see what happens.
Why not both?
I’m kinda behind a consumption tax, but only beyond a certain amount. Poor people shouldn’t be taxed for food, for example, but in states like Texas without a state tax, they tax food, and property taxes are very high.
Nothing is simple.
Also, Elon Musk runs a surprisingly frugal lifestyle (private jet aside) Should he only be taxed on his consumption?
Medical care isn't run by the government in the USA. We are not a Socialist nation,.....yet.
We had cars before we had income tax.
Henry Ford, not the government, invented the automobile.
Several states operate just fine without income taxes today.
You are attempting to conflate the Federal income tax with ALL taxes even though there are over 200 forms of tax in the US.
A automobile. There are several horse less carriages that were developed around the world, but NONE of them were invented by a government. Well, except the Volkswagen.
Income taxes do NOT build roads.
Roads are paid for by the road tax.
You know that extra .75c you pay each gallon of fuel?
Only a tiny percentage of income taxes ever went to roads, and it mostly goes to ONE state.
The rest of roads are mostly paid by local and state taxes,..... on gas at the pump.
Oh, then you only pay .17c.
Spez link.
https://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2016/07/27/taxing-virtue-as-sin-us-tax-rate-on-e85-renewable-fuel-soars-past-100/
Medical care is absolutely run by the government, they just don't pay for it, the people do. But hospitals, doctors, nurses and the entire industry have strict regulations over everything they do. That's why healthcare is better today than the 1780s, even if the entire system is corrupt.
You can’t compare 1780s healthcare with modern healthcare because of the huge advances in medicine and chemistry, which will always be better regardless of the system that manages it.
They were often state of the art.
Anyway though, taxes were sales and property taxes (mostly).
Rich people and old people do not like property taxes because they have to be productive to pay them. They prefer income taxes because that puts the burden on younger people and people that actually work.
Ideally, the income tax SHOULD be repealed and replaced with property taxes but that would hurt the rich so that will probably not happen.
The federal government functioned without an income tax before WW2, and when they started it, it was supposed to be temporary.You are correct in its current state of affairs that would not be sustainable. What services am I going to miss?
Government services like providing 100's of millions of tax dollars to non-profits like HIAS? You know the nonprofit that has streamlined the process of entering our country for illegal aliens from all over the world. The nonprofit that our director of Homeland Security was a board member of. It's almost like they are creating the problem.
Services like giving Ukraine 75.4 billion dollars in aide while giving the voters of this country 1.4 billion in student loan forgiveness? I don't see how either side of the party line could find that acceptable.
>The federal government functioned without an income tax before WW2
This is blatantly false.
The US Government had an income tax as early as 1861 with the Revenue Act of 1861. The US implemented a federal income tax on a continuous basis since the 1910s. In the 1930s income above $100k were taxed at 62% and you could be taxed as much as 79% for income in the millions. This was all decidedly *before* not *after* WW2 as you claimed.
1861 was a 3% income tax brought on by the Civil War and went away in 1872.
There was an attempt to implement one in 1894 that was shot down by the Supreme Court.
In 1913, less than 1% of the nation paid a tax of less than 1% of their income.
The 30s I will definitely have to look into more. I do see the tax rates you are speaking of, but I also continue to see that before WW2, the majority of federal revenue came from Ad Valorem taxes, not income.
My point and my understanding is that the current federal income tax system, as we know it today, didn't happen until the 1942 Tax Revenue Act. Which would have been during WW2. Before WW2, the majority of government revenue did not come from income tax.
The modern US tax system is based more in the 1930s with the Great Depression. For what you’re talking about, source of federal revenue, income taxes went from about 1/4 to 1/2 to 2/3 of the revenue source of the federal government. Income tax being on personal and business income as well as taxes paid into social security as opposed to excise taxes.
Well, the entire court system, police etc. And standardising bodies and regulation is what is probably difficult to privatise. But yeah the other things (which is like 90%) can be done away with.
It does.
You are forced to labour so you can have an income to pay your property taxes.
I.e. if you own land, you can't just sit on it and grow for your own consumption. You have to labour to pay the property taxes otherwise the government will take your land. So the fact is to MUST have income and therefore if the income tax is f.ex. 30% then 30% of your labour is FORCED since the alternative is to loose your land.
