Tax question for supscription

Great Debates
21

I didn’t say I only watched one minute of the documentary. I said you could tell what it was by the first minute. The claims and wording used are identical to those in any number of conspiracy theory books and websites about taxes.

I’m glad to see you asking questions. As I said, people here will be very glad to answer questions. A list of quotations from the founding fathers is not a series of questions or an argument against the Fed or the tax system.

To answer one of your questions, the Fed does not charge interest on the national debt. The Department of the Treasury is in charge of that.

The fixation with the Fed is typical of conspiracy theorists who spread lies about the way our government works. Making false accusations against the Fed is not at all the same thing as asking questions about the way the tax system is structured.

How long have you been alive, just out of curiosity?

22

Old enough to know that insulting someone is the quickest way to get them to shut their ears to everything else you have to say. As for the quotes, I compiled the list from a variety of sources and find them to be quite relevant.

Thank you for the links Gfactor, but they still don’t answer the core of my question or at this point I should say line of questioning. You have convinced me that there is plenty of misinformation floating around on both sides of this argument.

At this point I’ll clue you in on how I got interested in this. A person I consider very intelligent made an argument about why precious metals are the best investment out there, but his whole argument made me cringe. Its based on the horrors of fiat currency throughout human history, which judging by the tone of this forum you have heard ad nauseum. It is obvious that some of what I have read/heard is fact and some is fiction and some is somewhere in between.

You gave me links to 3 documents (I’ll count the Fed audits as one albeit a big one).

  1. The FAQ off the Federal Reserve’s website - Painfully short on details and from a source I still don’t trust

  2. The Fed Audits- Much better, I had been told over and over that the Fed didn’t do any kind of auditing, but the numbers are there, even for the Gold (I still don’t trust them, but I will give them the benifit of the doubt)

  3. A fed conspiracy debunking article by Edward Flaherty, Ph.D. - I love outside opinions from people with post grad degrees although as I was searching for his credentials I found a very interesting rebuttal from G. Edward Griffin in the link below. But I will give the guy with the docterate the benifit of the doubt.

http://www.freedom-force.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=meetflaherty&refpage=issues

So congrats, you’ve got me halfway home, Income tax and the Federal Reserve are legal. Now the hard part, convincing me they aren’t a threat to the American people that needs to be addressed. I’ll try to make it as easy as possible by asking a series of questions that illustrate what my thinking is.

  1. If unapportioned income tax is necessary, how did we fund government for the first 137 years?

  2. Why is Fractional Reserve banking necessary? I find it very hypocritical that the banks can lend out 10$ for every 1$ it has, constantly inflating away the value of the dollar, when if you or I did that it would be called fraud.

  3. Was there any inflation (in relation to goods and services, not other banks that tried to set up shop and inflated their money away) before the Federal Reserve started printing money and if so what did it stem from?

  4. How is filing a 1040 which I can be jailed for if it is wrong not a clear violation of my 5th Amendment priveledge against self-incrimination? I don’t get to put them in jail if they accidentally take too much out of my paycheck.
    Thanks again for your time.

23

Here is the text of the 5th amendment (bolding mine).

The act of filing an income tax return is not a criminal case. If you were arrested for filing a false return, then you could not be compelled to take the stand to testify against yourself.

24

Sorry to the mods to quote so much, but since RookXPY doesn’t seem to want to read the aforementioned Tax Protesters FAQ, I’ll quote a chunk of it.

25

Tariffs and customs. They’re still a revenue source, but clearly not enough. As the citizenry expected more and more out of government, government needed to find ways to fund it. Personally, I’d like to see the federal income tax and federal infrastructure greatly reduced, and have the states raise their revenue generation. No need for me to give the Federal gov’t money for education, only to have them give it back with strings attached (and in some cases, not get all of it back). This won’t lead to a reduction in taxes, just a shift in where they are paid, though.

26

Yes. Mark Ekelund, Jr., Robert B. Thornton, Tariffs, Blockades, and Inflation: The Economics of the Civil War (2004): Amazon.com

And see,

About Tax Notes

Bruce D. Smith, “Money and Inflation in Colonial Massachusetts,”: http://minneapolisfed.org/research/QR/QR811.pdf

P. M. G. Harris, “Inflation and Deflation in Early America, 1634-1860: Patterns of Change in the British American Economy,”: Inflation and Deflation in Early America, 1634-1860: Patterns of Change in the British American Economy on JSTOR

Scott Trask, “Inflation and the American Revolution”: http://www.mises.org/story/1273

27

Sorry Canadjun, like I said insults shut my ears so I never clicked on the Tax Protester FAQ link. So I did finally click on that link and I must say I really don’t like to take an argument from someone that starts by belittling the other side (as you can probably already tell). It starts

**The purpose of this FAQ is to provide concise, authoritative rebuttals to nonsense about the U.S. tax system that is frequently posted in misc.taxes, and on web sites scattered throughout the Internet, by a variety of fanatics, idiots, and dupes, frequently referred to by the courts as “tax protesters”.

