"Free To Tax"

[Brastaman]

i mean...i agree, to a point...

Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world.
We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

maybe...but taxes DID exist 100 years ago. in the beginning, usa fought over taxes, and won their independece.

Mom, actually, is one of the main reasons why she is not staying at home to raise the kids. a pretty intense time in usa history.

The vast majority of $250 billion is for everything from Schools, Hospitals, Roads, Highways, Entrepenurship Redevelopment Programs, Department of Commerce, Community Redevelopment Block Programs, US. Corp. of Engineers, Seafood & Sugarcane Industries, and a long list of other things. The money is going to rebuild a city that took 100's of years, many generations, and billions of dollars to build in the first place.

this is true.

We currently spend nearly 600 milllion a year on our defense/war budget, yet we are only spending 86 million in education???

this is true. but usa would not be the country it is without that defense/war budget...maybe it could afford to a lesser budget but...
education has a lot do to with family affairs also, not just adding more computers to schools and increasing salaries to educators...

I dont understand why everyone is so quick to cutdown knowledge.

cuz it kinda sounds like rhetoric.

 

[panopticist]

WE NEED CHANGE AND WE NEEDT IT NOW!

You should put something other than Rage Against the Machine on your iTunes, kid...

 

[minds_I]

Hello all,

I think a few are being short sighted to think the money is to be distributed as in a check.

It is for infrastructure. How the money is distributed is another issue entirely.

And I have not read about any US citizens bitching about an economic simulus package rebates that good old GW happily stole from your grandkids. Gonna get that big screen TV from Wallyworld eh?

As to change... yeah well been a lot of talk about htat my whole life yet the only signigifcant change I see is a economy on the verge of recession (if not already). My government is in a war that I object to on many levels. Heathcare that is for everyone though I am fortunate and have health insurance others do not.

I could go on and on. Change is coming, RonPaul has a great message but corperate Amerika have squelched his voice.

Yes, change will come to be sure...what will it be?

Anyway, taxes pay for the things you have....the sad part is the waste incurred in maintaining infrasturcture.

minds_I

 

[lawnboy123]

You should put something other than Rage Against the Machine on your iTunes, kid...

First i'd like to say I am not a kid. Secondly its okay to disagree with me but to just go after someone and insult them is a different thing. Now that that's said I just look at other country's like Canada and England and see great places with great people. Yes they have problems, its impossible to not have problems, but they are still doing just fine. They only vote for parliment, we vote for the damn person whos in charge and we still can't get it right. I just think the whole democracy thing is over-rated. The reason we came to the new world is to be free from tax and now we are taxed the same if not more then what we orriginated from. Its sick if you look at the whole picture. I understand our taxes pay for the things we have, but it needs to do more then just that. On another note, and im just tossing this out there, did you know that the president appoints jobs to a certain few people whos job is to create new taxes/laws? Soon we are going to have no rights if that's the case, it's just a matter of time. How you can look at any part of our nation and say we don't need change just blows my mind. In the past 4 years the only thing that has been positive (and i should'nt say the only thing, ill probably get screwed for saying that) is that our nation went from .8%-.6% in the amount of people who have aids. I don't even know if thats a good thing considering most of them died. Our nation is corrupt, and it needs to stop. It starts with us.

 

[The_Leader]

I think you forgot DEATH TAXES.......they even tax you when you die.....

i dont think so. the state will bury me and pay for it all.

when i die, i will be the biggest burden on earth to what ever er i walk into. the usa took complete responsiaility of me when they locked me up. i pay NO drs, and no i get no help. i just dont use cridit. ex cons dont get cridit! i dropped out and tuned in.....

yeah. i hate the arbitray way our "justice ?" system. we dont get treated the same.

 

[panopticist]

First i'd like to say I am not a kid. Secondly its okay to disagree with me but to just go after someone and insult them is a different thing.

I'm not insulting you, I'm simply saying that empty rhetoric is just as useful as doing nothing. And as to whether or not you are a kid doesn't concern me in the slightest. You have to understand, however, that demanding change in all-caps on an internet message board doesn't make you look like an adult...

Now that that's said I just look at other country's like Canada and England and see great places with great people. Yes they have problems, its impossible to not have problems, but they are still doing just fine. They only vote for parliment, we vote for the damn person whos in charge and we still can't get it right.

I didn't vote for Dubya, and as far as I'm concerned the man stole the election. We didn't even have the chance to get anything wrong, if you think about it.

I just think the whole democracy thing is over-rated. The reason we came to the new world is to be free from tax and now we are taxed the same if not more then what we orriginated from. Its sick if you look at the whole picture.

America was founded due to religious persecution, not with the intention to make the nation 'tax-free'. The 'taxation without representation' issue was simply a supporting argument saying that we shouldn't pay taxes on items or policies that we the people don't benefit from. So by creating a new nation we knew we'd still be taxed, but at least the money (in theory) would go towards our interests, instead of that of another nation.

I understand our taxes pay for the things we have, but it needs to do more then just that. On another note, and im just tossing this out there, did you know that the president appoints jobs to a certain few people whos job is to create new taxes/laws?

I'd like to see your sources...

Soon we are going to have no rights if that's the case, it's just a matter of time. How you can look at any part of our nation and say we don't need change just blows my mind.