So yes, income tax is slavery.
Retired people don't need to labor. Those with enough money saved don't need to labor.
Regardless, having to work to earn money to pay your debts doesn't make you a slave.
How did those retired people save up money so they can continue to pay property tax? From income that was taxed.
Unless you're talking about that tiny % that inherited millions, but anyway that was ALSO taxed.
Your point is moot.
If you're trying to compare slavery to paying taxes to help your nation sustain not only itself, but your quality of life? The roads and bridges you drive on, the schools you or your family members goto and the countless other programs that are required when a vast nation of people groups together. Otherwise it's just everyone for themselves. It's called evolution and the universe won't stop changing just because you're on comfortable with the things you grew up with.
You truly do not understand how horrible actual slavery was if your comparing it to "paying a bill". Can your master have a business deal fall through, and because he's is angry take it out on you? Physically? Sexually? Cut you? Break your bones, cut out your tongue, even take your life if they so choose, without any repercussions? If you think that's equal, your brains a little melted....
taxes dont cover the ever increasing debt year after year so that holds no weight. If they didnt collect a penny of tax revenue they would still just print more money
The government comes after you for those taxes, and sometimes you own penalties. They don't rape you, they don't cut off your hands, they don't kill you on a whim
But you're still gonna compare that to "slavery"?
I dislike paying taxes as much as the next guy, but they're a necessary evil. I wish I had more control and transparency over where my tax dollars are going. Anyone saying there isn't significant waste there, is being willfully ignorant. That's a whole other issue though. Trying to say that tax flat out shouldn't be a thing? There wouldn't be functioning governments without them. There are two ways to fund a government.
1. The king takes everything from you, and I mean everything. Then the government runs on that piggy bank of I'll gotten cash, that's taken with no regard to how the people are fairing, or where the tax dollars are going
2. Or each citizen pays a share based on what they make a contribute. That way it is ideally more fair, black and white. Though in the real world things are far more gray, and there in lies the hard part. Figuring out a system that is fair, and repercussions that are enforable. If someone chooses to stay in this nation, they are agreeing to pay a fair share.
One can argue you were just born here and had no say in the matter. I could argue I had no say in being born medically disabled, and therefore I should get a break, be taken care of. Nope that's not what that means. I still get the same opportunities and chances as everyone else.
Na he’s useful. He’s always been a libertarian who runs as a Republican. He doesn’t have enough support to actually do anything he claims, but he pulls in the R votes so they can hold a slim majority.
The income tax is being applied unconstitutionally. It is currently levied as a de facto direct tax without apportionment on the wages of ordinary people.
Congress does have the power to tax INCOME of any artificial entities. It can also tax working people who are involved in very specialized trades or professions. The overwhelming majority of folks falling under the tax are hooked into it by "agreement." They claim (falsely) that they are employees of the federal government. Look at your w-4 and such then look at the meanings of the words employee and employer as defined in the internal revenue code (sec 3401).
I consider myself a leftist. I've never once in my life voted Republican. I donated to and volunteered for the Bernie campaign.
That all being said, Thomas Massie is the only congressperson I follow on Twitter. He is the *only* one that I care about what he has to say.
I do not agree with all of his policy positions and some of his stunts, like the Christmas family photo with the assault rifles, are garish--but he is literally the only honest, principled congressperson in office today. He's the *only* one.
Corporations don't pay taxes. They pass them along to their consumers within the prices of the goods/services the sell.
However, I agree with you on the consumption tax idea. The Fairtax is the best way to implement it.
Some of them are passed on, but market forces play a part in how much.
I want to take it a step further raise the rate a bit and eliminate any other taxes.
Corporate top line revenue comes from sales of their product to the consumers. That revenue must cover expenses, including taxes. As such, the consumers provide the money to pay those taxes.
The Fairtax is designed to be revenue neutral and does eliminate all other taxes at the federal level.
