Video by: talos4cs
Video Description:
Introduction only.
Introduces the basic issues revolving around the income tax. Learn about the nature of currency, and how employees of the Treasury Department, IRS, SSA, and other government agencies routinely misapply and subvert the law.

URL
Embed Code
Link Code

Tags: constitution honesty law save-a-patriot tax  introduction to the truth behind the income tax See more videos uploaded by talos4cs

Comments for this video on YouTube

Individuals are ... ( 3 months ago by averageworkinggal)

Individuals are barred from ownership in the Fed. Only Federal Resrve member banking corporations can own shares in the Fed. The Fed was created due to the 1907 Depression which caused a great banking crisis. The lender of last resort in 1907 was JP Morgan who provided liquidity as the Fed does now. Talk about being in the hands of the bankers. We were until the Fed was created. The Fed Board of Governors sets monetary policy and those people are government appointed.

The 1907 Depression ... ( 3 months ago by averageworkinggal)

The 1907 Depression had a 20% unemployment rate which is almost as bad as the 24% rate of the Great Depression. The 1907 Depression was the worst Depression in US history until the Great Depression.

Their governing of ... ( 3 months ago by eklypse0)

Their governing of our money is about to blow up in all our faces, just like the German marks of WWII. It was cheaper to burn money for heat then it was to buy heating materials with it. Despite the appointment of Governers, none of them have any knowledge of the Fed Books. There are a few interviews of congressmen requesting information from the Fed to understand what we are going though. The Fed has become opaque (opposite of transparent) to government over site.

The depression was ... ( 3 months ago by eklypse0)

The depression was artificially caused by bankers in order to scare government into a 'more stable' form of money control. It was caused by reducing the amount of money freely available to the public. Which eventually, after a long period of time, caused the crash.

Several long ... ( 3 months ago by averageworkinggal)

Several long standing NY banks failed in the 1907 crash. So, your theory is NY bankers caused their banks to fail to do what now? I don't think so. It's was much like what happened with Bear Stearns. A speculative bubble burst causing bank losses from bad loans or investments which created fear of bank failure which meant runs on the banks which caused their failure since they ran out of liquidity due to the run on their reserves.

There you go, ... ( 3 months ago by eklypse0)

There you go, making assumptions again rather then taking the most obvious and literal route of discussion. Did I say _all_ bankers? No, I just said bankers in general. There are a few in specific.

"Compensation for ... ( 3 months ago by RetSquid)

"Compensation for labor or services, paid in the form of wages or salary, has been universally held by the courts of this republic to be income, subject to the income tax laws currently applicable. . . . [Taxpayer] seems to have been inspired by various tax protesting groups across the land who postulate weird and illogical theories of tax avoidance all to the detriment of the common weal [sic] and of themselves." United States v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014, 1016 (9th Cir. 1981).

"the tax is levied ... ( 3 months ago by DownWithCommies)

"the tax is levied on income derived from corporate earnings,"... "The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the Amendment was adopted." US Supreme Court, Eisner v. Macomber (1920) - Pretty sure the 9th circuit can't overturn Supreme Court rulings.

RetSquid, that ... ( 2 months ago by tjoslin1)

RetSquid, that beginning quote from the court is the same as them saying, "all kinds of apples are fruits." "Wages"/salary" and labor from "service" are all forms of "income." (<--The words I have in quotes are legal terms) "Income" was legally defined by the Supreme Court, and only applies to money gained in a certain way. Not all kinds of money that a person recieves: So. Pacific v. Lowe 247 U.S. 330, (1918) Merchants Loan and Trust Co. v. Smietanka 255U.S. 509 (1921)

"Accumulations that ... ( 2 months ago by RetSquid)

"Accumulations that accrued to a corporation through surplus earnings or appreciation in property value, before the adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment (February, 1913), and the effective date (March, 1913), of the Income Tax Act of 1913 (Act October 3, 1913, c. 16, 38 Stat. 166), are to be regarded as its capital, not as its income for the purposes of that act." So. Pacific v. Lowe 247 U.S. 330, (1918)

"The interesting ... ( 2 months ago by RetSquid)

"The interesting and ingenious argument, which is earnestly pressed upon us, that this distinction is so fundamental and obvious that it must be assumed to be a part of the 'general understanding' of the meaning of the word 'income,' FAILS TO CONVINCE US that a construction should be adopted which would, in a large measure, defeat the purpose of the amendment." (emphasis added) Merchants Loan and Trust Co. v. Smietanka 255U.S. 509 (1921)

Eisner v. Macomber ... ( 2 months ago by RetSquid)

Eisner v. Macomber (1920) was about if "income" arising from stock and dividends was taxable, not about taxing wages in general. "...[B]een universally held by the courts of this republic..." The circuit court is saying that the Supreme Court agrees with them and they agree with the Supreme Court.