I agree, and nowhere in my previous post did I say that we didn't need change; you're putting words in my mouth. I don't think that stamping our feet and spewing rhetoric is going to be the way to do it. In fact, your post was actually a bit of pandering to the crowd, as anyone who grows bud likely sees gaping inconsistencies in the law...

In the past 4 years the only thing that has been positive (and i should'nt say the only thing, ill probably get screwed for saying that) is that our nation went from .8%-.6% in the amount of people who have aids. I don't even know if thats a good thing considering most of them died. Our nation is corrupt, and it needs to stop. It starts with us.

Your AIDS remark is unrelated to the discussion at hand, so I don't have much to say about that. I agree, the US needs serious help but the all-talk-no-action types aren't going to be the ones to get anything done. If you're serious about change, quit preaching to the choir (ICmag) and do something...

 

[trouble]

The numbers are not EXACT. But you being a wide believer of the goverment should be well aware of "fudged numbers". OK maybe were off a little bit. But the fact is it is suppose to give you a ballpark figure because MOST people cant grasp the concept of a BILLION.

By your own admission your scources "Fudged thier Numbers" to try and sell an idea. Knowningly passing along false information for the sole purpose of misleading others. Dont you find that highly hypocritical considering thats exactly what thier accusing the government of doing?

Seriously, I dislike paying alot in taxes as much as anyone and there are many things I dont care for about our government as well. However, I equally dislike complainers, negitive people who sit around crying and bitching about how bad they have it, pointing out all the problems in others, yet never offering any solutions. The people that find it much easier to set back and complain about principles rather than to live up to them. You see, that way they can go through life without ever having to take any responsibility for anything. That way their always right and it's always someone eles fault, not thiers.

Personally, I have found that most people who complain all the time are unhappy people and if you hang out with them they will suck the life right out of you. Complaining takes no talent or skill and anyone can do it. Complainers seem to feel that they have been blessed with some special "Gift" or "Talent" for pointing out all the wrongs in others that only they can see. They go through life focused only on the bad and never the good and are usally part of the problem and not part of the solution.

Heres my suggestion as a solution for your problem with taxes & Louisiana. Run for office yourself and then you can abolish all taxes & sell Louisiana back to the French.






..........................................................................

 

[FrankRizzo]

I recently watched a movie on google about taxes called America: Freedom to Fascism. I only watched since netflix told me they no longer would carry the movie and it was on my list. I thought it was interesting since they seem to carry just about everything. After watching it I realized they must have stop renting it due to a request from some part of the government. It had some information I knew some I didn't. I'm thinking of handling my taxes a bit differently this year. I suggest everyone spends the time to watch it.

 

[Wait...What?]

To say we had no national debt a hundred years ago is factually inaccurate.

During the Panic of 1907, the economy collapsed and President Teddy Roosevelt had to borrow $1,000,000 in gold from European countries.

Heck, this country was FOUNDED on debt. You think all those French guns we used in the War of Independence were free? George Washington had to tax whiskey (hence The Whiskey Rebellion) to pay our huge debt to the European countries that helped us break free from the British monarchy.

And thats just the first inaccuracy I noticed from skimming your years-old cut+paste. Im sure if I actually read it I could shoot holes in it point by point.


In Before The Lock

 

[Guest]

This country has been able to be funded on debt because of it's ability to create wealth,but the times they are a changin.

 

[trouble]

I recently watched a movie on google about taxes called America: Freedom to Fascism. I only watched since netflix told me they no longer would carry the movie and it was on my list. I thought it was interesting since they seem to carry just about everything. After watching it I realized they must have stop renting it due to a request from some part of the government. It had some information I knew some I didn't. I'm thinking of handling my taxes a bit differently this year. I suggest everyone spends the time to watch it.

Netflix may no longer carry that documentry because it's full of false information done by a crackpot named Arron Russo who currently has several million in tax liens against him. Taking Tax advise from Arron Russo is like taking Medical advise from Tom Cruise. I suggest you find a reliable source with proper information to help you with your taxes and not some nut-bag that couldnt fill-out a 1040.



........................................................................................................

 

[FrankRizzo]

Have you seen the movie? All the movie made me do was start to search and see if any of his facts are true. I'm not going to change things just because he said to. Not to mention he had a bunch of ex IRS agents interviewed during them movie. Most of the information they brought to my attention interested me the most. Second there where several fare tax organizations that where involved in the movie. Not to mention a interview with Ron Paul that backed up some of the info in the movie.
How do you know the facts of his IRS cases? Think about it. If the government knows you don't pay your federal income taxes they are going to go after you. Add to that the fact the that the person has a movie about not paying taxes floating around out there. I'm sure that pisses the IRS people off even more. With current direction our government is headed I have no more faith in the government then some of the "crackpots" out there.
Netflix carries lots of movie with all sorts of "false" information in them depending on your view of any given subject. They carry some of Alex Jones movies and there are plenty of people out there that think he is a nut case. Maybe it had something to do with movie studios or something like that. Who knows. I wouldn't pass off this movie as quickly as you seemed to.

 

[greenhead]

Have you seen the movie? All the movie made me do was start to search and see if any of his facts are true. I'm not going to change things just because he said to.