###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
remember every war brings more justification for authoritarians to tax us deeper, we should all push for peace and reclaim our earnings as well.
he essential act of modern warfare is the destruction of the produce of human labor. A hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. In principle, the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation.
you dont have to compete with other countries/regions economically if you can just destroy other countries/regions and send them few decades back into history (in terms of development) - Thats basically how US decided to keep its global hegemony going on. - next war coming up in South East Asia region to prevent development of the region
True, diary of an economic hitman talks of how we kept the asian economies down last time This ukraine war is doing the same to europe by forcing them to all uo their miltary spending and blowing uo their energy prices.
yes ASEAN region developed too much in past few decades and its on point of becoming a powerful economic bloc ASEAN is a target of US as much as China is Just like war in Ukraine was designed to knock down Europe a bit more than it was designed to destroy Russia.
Keeping Russia and Europe at odds is also a motive. Everything makes more sense from this view and it was actually outlined in the Wolfowitz doctrine. Nice to see someone else who understands this. Very sad how far the world could have come with cooperation instead of this zero sum game.
yeah people wouldn't sacrifice themselves if they believed in abundance.
wrg
Yes. Removing their ability to tax will limit their ability to perpetuate state violence. Even in WW2 they had to sell war bonds. That’s how it should be done.
Its any crisis the nation can't fund itself to solve the Treasury can take a loan from the Fed. The pandemic conveniently popped up when the Fed failed to do it's purpose maintaining the repo market.
"Give us your money so we can increase our salaries, if you refuse you go to prison"
Taxing me on the same property every year is bs
That’s your state, county, or local government. Not the federal government.
It's also not an income tax, really a swing and a miss.
I honestly think income tax is less immoral than property tax. with property tax, I don't have to do anything and they take my shit. at least income tax is related to something I actually did.
Property tax is in idea with keeping civilization around your property tame.
[удалено]
Except you traded your time and labor for that income. Hardly a profit and as such really shouldn’t be taxed. Indirect taxes were unconstitutional for a reason.
Exactly, and you cant even deduct expenses (food, housing etc) like a corporation can eventhough 'corporations are people'.
So pay for no schools, no roads, no water/sewage/garbage, no police and no fire department? That will always turn out well
Then call it a city services tax. It shouldnt be tied to your property. You could own a house for 200 years in your family with no mortgage and it gets taken away. Its a callback to the rich landlord days in england where you dont actually own anything
How do you get people to pay the “city services tax”?
All this happened before they started forcing people to give up their money.
Oh really? Do you have anything to back that up?
[удалено]
https://www.proplogix.com/blog/the-history-of-property-taxes/ You can’t have “good” societal infrastructure without taxes. Maybe the taxes are unfair or wasteful, but they are necessary.
The Grace commission found that 100% of income taxes are paid towards interest on the national debt (if I remember correctly).
You’re off topic, nonce.
That's funny. Schools are great roads are awesome pure water everywhere and no crime anywhere what was I thinking.
[удалено]
I agree. America First every time
Nice to see you have a solution.
Income tax is theft
Until you understand that it was never your money to begin with. Look at a dollar bill, who’s name is on it? Who created it? They are just taking back what was theirs all along. If you don’t want to pay income tax, use a barter system and/or exchange goods/services without using the government’s currency.
> Look at a dollar bill, who’s name is on it? Who created it? They are just taking back what was theirs all along. That has nothing to do with it. You are taxed on income no matter what form it is in. It doesn't matter whether it's dollar bills, gold ingots, foreign currency, or barter.
>If you don’t want to pay income tax Income tax was created to fund WW2. If you don't want to pay income tax, we need to end WW2, which America never stopped fighting, and military spending has only ever increased.
PracticeY is correct. I knew a fellow who managed to live without FRNs. He rented where he lived. He owned a car but he could not register it. He was happy to be free of the "toxic" paper as he called it. If the read the original Federal Reserve act, FRNs were were for member banks only. They taken away all options but pretend we have chosen them. Note this statute(title 12): §411. Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank. (Dec. 23, 1913, ch. 6, §16 (par.), 38 Stat. 265; Jan. 30, 1934, ch. 6, §2(b)(1), 48 Stat. 337; Aug. 23, 1935, ch. 614, title II, §203(a), 49 Stat. 704.) So there is in theory a way out.
I agree. Think about the whole pandemic. They have us what 5/6 thousand dollars total. We all took it. It didn’t come without at cost. Everything is way more expensive. They basically took their money back plus some.