This “FAQ” is therefore not a collection of frequently asked questions, but a collection of frequently made assertions, together with an explanation of why each assertion is false.

And the assertions addressed in this FAQ are not merely false, but completely ridiculous, requiring not just ignorance of law and history, but a suspension of logic and reason. **

Needless to say I instantly question the objectivity of this FAQ. And it says OJ Simpson took the stand in the civil case? I never heard about that and our media had OJ under a microscope. Do you have any links to the court transcripts, I would love to hear that. Sorry I digress.

I’ll accept the 5th Amendment argument but only because the Law makes a distinction between Civil and Criminal court. If they can deprive you of liberty and/or property I don’t think there should be a distinction, but alas I know that is a personal belief.

D_odds, completely agree with your take except I don’t understand why you wouldn’t just keep increasing the tariffs and customs, which have been virtually eliminated through free trade policies and the reason our working class is in so much trouble. Or am I wrong on that as I well could be?

Gfactor, once again some great links, I wish I could read the Jstor article but I am not a member of that site. But I am a little confused, all the examples you gave me were (keep in mind I couldn’t access the Jstor article) about fiat currency. So maybe I should rephrase that question. Has any society using a “backed” currency ever inflated their currency away? or more appropriate to this conversation why does the Constituion contain the following passages.

Section 8 on the powers of Congress:

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures

Section 10

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

The word money only appears 6 times in the Constitution and these are the only 2 references to it in relation to currency. Was there no paper money before then? My point being that it seems like the founders knew money had to be backed by something or the bankers would abuse it. The Mises Institute you pointed me to clearly seems to believe that there is something very wrong with our currency. The article about Colonial Massachusetts while very interesting was all about how inflation works in a fiat environment, it doesn’t give a reason why a society would need a fiat environment.

So you have whittled me down to 2 remaining questions.

  1. Why is Fractional Reserve banking necessary?

  2. Does backed currency (ie gold, silver) ever experience significant inflation and, if not, why would we ever think about using fiat currency?

Sorry, I know this is a long way from where this thread started.

28

The point is that is no legitimate case for resisting income tax from a legal standpoint. Every conceivable avenue has been tried and found lacking by court after court ruling. Every argument presented, including the ones in your video link, have been seen before and have been found to hold no legal weight. This is not something still under debate.

You may not like the messenger, but read the message. This boat has sailed.

29

We’d be on opposite sides. I’m for free trade and free allocation of resources (including human capital) to where they will do the best. I feel tariffs and customs have no place in today’s world, and were probably poor policies at the time.

Regarding OJ: Simpson recalls day of murders. The links at the bottom of the page are out of date, though

30

Found the transcripts.

31

Doesn’t the wealth of information already provided justify subscribing? :wink:

At any rate:

The two remaining questions don’t have anything to do with constitutionality or conspiracies. They ask about the wisdom of what you now seem to admit are legally adopted policies. I don’t have any firsthand knowledge of these topics, so I’ll leave the answers to those who do.

32

Because there are times when some inflation can be good for a country’s economy, and because fiat currency gives the government more control over the money supply.

Here’s a pretty good argument as to the tendency of metal backed currency to contribute to deflation and economic depression, and how fiat currency helps prevent that:

33

You have provided me a great deal of information and I thank you for that. I feel like I am getting a handle on the issue from both sides and why there is such a disconnect. You have me sold on the legality issue, but the people that are challenging this don’t seem to be doing so because they simply believe it is illegal. So, I am still not convinced on the moral and Constitutional side. How do we as a people know that the Federal Reserve was founded in our best interest and not just a pernicious form of tyrany introduced by the central bankers of europe to take control of this country monetarily? Those last 2 questions are, I believe, central to that discussion.