I saw the movie, about the first fifteen minutes of it, before I turned it off. Up until that point, I had already wasted fifteen minutes of my time with that amateurish pile of garbage masquerading as a movie.

I did the same thing that you did, I'd quickly research some of the facts and dubious claims for myself, and after multiple inaccuracies and/or deliberate deceptions were spotted, there was just no use in watching the rest of the movie or listening to anything else that the crackpot and terrible film maker was claiming.

Even the lawyers of some of the people portrayed in the movie are claiming that they have mental disorders, lol.

In pre-sentencing documents filed with the court, Schiff's lawyers had argued that he had a mental disorder related to his beliefs about taxation. Initially, the film portrays Mr. Schiff as a tax "expert," though his qualifications and those of many other "experts" in the film are not mentioned. It is not until later that the film reveals Mr. Schiff has gone to jail.

 

[FrankRizzo]

So explain to me why some one like Ron Paul claims that there is no law on the books that says we must pay a federal income tax? Not to mention the fact that they had jurors from actual court cases that where thrown out after the government couldn't prove there is a law on the books. I will agree that some of the stuff is says Mr. Russo says is a bit out there for me, but not everything. I guess I like hearing different views from people covering many subjects. Want to prove me completely wrong? Show me the law that states we must pay a federal income tax. Because they interview an old head of the IRS and even he could point it out. And they had the actual tax code the IRS uses.

 

[Fatsackman]

Want to prove me completely wrong? Show me the law that states we must pay a federal income tax. Because they interview an old head of the IRS and even he could point it out. And they had the actual tax code the IRS uses.

Yeah, show me too.

 

[trouble]

So explain to me why some one like Ron Paul claims that there is no law on the books that says we must pay a federal income tax?

26 U.S.C. s1 There is hereby imposed on the taxable income on every individual....individual tax determined in accordance with the following table.

The federal tax laws are contained in the Internal Revenue Code, also known as TITLE 26 of the US CODE, which is the compilation of laws passed by congress ("TITLE basically means VOLUME when applied to the U.S. CODE as a whole, so TITLE 26 is what might be more casually called VOLUME 26")

The Internal Revenue Code "IS THE LAW" that requires people to pay taxes and YES, the Internal Revenue code "IS THE LAW!"

So here it is:

SECTION 1, 61, & 63 : IMPOSE THE TAX

SECTION 6012: Requires you to FILE A TAX RETURN.

SECTION 6151: Requires you to PAY THE TAX.

I suggest Ron Paul study TITLE 26 to better understand US tax laws. If Ron Paul did indeed make that statement it just proves how uninformed he really is.




..........................................................................

 

[FrankRizzo]

I find it interesting that you are so quick to take the government's side. There are many taxes that you must pay or they will throw you in jail. I think there is a general misunderstanding of the way the federal income tax was set up back in 1916. The government lies on a daily basis about the war, the medicinal use of mj and a whole list of other things. What makes you soo sure they aren't lying to you about this?
Its a bunch of reading but here is some of the information I have been reading through below. My general understanding for the argument is the way they worded the original code. They are allowed to tax " corporate profit." But when you work for your employer you are trading your labor for money, therefor it is not a profit. That is boiling down a very complex argument into one sentence. It is much more complex and I am still learning about this whole thing.

Federal Income Tax

Federal income tax is a complex, and at times confusing, subject. Its history is convoluted. Many court decisions in the last 50 years concerning income tax have been mistaken at best, and plainly dishonest at worst.

Although the Internal Revenue Code is 100% Constitutional, its [mis]application by the Executive Branch [The US Department of the Treasury and its minion, the Internal Revenue Service] has been blatantly unconstitutional - and as such, plainly illegal. The US Department of Justice has been criminal in its prosecutions of people its attorneys know have never had any US income tax liability. Congress and state legislatures have turned their heads from this horrid and unlawful behavior because tax assessment and collection, no matter how unlawfully or immorally pursued, fill the troughs from which Representatives and Senators buy American voters and from which the states are subsidized with "free money".

The fact that the government routinely perverts the law in these matters, does not mean that we are barred from a proper understanding of the law, or that we must join with government officials and act in complicity with their criminal conduct. Quite the opposite is true. It is the duty of each American Citizen to ferret out the truth and stand upon it - and demand that our government officials act only within the law. Original Intent is dedicated to assisting you to that end. So then, what is the legal truth concerning "income tax"?

A Rose by any other name...

The term "income tax" is a broad umbrella term that embraces all manner of taxes that bring revenue into the US Treasury. Within that broad category are:

Income tax
Import duties
Taxes upon certain commodities
Taxes upon certain regulated matters
Taxes upon employers
Taxes upon employees

You will note that within the broad category of Income Tax is a specific tax called "income tax". Each time the government brings a charge against a person for "tax evasion", the first question the person should ask is, "What tax do you allege I'm evading?" When they say, "Income tax", the prudent person will ask, "Which specific form of income tax?" The government should be asked to open the tax code and turn directly to the specific tax to which they are referring.

What Taxes are in the Internal Revenue Code?

