Article Image
News Link • TAXES: Federal

The Future of Direct Taxation

• http://www.internationalman.com

The image above may be considered by some as unfair, as it suggests that taxation is a form of robbery. Well, let's check the dictionary for a definition:

"Robbery is defined as taking away of goods or property by force or intimidation."

Well, that certainly fits the bill. Of course, Inland Revenue (or the IRS, CRA, etc., depending upon where you're from) would say that it's not robbery if it's lawful. As I see it, the fact that a law has been passed to allow robbery does not change it from being robbery. It's merely institutionalised robbery.

Academics might say that we elect representatives to run the central government and those representatives are then entrusted to pass the laws, which we must then meekly follow. Again, this argument doesn't hold water for me, as these individuals may have been elected, but they most certainly do not "represent" me if they pass a law that says it's okay to rob me. No government has ever asked me for permission to take my money simply because they want it, and I have never given it.

If there's any question as to whether the above definition is correct, I'd be happy to see it put to the test: The internet makes possible individualised referendum. If we were to all be questioned as to whether we wish to be taxed, we could easily decide on an individual basis. I'm guessing that I wouldn't be alone if I were to say, "No, thank you."  

But, to be fair, I do approve of taxation, but only indirect taxation - taxation based on consumption. (This is lawful in my own country, the Cayman Islands, and I receive good value for money.)

Many would say that it would be impossible to operate any government without direct taxation, yet this is not so. In the U.K., income tax was initiated in 1799 to pay for the Napoleonic Wars, and the tax never went away. In Canada, income tax was initiated in 1917 to pay for World War One, and the tax never went away. In the U.S., income tax was initiated in 1913 as a means to compensate for lost revenue due to recently decreased tariffs (clever), and the tax never went away.

In most of the world, taxation is regarded as an imposition and it's considered understandable that no one really wants to pay tax. The U.S. government promotes a rather different view - that the payment of tax is a patriotic duty. In the U.S., a tax amount can be demanded and the onus of proof is on the citizen as to whether the IRS demand is correct. (In other words, guilty until proven innocent.)

1 Comments in Response to

Comment by Ed Price
Entered on:

In the States, the IRS tells you that your taxation is voluntary. What does that mean? Well, it doesn't mean what most of the people generally think. If paying money to the IRS was voluntary, it would be a donation.

Voluntary taxation means that you let them steal from you voluntarily. They still steal from you. But you let them do the stealing voluntarily. What does this really mean? It means that you have a method for keep them from stealing from you.

Read about the rules of court and cases that are shown here http://voidjudgments.com/. This site exists to help people stop bill collectors. But in doing so, it shows the procedures that the courts must seemingly comply with to do it correctly. And neither the IRS, nor the courts, follow their own procedural rules if it is a benefit for them to do so. How can they get away from following their own rules? Since the case is essentially theirs, they simply change the rules, on the spot when necessary.

The only way to make the laws and court cases work for you against an obstinate court, is to file your own common law of the people case right in and on top of their case against you. No attorneys allowed on either side. Man/woman against man/woman. If their plaintiff (the IRS) doesn't get on the stand and testify, they lose; you win. And a corporation can't get on the stand, can it?

But you need to be strong. You need to set your case in place, and stick with it. Familiarize yourself with Karl Lentz, because that is essentially the only way he does it - http://www.broadmind.org/. It is called a court of record.

The common law method that Karl uses is very simple at its core. Your case is simply, he/she/it has wronged me/is wronging me. I require compensation for the wronging they did/are doing to me. And, of course, you must set your court rules, and have your evidence and witnesses ready.

Google and Youtube search on "Karl Lentz common law" to see find multiple sites with the information about how to do it. Simple as the common law method is, it seems complicated to most people. Why? Because they just can't get it through their heads how simple it is. Government has done a good job of brainwashing us.


Join us on our Social Networks:

 

Share this page with your friends on your favorite social network:


thelibertyadvisor.com/declare