I can no longer say one group is “right” because so far I see one side that has the letter of the law (which I agree we should all abide by) on its side and the other side with the spirit of the law on its side. Both sides are trying to bludgeon the individual with name-calling and misinformation into agreement and right now I agree with neither. Yes, the Fed was legally created. Yes, unapportioned income tax is legal. This doesn’t change the appearence that they run opposite to what the Founding Fathers thought would help a free society flourish (as my “irrelevent” quotes earlier in the thread would seem to indicate). Those last 2 questions are what I have boiled this argument down to based on what I have heard here and from the responses I have been looking for in other places, (ie. various “tax protester” websites, other message forums, and the link I gave earlier for the author of “The Creature from Jekyl Island”).

I was asked earlier if I was for not paying interest on loans and I said no. So is anyone here for a system where banks can make 50% interest on your money and pay you back 2% because they get to create 9$ out of think air for every 1$ you put into your account? That still seems like fraud to me.

I know paper money is necessary for convenience, but would we have any inflation if that paper money still represented a given weight of precious metal? See my 2 passages from the Constituion.

As recent events have illustrated to me, just because GWB gets Congress to pass a law abolishing Habeus Corpus and legalizing torture doesn’t make it Constitutional or morally justifiable, even if the Supreme Court says so (which I do know in this case it hasn’t, yet).

You’re real close GFactor, but I’m still trouble getting my thinking to where the authorities on this forum seems to be. I still think the other side has a very valid and real argument.

P.S. Thanks for the link D_Odds I would have thought that would get more press coverage. As for the tariff issue, isn’t that how we protected the working class in this country from having to compete with countries that still allow slavery/slave wages? I was under the impression that was how America built its middle class.

34

Off the topic of taxation, but I’m not for “protecting the working class”, if it means stagnating means of production. It’s a penny-wise and pound-foolish economic policy, IMO.

35

Morally justifiable? That’s up to individuals to decide, but it most certainly does make it constitutional. For all practical purposes, the Supreme Court does says what is and isn’t constitutional. You don’t have to like it, but that’s there job.

Just to be clear, what exactly are the sides here?

36

As I said it all stemmed from a conversation with a friend and the video at the begining. I was sold on Income tax and the Fed being criminal until another friend sent me an article from Cecil (because I do have respect for his column). This forum has done wonderful job of giving me a grasp on the official stance of the IRS/FED and the legal side of this issue. But that doesn’t mean that those institutions don’t run counter to the public interest and, ultimately, benefit a very small group of people. I am still looking for why the Constitution implies money to be only gold and silver coin and what these institutions do for the public good that wasn’t done before they were signed into law. I have also found that I really don’t like the language used to dismiss the argument from the other side, because so far all of it boils down to a “because we said so” from the government which in some ways feels like I just went to a “moon hoax” website and was immediately called stupid for even questioning their “evidence”. This is where the disconnect becomes apparent. Maybe my mind is just too feeble to grasp how we as a people are helped by the IRS and Federal Reserve, but I am still having trouble rectifying 2 radically different outlooks on this issue.

But then again, maybe that’s why its been as was said here “discussed ad nauseum”.

37

The IRS, under mandate from Congress, is tasked with the collection of legal tax revenue. With this revenue, the federal government can run any and all of its programs. While I would like to see a shift away from many things being federally funded and have them state funded, the federal government would still have many, many programs that need funding. Interstate highways, foreign aid, defense, internal (homeland) security, disaster relief; all are just a few big tickets best funded from a central repository.

The Federal Reserve regulates the money supply. They try hard to maintain the buying power of American citizens both domestically and internationally.

These agencies don’t operate “don’t run counter to the public interest and, ultimately, benefit a very small group of people”. Their very purpose is to serve the public interest. I understand people are upset about the amount of taxes they pay, and how those taxes are spent. Anything beyond that is the invention of fertile minds. [This is not to say that individuals, both within and without these agencies, don’t do their damdest to game the system, but that is endemic to everything humans touch.]

38

The subject of Cecil’s column was the legality of the income tax. That question seems to have been resolved here. The subject of the morality of the income tax and the Federal Reserve system is far beyond the scope of Cecil’s column, so I’ll move this thread to the Great Debates forum.

bibliophage
moderator CCC

39

Do you believe the moon landings were a hoax? :smiley:

There is a reason for the vitriol on sites that attempt to explain what is wrong with the tax protesters. The arguments by the tax protesters (and moon hoaxers) follow a similar trail of faulty logic, unsupported conspiracy theories, nitpicking of linguistics, ad hominum attacks, denial of documented evidence, and eventually outright lies and falsifications. Not all tax protesters, but nearly all. It’s hard to keep calm in the face of such poor form. Not that it excuses it, but it helps explain the exasperation.

40

As mentioned here in one of Cecil’s columns, it can indeed suffer inflation.