The Internal Revenue Code (IRC), also known as "Title 26", is broken down into 11 "subtitles", with one appendix at the end. The subtitles are designated "A" through "K". Subtitles "A" through "E" levy various taxes, and "F" is the subtitle concerning Procedures and Administration. Subtitles "G" through "K", and the appendix, are irrelevant to any discussion of taxes for the general public. Subtitles "A" through "E" are as follows:

Subtitle A - Income tax
Subtitle B - Estate and Gift tax
Subtitle C - Employment tax
Subtitle D - Miscellaneous Excise taxes
Subtitle E - Alcohol, Tobacco, & Certain Other Excise taxes

Of interest to most Americans are subtitles A and C. These are the two taxes with which most Americans must contend with when they look at their paychecks and when April 15th roles around.

The astute observer will note that each subtitle addresses a specific type of tax. In other words, the subtitle A tax is separate and distinct from the subtitle B tax, which is a separate and distinct tax from the tax imposed under subtitle C, and so on. Given this "plain as the nose on your face" reality, we ask you why employers withhold a tax imposed under subtitle C all year long, but come April 15th the worker files a Form 1040 which addresses a completely different tax - the one imposed under subtitle A? If you haven't figured out the answer, it's because the tax "experts", such as CPA's and payroll managers, don't have a clue about tax law and they (wanting to look "professional") simply parrot what the IRS has told them is correct. [See Debunking IRS Tax Lies in this site.] The fact that one glance at the list of IRC subtitles renders the proposition absurd is of no concern to these "experts". Needless to say, such people are not "experts" if they do not know that "income tax" and "employment tax" are two separate and distinct taxes, and they are not "professionals" if, after being informed, they screw their eyes tightly shut and continue to support the plunder of Americans for a tax that workers do not owe.

Income Tax

In this section we do not address the broad category of all taxes that bring in revenue, but only subtitle A "income tax".

Despite all the controversy concerning income tax, subtitle "A" is really rather simple once it is placed in its proper context. Subtitle "A" contains the various sections that impose an income tax on individuals, corporations, partnerships, etc., as well as the formulas for the rate of the taxes imposed.

Most Americans today feel that the IRC applies to everyone. No matter how many Americans believe it to be true it is still factually and legally inaccurate. The IRC only applies to "taxpayers". This is a pivotal point. Let's see what the federal courts have said on this issue:

"The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them [nontaxpayers] Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws". [emphasis added]
Economy Plumbing and Heating Co. v. United States, 470 F. 2d 585 (1972)

As you can see, the IRC does not apply to everyone. Of course we really haven't resolved anything because most Americans also believe themselves to be "taxpayers". Why do they believe that? Because they've been told that they are. And not just told by this person or that, but told by everyone! Geez…everyone can't be wrong - can they? To the chagrin of Americans who have taken the time to actually read the law, they find out that, "yes", everyone who said he or she is a taxpayer was wrong.

What is the general definition of "taxpayer" provided in the IRC?

26 USC §7701(a)(14) - The term ''taxpayer'' means any person subject to any internal revenue tax. [emphasis added]

So…how do you know if you're "subject to" an internal revenue tax? Ordinarily the first step would be to ask an expert, but as we've already covered, today's "experts" are little more than mouthpieces for the IRS. Asking them would not be terribly useful if you're looking for factual and objective answers. The second way would be to read the law for yourself; but where to start? Unfortunately, the best place to start is with a basic concept that you'll not find stated in any tax law book anywhere.

The first concept that you need to learn about tax law (and law in general) is "context, context, context". This is not the only legal principle you may need to know, but is certainly the preeminent one.

All laws, and the specific words within the laws, must be seen in the context of the subject being addressed and considered within the context of jurisdictional limitations of the government.

The context of the subject should always be considered; e.g. a law dealing with medical care requirements should not be presumed to apply to a human being if the statute you're reading is contained within the Agriculture Code.

Concerning jurisdictional limits; the government may write a law that applies properly to one party, but exceeds its authority when applied to you. A prime example of this is the annual tax that many counties levy upon the personal property of businesses. Such laws are written for corporations and certain other "legal fictions", but do not apply to real live Citizens. Real live Citizens have a Constitutional right to own property and cannot be taxed on the exercise of a Constitutionally secured right except through certain very narrow methods that are not currently being used in this country.

How do we then apply these newly acquired principles (i.e. "contextual setting" and "jurisdictional limits") to income tax? First we must take stock of the following jurisdictional fact:

The IRC only applies to money or other forms of property that are within the lawful reach of federal and state taxing authority.

Read that again. Read it as many times as it takes for that reality to embed itself in your mind. Now, let's turn it over and look at it from the opposite view.

The federal and state governments cannot tax anything that lies beyond their lawful taxing authority.

O.K., we've got that; so how do we now determine what is within the government's authority, and what is not? Fortunately, the question is not too hard to answer.

The federal Constitution only recognizes two categories of taxation. One is a direct tax and the other is an indirect tax. [See the US Constitution, Article I, Section 2, Clause 2; Article I, Section 9, Clause 4; Article I, Section 8, Clause 1.] As far as American law is concerned, these are the only two classes of taxation. For us, they are the equivalent of the northern and southern hemisphere - together they are the whole ball of wax.