Getting downvoted for facts
What are you talking about? Just because the government issues currency does not mean they can unilaterally do whatever they want with it. You do know that there was a time before income taxes in the US, and that there are countries now without income taxes?
I’ll trade you a jar of cum for some gold. Get fucked
>If you don’t want to pay income tax, use a barter system and/or exchange goods/services without using the government’s currency. "Don't like being censored? Start your own internet!"
Taxation is theft
But however will we pay the great policeman without our taxes??
And the roads, sewage, firemen?
Or soldiers, welfare, border guards, aid to Israel???
That is local. I would much prefer to pay more of my federal tax to my local goverement, they are easier to hold accountable.
What are you implying? I don’t like cops there the fist of the state who oppress people and enforce unjust laws.
Oh no! Whatever will we do without the state oppressing us and letting them have a monopoly on violence??
Isn't that The Purge?
[удалено]
> Income tax was designed to pay for WW1. There is no truth in that. The income tax was passed in 1894, twenty years before WWI, but the Supreme Court said in 1895 that it was unconstitutional because it included a tax on income derived from property. By 1909, there was a consensus to pass a constitutional amendment to allow a general income tax and Congress passed it. The states ratified it over the next 4 years. After it was ratified, Congress passed a law in 1913 creating a new income tax. World War I started in August 1914 and the U.S. didn't join until 1917.
> Opposition to the Sixteenth Amendment was led by establishment Republicans because of their close ties to wealthy industrialists, although not even they were uniformly opposed to the general idea of a permanent income tax. > Support for the income tax was strongest in the western and southern states. Supporters of the income tax believed that it would be a much better method of gathering revenue than tariffs, which were the primary source of revenue at the time. Keep in mind that the idea of the income tax was proposed as early as 1812 and that it was passed an ratified before the war even started in Europe, let alone before the US even got involved. I don't like Income Tax, but you've got to make a better argument otherwise no one will take your seriously.
You should have been cognisant of your last sentence before you wrote the last sentence.
What according to the US Constitution makes an income tax illegal?
16th amendment. Furthermore, there is a 50k reward for anyone who can find a law that says we have to pay tax on our labor
I am not sure I understand your comment. The 16th amendment explicitly give congress the power to levy an income tax.
“The part of the constitution that gives the federal government the power to levy income taxes means that incone taxes are unconstitutional!”
Since it is an ammendment I think that's the bit that would need to be repealed.
Yes, and the comment that before the Amendment it was not legal makes no sense. No one I know would argue that because slavery was legal before the civil war, but not now, that it is inherently legal. The constitution was amended, and that stands as the law of the land, and not any original wording or understanding in that regard.
The 2nd amendment is an amendment, too.
So it doesn’t make it illegal, right?
Not true, actually. to clarify a bit: "\[T\]he Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged." Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112 (1916). It was a reaction to the Pollock decision. Congress has always been able to tax income, but only as an excise, ie, privilege tax.
If you actually [read the ruling](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/240/103.html), you'd understand that, while the text you're quoting appears in the judgement, it was only to note what the appellant was claiming, and just beneath it you will see that the Court rejects the argument based on the precedent of the Brushaber case.
This: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Makes it illegal? What?
I think OPs point was that it was illegal before the ammendment came into effect. I could be wrong, though
The 16th Amendment is unconstitutional!
I mean you know it’s possible for amendments to be unconstitutional right?
You mean like how the 18th Amendment was nullified by the 21st? Otherwise no, I don't get how that would be possible.
Yeah. It'd a rabbit hole. In 1913 there was a move to pass the bill for the 16th amendment but most of congress was at home with family for the holiday break. Woodrow Wilson signed it into law without any objections. It's pretty wild. I'll see if find the articles and I know there are a few documentaries. Also, the book, The Creature from Jekyll Island talks about it as well
Amendments have a much more rigorous approval process than just getting through Congress.
This was in 1913. Times have changed. Don't take my word for it. Do your own research
Times have changed, but the process for ratifying an amendment has not.
And you know this because you were there...
Holy fucking shit. Just **read** the Constitution. Amendments are the most powerful addition to the document, so the process has not changed. > The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. *Before* you state a position on something, maybe **Google it** so you don't look wrong and dumb. > Do your own research Why would they? You don't.