Google.....No ... ( 2 months ago by RetSquid)

Google.....No results found for "Internal Revenue of Massachusetts, Inc".

"Why did a ... ( 2 months ago by RetSquid)

"Why did a nationally esteemed man responsible for selecting President Clinton for the Rhodes Scholarship write a tell all book about the Federal Reserve that has inspired "conspiracy theorists" since the 60s, as well as national news reports based on it?" Because he was an idiot twice??

Array ( 2 months ago by RetSquid)

What an argument! I don't know anything about it, but you're wrong! LOL

"I don't feel very ... ( 2 months ago by RetSquid)

"I don't feel very "represented". I have no control over what taxes I pay. There is no direct vote." Look up the difference between a Republic and a Democracy.

True, but what does ... ( 2 months ago by tjoslin1)

True, but what does this have to do with people working for money? This involves divendends from increases in stock values, which is, usually, legally taxable by the I.R.S. Pay-for-work is an even trade from one person (the worker) to another (the beneficiary, sometimes a company) and there is no divedend or gain involved.

[FAILS TO CONVINCE ... ( 2 months ago by tjoslin1)

[FAILS TO CONVINCE US that a construction should be adopted which would, in a large measure, defeat the purpose of the amendment.] They're referring to the sixteenth amendment in this case, and merely stating that because of people's misunderstanding of "income" (which they've already defined) shouldn't be enough of a reason to adopt a new method of taxation which the sixteenth amendment (nor the Constitution) wouldn't allow.

Array ( 2 months ago by tjoslin1)

Furthermore, "An income tax is neither a property tax nor a tax on the occupations of a common right, but it is an excise tax...The legislature may declare as 'priveledged' and tax as such for state revenue, those pursuits NOT MATTERS OF COMMON RIGHT, but it has NO POWER to declare as a 'priveledge' and tax for revenue purposes, occupations that are of a common right." (emphasis added) Simms v. Ahrens, 271 SW 720 (1925) Damn this 500 character limit, I've got more cases but oh well :)

Array ( 2 months ago by tjoslin1)

Remember, "The provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited he 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 (1916)

The court referred ... ( 2 months ago by RetSquid)

The court referred to the conclusion "that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes," as an "erroneous assumption." Therefore, the power to tax incomes without apportionment is not a new kind of power, but just a different classification of the "previous complete and plenary power of income taxation," TP FAQ

Exactly, it was " ... ( 2 months ago by tjoslin1)

Exactly, it was "erroneous" because taxing "INCOME" without apportionment isn't illegal at all, since "income" is not all the money a person recieves. Sorry for repeating myself, but: "...'income', as used in the statue should be given a meaning so as not to include everything that comes in. The true function of the words 'gains' and 'profits' is to limit the meaning of the word 'income'" So. Pacific v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, (1918) and

"Constitutionally ... ( 2 months ago by tjoslin1)

"Constitutionally the only thing that can be taxed by Congress is "income." And the tax actually imposed by congress has been on net "income" as distinct from gross "income." The tax is not, never has been, and could not constitutionally be upon "gross receipts"..."Anderson Oldsmobile Inc. v. Hofferbert, 102 F Supp 902 (1952)

Any income that I ... ( 1 month ago by MannaBoBannaPeople)

Any income that I receive is exempt from federal excise taxation because the activity is the exercise of a fundamental, constitutionally protected right, and federal government.... there are limitations upon Congress' power to tax and that there are items and sources of income that are Constitutionally exempt from taxation by the federal government. Not all income is Constitutionally taxable and is referred to as exempt income being the government "under fundamental law".