Here's a solid definition of "direct tax" from the US Supreme Court:

"Direct taxes bear upon persons, upon possessions, and enjoyment of rights"
Knowlton v. Moore, 178 US 41

Virtually all taxes in this country are indirect taxes and not direct taxes. While many people will tell you that the test for determining if a tax is indirect is that it can be passed along to another person (such as sales tax), we feel that the more useful and accurate test is if you can choose to avoid the "taxable activity", and thus avoid the tax altogether. If one cannot avoid a tax without sacrificing the ordinary affairs of life, the tax is not indirect, but is direct. [See the section on Sales Tax within this site for common misconception concerning that tax.]

Without going into the complete legal history of taxation and its Constitutional limits (which can be viewed within this site at Constitutional Issues of Taxation), suffice it to say that the only direct tax that may currently exist in this country is the tax allegedly authorized by the 16th Amendment. We say, "may currently exist", because the federal courts are in conflict as to whether the 16th Amendment authorized a special direct tax, or simply reinforced a pre-existing government power concerning an indirect tax. However, we need not get sidetracked with that issue because the 16th Amendment has no bearing on the ordinary compensation of the average American. Taxes under the 16th Amendment only deal with corporate dividends and other forms of distribution of corporate profit derived from capitol investment.

This is clearly expressed in various court rulings, such as;

"The sixteenth [amendment] does not justify the taxation of persons or things (their property) previously immune . . .it does not extend taxing power to new or excepted citizens…it is intended only to remove all occasions from any apportionment of income taxes among the states. It does not authorize a tax on a salary." [emphasis added]
Evans v. Gore, 253 US 245 (1920)

So...if the 16th Amendment does not provide the government with the authority to tax the ordinary compensation of the average American, then whatever power the government may or may not have in that matter must be specified in the original body of the US Constitution (which inherently includes the concepts embodied in the Declaration of Independence). This brings us right back to the "direct" versus "indirect" issue.

If we acknowledge that a tax under the 16th Amendment is the only possible direct tax in effect upon income (i.e. a specific species of income - corporate distributions), then all other taxes upon any other species of income would be an indirect tax. This means that we need to explore indirect taxes to determine exactly what they are and if they affect our earnings.

The US Constitution specifies three forms of indirect taxes - imposts, duties, and excises (US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1). In general, the terms "impost" and "duties" apply to articles moving in commerce. Since your earnings likely do not fall into that category, we must then turn to the final form of indirect tax - the excise tax.

The question of what is an excise tax has been well settled by the federal courts. The term "excise tax" has been consistently held to be synonymous with "privilege tax".

"The term 'excise tax' and 'privilege tax' are synonymous. The two are often used interchangeably."
American Airways v. Wallace, 57 F.2d 877, 880

In other words, if you are to be "liable for", or "subject to", an excise tax, you must first avail yourself of some privileged status or activity. Although there are various definitions provided in law dictionaries and in court decisions concerning what a "privilege" is, we prefer this plain English approach for tax matters:

Privilege - Any activity, or eligibility for an activity, which requires submitting an application to a government entity, or for which the providing of a SSN and/or TIN is mandatory (i.e. penalties and/or other consequences can legally be instituted for failing to provide the identifying/account number).

Another simple (but more expansive) definition of a "privilege" is any activity that is outside of or beyond one's unalienable rights. Of course that requires us to know what our rights are! We are sure that some of you are now feeling a bit uncertain because you really don't know what your rights are. While we can't list every activity that would fall within the sphere of a Citizen's rights, we can list some unalienable rights that relate to taxation generally and this discussion specifically:

Taxation Key, West 53 - The legislature cannot name something to be a taxable privilege unless it is first a privilege.

Taxation Key, West 933 - The Right to receive income or earnings is a right belonging to every person and realization and receipts of income is therefore not a "privilege that can be taxed".

"The property that every man has is his personal labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property so it is the most sacred and inviolable…to hinder his employing [it]…in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of the most sacred property".
Butcher's Union Co. v. Cresent City Co., 111 US 746

"Included in the right of personal liberty…is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money and other forms of property".
Coppage v. Kansas, 236 US 1

Hopefully these definitions and citations illustrate the distinction for you between a privilege and an "unalienable right", at least as far as taxation is concerned.

Accordingly, if you steer clear of situations that fall into the definition of privilege, then you will not be involved in a privileged [excise taxable] activity. [Your first response to this might be that you cannot work without providing a SSN. For more information on that specific subject, see the section, Employment Taxes, within this site.]

Since taxes upon any (non-16th Amendment) income are excise taxes, we would ask you this question: "What privileged activity have you been involved in?" If your answer is "none", and you're getting irritated, you're seeing things clearly.

How You Keep Making Yourself Liable

Although the average American doesn't know it, they repeatedly declare themselves liable for state and federal income tax. This is a classic example of "what you don't know will hurt you!"

Whenever a person who is in control of paying you money asks for an "identifying number" (e.g. SSN, TIN, EIN, ITIN; see 26 CFR 301.6109-1(a) for definitions) what that person is really doing is asking you to declare that the money he is about to pay you is subject to federal and state taxing jurisdiction. Because there is no law that allows a third party to determine your tax status, the person who will be paying you is asking a reasonable question (especially if they are a taxpayer). Of course the problem is that the practical application of the process has been perverted into a "demand" as opposed to a "request". This is particularly odd in light of the fact that the Secretary of the Treasury, in his own tax regulations, states that the requester may only request the number.