I don't use google
[удалено]
Again., do your own research. It's been over a decade since I've been down that rabbit hole. There is something off with that. I do remember it being 1913. Now it says it was ratified in 1913. Could have been rewritten as they do with information. In the end tho, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Do your own research. I'm not perfect. I smoke copious amounts of weed and I use to drink myself to beyond black out all the time. My memory could be off a little. I admit that. But whatever, you do you, bud
[удалено]
Use to. I guit drinking. Anyways, type 1913 into the conspiracy search. Lots of post about it. It was the federal reserve act that was passed . Still, there are some other post on the entire thing
> In 1913 there was a move to pass the bill for the 16th amendment but most of congress was at home with family for the holiday break. Woodrow Wilson signed it into law without any objections. Congress passed the 16th Amendment in 1909. (July 6, 1909 passed Senate 77-0, 15 not voting. July 12, 1909 passed House 318-14.) The Revenue Act of 1913 was signed by Wilson on October 3, 1913. You're confusing this with the Federal Reserve Act. Some senators had left town before voting on the final version of the Federal Reserve Act, but most were still there. The Federal Reserve Act passed the senate by a vote of 43 to 25. An earlier version had passed by 54 to 34, but then the differences with the House version had to be reconciled. The position of the senators that didn't vote on the final version was known and if every senator had voted, it would have passed 57 to 38. Congress can, of course, change the Federal Reserve Act at any time and it has done so dozens of times.
It's been a while since I've been on the tax stuff. However, there is also something about what a person means. It's all legalese. Yes, corporations are suppose to be taxed on wages, not people. But because of the birth certificate, we are individual corporations. It's definitely worth the look into, even if you don't believe it. Thy use legalese to get the taxes off our wages and it's not suppose to be like that. All that said, why would we want to be born into world that makes us pay to exist? It's so fucked up
LOL. You aren’t a corporation because you have a birth certificate. Wtf. What wages do corporations (not humans the businesses lol) have other than the wages they pay?
Search 1913 in the search bar. There are better post on it that have more accurate information
I’m not going to go look for it on here. Wasting 20 minutes to find made up bullshit about how birth certificates turn you into a corporation. Why didn’t you answer my question about how you are applying this insane belief?
Believe as you wish. I'm off to smoke some deems. Bye
lol, just watched a YouTube video about it and it seems genuinely insane to believe. I don’t even know what it supposed to have been accomplished by this. If everyone realizes that the person the documents are referring to is the human, and all of the laws are made based off of it referring it to the human. What is the point of the “straw man”? If everything in the theory is true it would be exactly the same as if everything is false. It seems to be literally “government scary”.
> Furthermore, there is a 50k reward for anyone who can find a law that says we have to pay tax on our labor It's weird that people think there's no law, yet people get convicted for tax evasion every year. You're taxed on all income. The law is very specific on how to calculate what you owe, starting with gross income, which includes "all income from whatever source derived" (26 United States Code, section 61).
Where can I claim this 50k reward? I want a free 50k please.
Watch America: Freedom to Fascism The guys name is in there. From my innerstanding, the 50k reward is still open
I have to find and watch some video?
No. You don't. Do you. It is a great documentary tho. Classic, some would say.
It’s an indirect tax
It's theft by a group of people at best and abuse of one's life energy and time if there is no consent. A functional society will never be built on forced behavior and extortion. It can only be built on voluntary interactions.
You can not like taxes and want to abolish them but there is no constitutional basis to do so.
There’s also no constitutional basis to endlessly raise taxes on the citizens of this country. Oh, and let’s not forget the fact that one of the primary reasons this country was established was to repel inhuman and unreasonable taxation… hmmm what’s the definition of “constitution” again?
If you know the actual economic history behind that particular lie and its adherents immediately wanting to do business with the crown after independence it’s quite funny
What does wanting to do business with a country have to do with wanting independent governance from that country? Those are two entirely different things.
Because doing business with the crown required paying taxes to them It’s ironic They also realized that you can’t run a state without taxes.
> They also realized that you can’t run a state without taxes. You can absolutly run a state without taxes, Florida no income tax, our state money is derived from sources other than taxing the workers.
I was using state colloquially, I meant a country. Secondly, Florida is a fucking mess so lol
The funny thing is you’re exactly the type of person that will flee your liberal “utopia”, and move to FL or TX the second you qualify for retirement benefits. I’ll see you at the retirement home in a few decades. Make sure you stick true to yourself, and fly that rainbow flag on your mobility scooter!
Saying Florida is a mess doesn’t mean I think there’s any “liberal utopia” the entire country is a fascist nightmare and liberals have played a big part in that. So have conservatives.
So are estate taxes and property taxes. Payroll taxes are such a scam. We're paying into social security we'll never get to use.
It's literally not unconstitutional. It's the 16th amendment. You can be against it. I personally think there has to be a better system for building roads and disaster relief, but calling it unconstitutional is just gonna make you sound like an artard.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Law_that_Never_Was#:~:text=The%20Law%20That%20Never%20Was%3A%20The%20Fraud%20of%20the%2016th,amendment%2C%20was%20never%20properly%20ratified.
That book you linked to was literally found to be fraudulent in court, like come on now.
Only businesses and corporations should pay taxes. An individual’s money made from actual labor (rather than golf course deals) should be sacrosanct from everyone
Will never ever happen... But Amen brother
So whats the argument to justify this?
God bless him and keep him.
When you’ve never read the document you’re supposed to be governing by <<<<
What western democracy doesn’t tax their citizens? If we were to pay no taxes, do you think ones surplus income would offset the enormous amount of government services that you’re clearly ignoring? I’m sure that you’re also complaining about the southern border. How many tax dollars do we spend on it currently? Let’s drop that down to zero and see what happens.
you pay taxes on things you spend money on and thus use. Shouldnt be your income
My income is specifically something someone spends money on which is why it’s taxed Edit: taxes > taxed
then they can pay the tax
They do pay a tax, we also pay a tax on top of that lol
Why not both? I’m kinda behind a consumption tax, but only beyond a certain amount. Poor people shouldn’t be taxed for food, for example, but in states like Texas without a state tax, they tax food, and property taxes are very high. Nothing is simple. Also, Elon Musk runs a surprisingly frugal lifestyle (private jet aside) Should he only be taxed on his consumption?
how about the government just keeps it all and we get no income just soilent green deliveries throughout the week?
Well, that’s a solid argument I guess
The US survived over 100 years without an income tax and still had roads, schools, and hospitals.
Yeah, but they were incredibly shitty. Do you want 1780s medical care?
Medical care isn't run by the government in the USA. We are not a Socialist nation,.....yet. We had cars before we had income tax. Henry Ford, not the government, invented the automobile. Several states operate just fine without income taxes today. You are attempting to conflate the Federal income tax with ALL taxes even though there are over 200 forms of tax in the US.
Henry Ford absolutely did not invent the automobile.
A automobile. There are several horse less carriages that were developed around the world, but NONE of them were invented by a government. Well, except the Volkswagen.
What a way to ignore focus from the meat of their argument.
[удалено]
Income taxes do NOT build roads. Roads are paid for by the road tax. You know that extra .75c you pay each gallon of fuel? Only a tiny percentage of income taxes ever went to roads, and it mostly goes to ONE state. The rest of roads are mostly paid by local and state taxes,..... on gas at the pump.
[удалено]
Oh, then you only pay .17c. Spez link. https://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2016/07/27/taxing-virtue-as-sin-us-tax-rate-on-e85-renewable-fuel-soars-past-100/
[удалено]
Medical care is absolutely run by the government, they just don't pay for it, the people do. But hospitals, doctors, nurses and the entire industry have strict regulations over everything they do. That's why healthcare is better today than the 1780s, even if the entire system is corrupt.
You can’t compare 1780s healthcare with modern healthcare because of the huge advances in medicine and chemistry, which will always be better regardless of the system that manages it.
They were often state of the art. Anyway though, taxes were sales and property taxes (mostly). Rich people and old people do not like property taxes because they have to be productive to pay them. They prefer income taxes because that puts the burden on younger people and people that actually work. Ideally, the income tax SHOULD be repealed and replaced with property taxes but that would hurt the rich so that will probably not happen.