26 CFR 301.6109-1(c) - If the person making the return does not know the taxpayer identifying number of the other person, such person must request the other person's number. A request should state that the identifying number is required to be furnished under authority of law. When the person making the return, statement, or other document does not know the number of the other person, and has complied with the request provision of this paragraph, such person must sign an affidavit on the transmittal document forwarding such returns, statements, or other documents to the Internal Revenue Service, so stating.

Let's make a few observations about this section. First, the word "request" is used three times; "demand" is never used. Second, the requestor must request a number from you in writing. Although the request must say that the number is required under law, one must remember that the tax code presumes that all transactions are taxable. A non-taxable transaction is never addressed by the code. The reason for the "request" (and not a demand) is that the IRC must give a nontaxpayer the opportunity to refuse to give an identifying number. If it were otherwise, the IRC would be found unconstitutional by the courts. If a Citizen asserts his nontaxpayer status, and refuses to give a number, the Secretary's own regulations limit the requestor's response to one thing, and one thing only - the submission of an affidavit.

One should take special note that the regulation does not permit the requestor to fire a person for refusing to provide a number, or to withhold payment on goods received or services rendered until a number is provided. Such actions are not lawfully permitted under the regulations. People who engage in such conduct are acting outside of and beyond the regulations of the Secretary (which they purport to be the motivation for their actions). Is it not disingenuous (as well as illegal) for the requestor to claim that you must provide a number because he claims to have a fervent desire to obey the regulations of the Secretary, but then turn around and fire you, or withhold a payment owed, even though such an action is not the remedy specified by the Secretary in his regulations? What such people are really saying by their actions is that they want to obey the regulations only when it suits them, but are willing to completely disregard the regulations when it does not.

In our minds such people are not only criminals, but they are the very worst kind of petty tyrant - they would hold a person's earnings or livelihood over that person's head until the person submits and changes his lawful status to that which the petty tyrant thinks it should be. For the sake of good manners we will refrain from commenting on what we think should be done to a person who blackmails an American Citizen out of his lawful and legal status and coerces him into the unlawful confiscation of his property. Having said that, let's continue.

There is no provision in law for the person making the payment to demand a number and more importantly, unless the payments are in the form of interest, dividends, or patronage dividends, or unless you are an alien, there is no law that permits backup withholding. However, since so many Americans give out their SSN (or other identifying number) at the drop of a hat, we need to understand what it means to give out the number.

First, we need to distinguish between giving the number out for identification purposes (such as for a credit report) and giving it out for tax purposes. Giving the number out for identification purposes may not be advisable, but since this discussion is about taxation, we will address only that aspect. How can you tell when an identifying number is being requested for tax purposes? The common thread is that if you asked the requestor why he wants the number, he would tell you that he needs it because IRC requires him to get it. If his motivation is from the IRC, he's asking for tax reasons.

So...how do you respond? The basic legal theory is this: If you have a good faith belief that the money being paid to you is not subject to state or federal taxing authority, you should not provide a number because providing the number is something that one only does if one has a good faith belief that the money being paid to them is subject to state or federal taxing authority! In other words, if you know that the payment is not subject to the tax, why would you provide a tax identification number? Feeling stupid? That's O.K.; we've all been there!

Of course the problem of petty tyrants still exists. [For assistance with such matters, click on Contact Us.]

The Consequences of Information Returns

Whenever you provide an identifying number to a requestor, you provide him with the necessary information to submit a valid information return. A return (including an information return) is not valid if it does not possess an identifying number.

Information returns are reports (sent to the IRS) of payments that are subject to the taxing authority of the federal and state government. These reports are typically submitted on Treasury Department Forms 1099 and W-2 (although there are other less commonly used forms).

Form 1099 typically reflects payments made to an "independent contractor" and the Form W-2 is used to report "wages". However, no matter which information return form is filed, or what type of payment it is reporting, the mere submission to the IRS of a valid information return constitutes presumptive evidence that the amounts shown on the form are subject to federal and state taxing authority.

We just discussed the fact that if payments made to you are not taxable, there is no legal reason for you to provide an identifying number, and you should not do so; to do so is tantamount to declaring that the payment is subject to taxation. In the same vane, if payments made to you are not taxable, then no report of the payment [i.e. an information return] is required to be made to the IRS. This can readily be seen in the IRC, as follows:

Section 3406 of the IRC is the section that authorizes backup withholding. Backup withholding may only be instituted concerning "reportable payments". Please take careful note that this section does not say that backup withholding may be instituted concerning any payment, or all payments, but only when the payment is specifically defined as a "reportable payment". This is a perfect example of the word games the Treasury department loves to play in the tax code.

Section 3406 goes on to list the other sections of the IRC that address "reportable payments". These sections are typically thought to be stand-alone provisions authorizing information reporting (as oppossed to backup withholding). These sections are:

6041, 6041(a), 6041A, 6041A(a), 6045, 6050A, and 6050N

However, as you can see, these sections are not "stand-alone" in their authority to file information returns. They are tied into the definitions provided in §3406.

It is interesting to note that none of the sections listed above use the language "reportable payments" - only "payments". If one did not know that "reportable payments" are defined in §3406 as the payments made under the sections shown above, one would never know that the word "payments" (used in the sections listed above) actually means "reportable payments"! [Don't you just love how the Secretary of the Treasury attempts to obscure simple facts that would help the average Citizen make sense of the tax code?]