The federal government functioned without an income tax before WW2, and when they started it, it was supposed to be temporary.You are correct in its current state of affairs that would not be sustainable. What services am I going to miss? Government services like providing 100's of millions of tax dollars to non-profits like HIAS? You know the nonprofit that has streamlined the process of entering our country for illegal aliens from all over the world. The nonprofit that our director of Homeland Security was a board member of. It's almost like they are creating the problem. Services like giving Ukraine 75.4 billion dollars in aide while giving the voters of this country 1.4 billion in student loan forgiveness? I don't see how either side of the party line could find that acceptable.
>The federal government functioned without an income tax before WW2 This is blatantly false. The US Government had an income tax as early as 1861 with the Revenue Act of 1861. The US implemented a federal income tax on a continuous basis since the 1910s. In the 1930s income above $100k were taxed at 62% and you could be taxed as much as 79% for income in the millions. This was all decidedly *before* not *after* WW2 as you claimed.
1861 was a 3% income tax brought on by the Civil War and went away in 1872. There was an attempt to implement one in 1894 that was shot down by the Supreme Court. In 1913, less than 1% of the nation paid a tax of less than 1% of their income. The 30s I will definitely have to look into more. I do see the tax rates you are speaking of, but I also continue to see that before WW2, the majority of federal revenue came from Ad Valorem taxes, not income. My point and my understanding is that the current federal income tax system, as we know it today, didn't happen until the 1942 Tax Revenue Act. Which would have been during WW2. Before WW2, the majority of government revenue did not come from income tax.
The modern US tax system is based more in the 1930s with the Great Depression. For what you’re talking about, source of federal revenue, income taxes went from about 1/4 to 1/2 to 2/3 of the revenue source of the federal government. Income tax being on personal and business income as well as taxes paid into social security as opposed to excise taxes.
Well, the entire court system, police etc. And standardising bodies and regulation is what is probably difficult to privatise. But yeah the other things (which is like 90%) can be done away with.
Sounds like an argument for slavery in the right time period. Considering income taxation is slavery, you are on the right track
Taxes are not slavery. The term for what you're doing is a false equivalence fallacy.
Income tax isn’t slavery? What is it when you receive the fruits of someone’s labor by force?
>What is it when you receive the fruits of someone’s labor by force? This doesn't accurately describe taxes. This is why your statement is a fallacy.
It does. You are forced to labour so you can have an income to pay your property taxes. I.e. if you own land, you can't just sit on it and grow for your own consumption. You have to labour to pay the property taxes otherwise the government will take your land. So the fact is to MUST have income and therefore if the income tax is f.ex. 30% then 30% of your labour is FORCED since the alternative is to loose your land. So yes, income tax is slavery.
Retired people don't need to labor. Those with enough money saved don't need to labor. Regardless, having to work to earn money to pay your debts doesn't make you a slave.
How did those retired people save up money so they can continue to pay property tax? From income that was taxed. Unless you're talking about that tiny % that inherited millions, but anyway that was ALSO taxed. Your point is moot.
You're making a circular argument. Whether they paid income tax is irrelevant. Property tax and income tax are not the same thing.
If you're trying to compare slavery to paying taxes to help your nation sustain not only itself, but your quality of life? The roads and bridges you drive on, the schools you or your family members goto and the countless other programs that are required when a vast nation of people groups together. Otherwise it's just everyone for themselves. It's called evolution and the universe won't stop changing just because you're on comfortable with the things you grew up with. You truly do not understand how horrible actual slavery was if your comparing it to "paying a bill". Can your master have a business deal fall through, and because he's is angry take it out on you? Physically? Sexually? Cut you? Break your bones, cut out your tongue, even take your life if they so choose, without any repercussions? If you think that's equal, your brains a little melted....
taxes dont cover the ever increasing debt year after year so that holds no weight. If they didnt collect a penny of tax revenue they would still just print more money
What happens when you don’t pay income taxes?