Before any reporting may lawfully be performed, it must first be determined whether the payment is actually reportable. A payment can only be subject to the reporting requirements of the IRC if the payment is first determined to be within the taxing authority of the government. And who do you suppose determines that? If you are a Citizen, and the payment relates to something other than interest, dividends, or patronage dividends from corporate activity, then it is you, and only you, who has the legal authority to determine if the transaction is taxable to you! There is no law anywhere in existence that designates anyone other than you to determine your tax status. If you decide the payment is not taxable to you, then you are under no legal duty to provide anyone with an identifying number, nor are they required to file an information return.

If you do not provide an identifying number, the requestor cannot provide the IRS with a valid information return. If they cannot provide the IRS with a valid information return (and you don't file any other federal or state returns), then the IRS has no presumptive evidence that you have received any money (or other property) that is subject to federal or state taxing authority and they have no legal authority to take any action in reference to you. And guess what? The IRS agrees with that. In the case of US v. Lloyd, IRS Criminal Investigator Gary Makovski testified under oath:

"If no information [return] or [tax] return is filed, [the] Internal Revenue Service cannot assess you."

As you can see, information returns are powerful documents that are misused and misapplied consistently to create the false legal justification for concluding that a Citizen owes a tax he likely never really owed.

Information returns are made possible by you giving out your identifying number whenever you are asked, without being aware of the consequences of your action. The misuse and misapplication of information returns is also buttressed by petty functionaries and petty tyrants blackmailing law-abiding Americans into surrendering their numbers.

Why Do Companies Demand a Number?

The truly sad part of the entire "information return" issue is that most companies have no intention of putting you in a compromised position when they file an information return!

* Do you think your employer really cares whether the money they pay you is taxable to you?
* Do you think a business really cares whether you have a SSN or not?
* Do you think the guy writing a check to you really cares whether your business has a TIN?

Let us assure you that the answer to these questions is "no". They unlawfully demand a number from you because they are ignorant, or cowards, or both. Most people (including so-called "experts") don't know one tenth of what you now know having read this far.

CPAs are led to believe that everyone who earns a living is a taxpayer, so that's the position they take when a company asks them what must be done to comply with the law. Of course the company is foolish to ask a CPA what must be done to "comply with the law" because CPAs are not qualified to give legal answers; CPAs can only tell the company what actions comply with the regulations - but then again, the CPA is not qualified to tell anyone if the payments made to you are within the taxing authority of the government.

Tax attorneys are little better. They will dodge a direct question about whether or not you're a taxpayer because they know that such a determination is not theirs (or the company's) to make, but they will quietly suggest to the company that it get rid of you or stop doing business with you if you raise the issue that you are not a taxpayer.

Most companies file information returns for two reasons. First, to provide documentary support for the deductions they are taking on their tax returns. Secondly, for the purpose of maintaining uniform accounting procedures. We recognize that these firms have been socialized to believe that information returns are as necessary as breathing. Unfortunately, ignorance is no excuse for blackmailing their workers and vendors out of their unalienable rights and the practice must stop. It should be noted that an information return is not required in order to substantiate a deduction on the company's tax returns.

Only one person is legally allowed to determine your tax status, and that's you. But if you exercise your legitimate legal right, then finding work gets very challenging. So who's to blame?

First and foremost, the government; it has the attorneys, the judges, the jails, and ultimately, the guns - and it routinely uses them all to harass and attack anyone who threatens the public perception of taxation. Secondly, the government sets the criteria for what is taught to CPA's. Thirdly, the government consistently puts out pamphlets, brochures, bulletins, publications, etc., that are intentionally designed to mislead CPA's and the public about the true meaning of the law. IRS attorneys work very hard to find language to use in those documents that does not misquote the law, but misrepresents the actual meaning and application of the law. [For more information on this, see Debunking IRS Tax Lies within this site.]

I suppose we could also blame CPA's and tax attorneys generally, but they are part of a very self-interested group that is particularly vulnerable to the truth. In other words, if the truth took hold across this great land tonight, CPA's and tax attorneys would be out on the street tomorrow looking for honest work. Needless to say, it is a rare member of their profession who has the integrity to even look at the facts, no less admit the truth publicly.

The next group is the "dominant media". We defined the dominant media as those information outlets that are well established and collectively provide news and other information to a vast majority of the public. Examples of entities that would fall within our definition of "dominant media" are CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, etc. These information outlets have erected a "wall of separation" between the public and the truth about federal income tax. They cooperate in a conspiracy of silence on this issue. Further, they portray anyone who knows these truths as some sort of anti-government crackpot, thus insuring that the truth of the issue is obscured behind the false and malicious smear-job done on the reputation of the messenger. Because of the intentional "lock-out" of tax researchers and their data from dominant media outlets, what should have taken only a few years to rectify, has taken decades and is still not complete.

And now we get to who is ultimately responsible. Go outside and look at your neighbor. It is him (or her), and millions like him, that are truly responsible for this egregious situation. These are your fellow Citizens; yet each and every day they act as if they are the enforcement arm of the government. Each and every day many of these seemingly "ordinary people" engage in blackmailing their fellow Citizens out of their rights. This situation must stop. Our "neighbors" must be made to see that such abusive and illegal actions are not acceptable to their fellow Americans.