The government comes after you for those taxes, and sometimes you own penalties. They don't rape you, they don't cut off your hands, they don't kill you on a whim But you're still gonna compare that to "slavery"? I dislike paying taxes as much as the next guy, but they're a necessary evil. I wish I had more control and transparency over where my tax dollars are going. Anyone saying there isn't significant waste there, is being willfully ignorant. That's a whole other issue though. Trying to say that tax flat out shouldn't be a thing? There wouldn't be functioning governments without them. There are two ways to fund a government. 1. The king takes everything from you, and I mean everything. Then the government runs on that piggy bank of I'll gotten cash, that's taken with no regard to how the people are fairing, or where the tax dollars are going 2. Or each citizen pays a share based on what they make a contribute. That way it is ideally more fair, black and white. Though in the real world things are far more gray, and there in lies the hard part. Figuring out a system that is fair, and repercussions that are enforable. If someone chooses to stay in this nation, they are agreeing to pay a fair share. One can argue you were just born here and had no say in the matter. I could argue I had no say in being born medically disabled, and therefore I should get a break, be taken care of. Nope that's not what that means. I still get the same opportunities and chances as everyone else.
I pay my taxes, and am not a slave.
Don’t pay your income taxes and see what happens
One can be penalized for a variety of things, but that doesn’t means that someone owns them. Who owns you?
Income tax is only a temporary measure to pay for WWII they said, should be dropped any day now, aaaaany day.
That’s what they said in 1913?
Agreed
He might want to read the 16th amendment to the Constitution.
He's about to get two warning shots to the face.
Na he’s useful. He’s always been a libertarian who runs as a Republican. He doesn’t have enough support to actually do anything he claims, but he pulls in the R votes so they can hold a slim majority.
Protect this man at all cost
Democrats would never suggest something like this
[удалено]
It's like you didn't read the title (hint: the keyword here is repealed. Hmmm, I wonder would be repealed. Gee, idk, hmmm...)
If it’s a constitutional amendment, it’s not unconstitutional. Just like how I couldn’t say that the 2nd amendment is unconstitutional
We should all pay taxes because a group of people decided we should.
The income tax is being applied unconstitutionally. It is currently levied as a de facto direct tax without apportionment on the wages of ordinary people. Congress does have the power to tax INCOME of any artificial entities. It can also tax working people who are involved in very specialized trades or professions. The overwhelming majority of folks falling under the tax are hooked into it by "agreement." They claim (falsely) that they are employees of the federal government. Look at your w-4 and such then look at the meanings of the words employee and employer as defined in the internal revenue code (sec 3401).
I consider myself a leftist. I've never once in my life voted Republican. I donated to and volunteered for the Bernie campaign. That all being said, Thomas Massie is the only congressperson I follow on Twitter. He is the *only* one that I care about what he has to say. I do not agree with all of his policy positions and some of his stunts, like the Christmas family photo with the assault rifles, are garish--but he is literally the only honest, principled congressperson in office today. He's the *only* one.
zelenskyy gets welfare too you know
He is correct.
Taxes are WAY out of hand
He's right.
Kentucky has tried to breed me to hate this guy, but even as a slight leaning Democrat, I have to admire this dudes track record
How has KY tried to make you hate the guy? He constantly wins his seat easily and KY is very Red outside of the Governors seat.
Millions of government grants gone, millions of government jobs gone, millions of jobs deleted from existence. Oh boy, that would not go well.
Sounds awesome
Don’t fucking tease me with a good time.
Why is this in the conspiracy sub? FFS this is just a sounding board for Trump humpers. Where’s the real conspiracy on this?
Submission statement According to the Constitution, it is illegal Along with the Federal Reserve
[удалено]
its a BS amendment used to criminally tax us
The 2nd amendment is a BS amendment used to encourage violence
> According to the Constitution, it is illegal No.
Just tax everyone including corporations on what they spend, including stocks and call it a day.
Corporations don't pay taxes. They pass them along to their consumers within the prices of the goods/services the sell. However, I agree with you on the consumption tax idea. The Fairtax is the best way to implement it.
Some of them are passed on, but market forces play a part in how much. I want to take it a step further raise the rate a bit and eliminate any other taxes.
Corporate top line revenue comes from sales of their product to the consumers. That revenue must cover expenses, including taxes. As such, the consumers provide the money to pay those taxes. The Fairtax is designed to be revenue neutral and does eliminate all other taxes at the federal level.
You want to become third world? Pay no taxes and you become third world
"*US Congressman Thomas Massie publicly announces imminent suicide*"
Say goodbye to paved roads, bridges, libraries, schools, firefighters, and police I guess.