Having said this, we must remember that most of the people who are engaged in such unconscionable conduct are either ignorant of the true nature of their actions, or they are afraid for their own jobs. We must find a constructive way to inform our neighbors of the issues (such as tell them about this website) and to help them overcome their fears so that they can stand beside us in the fight for liberty. We must find a way to demonstrate to them the truth that every time they diminish the rights of others, they diminish their own freedom as well.

And remember, these problems will not be solved by browbeating a few people into seeing things our way. These problems will be permanently resolved only when enough Americans are made aware of the issues, and see them clearly, that identifying numbers are no longer "demanded" and every Citizen is respected in their legal right to determine their own tax status.

To Whom Does US Individual Income Tax Apply?
Needless to say, this is a pretty good question. However the question is not half as important as the answer. So how do we get the answer? One of the best ways might be to turn to the legal professionals who publish the tax code (and the rest of the United States Code).

The United States Code Annotated is a multi-volume publication that includes the complete text of the United States Code, together with case notes of state and federal decisions that demonstrate the application of specific sections of United States law and provides cross references to related sections, historical notes and library references. It is the inclusion of this "additional information" that distinguishes the "Annotated" version from the regular United States Code. The United States Code Annotated is the publication most widely used by attorneys, legal scholars and others researching United States law and it has been in use at least as long as the income tax laws have been on the books.

In the index to the Annotated Code, under the heading "Citizens", you will find the subheading "Citizenship". Under "Citizenship", if you scan carefully for all the cites that contain a "26" in bold type (That would be Title 26 United States Code; also known as the Internal Revenue Code), you will only find two cites, both referencing "gift tax". If there is a reference to the "gift tax" under "Citizenship", then why is there no reference to the "income tax" under that same heading? Keep reading!

Now then, if we go to the index heading "Income Tax", and then find the subheading of "Citizens", we note that there are only two cites: (a) citizens about to depart the United States and (b) citizens living abroad. Why do the only references to "income tax" for "Citizens" have to do with citizens about to leave the country and citizens living abroad?

Next, under the heading "Income Tax", we move to the subheading "Aliens", and find a cross-reference to the major heading of "Aliens". When we locate the heading "Aliens", and then the subheading "Income tax", we find nine pages of Title 26 laws that apply to aliens. Among the Internal Revenue laws [Title 26] affecting aliens are such familiar sections as "deductions", "exemptions", "gross income", "joint returns", "withholding of tax", and much more.

In our research, we have found that indexes, parallel tables, and tables of content can often times be more revealing than the actual text of the law. Why? Because of the "unwritten rule" we stated earlier about reading and understanding law - context, context, context! Indexes, such as that found in the United States Code Annotated, have to take into account broad issues of context in order to determine proper applicability and remain accurate for the legal professional. For 80 years the United States Code Annotated has been telling us the contextual truth. Most Americans just haven't been listening.

Since the tax code is a compilation of excise [privilege] taxes, one might properly observe that while a Citizen is exercising a right when working in this country, it is a privilege for a non-citizen to do so.

We should also point out that this reality dovetails perfectly with a Citizen's right to declare his own status for domestic income tax purposes. By permitting a Citizen to declare his own status, the tax code allows the nontaxpayer/Citizen to avoid a tax that does not apply to him. [It should be noted that without such an "escape hatch" for Citizens, the IRC would be unconstitutional.] Conversely, if an alien refuses to provide a number, the "payor" can simply include an affidavit with their information return, and if the IRS later determines that the person is liable for the tax, then the IRS can institute the proper proceedings against that person for the collection of the tax.

Summary

Although federal taxation is a topic of considerable complexity, Original Intent has condensed the essential and significant elements to what you see in this treatise. It is our hope that this information will assist you and others in the proper administration of your own tax issues. The issues we have addressed are the following:

1. The term "income tax" can be used by the US government and its courts to describe revenue laws generally, or it can be used to describe a specific type of tax.
2. 16th Amendment "income" and the ordinary "compensation for labor" of the average American are not the same thing.
3. Each subtitle (A through E) of the IRC imposes a completely different type of tax and subtitle C taxes are not the same tax as subtitle A taxes.
4. No tax law can apply to you if in doing so it would violate one or more of your "unalienable rights" (unless it is a direct tax).
5. One of your unalienable rights is to exchange your labor for other forms of property (including money) without having to give a percentage to the government. The only way the government can tax such compensation is with a direct tax, and Congress has not imposed a direct tax upon compensation for labor.
6. You need not provide an identifying number if you've determined the transaction is not taxable.
7. No reporting is required if you've determined that the transaction is not taxable to you.
8. If the person making a payment to you wants to report the payment even after you've made the determination that it not a taxable transaction, that person may do so without a number and must affix the appropriate affidavit to the information return. [Contact Us for the affidavit.]
9. Under the regulations created by the Secretary of the Treasury for tax matters, a person making a payment to you has no other remedy than the steps specified in item 8 if you refuse to provide a number. Actions such as firing you, or withholding payments owed, are not lawful options because no law specifies such conduct as a remedy.
10. It is our responsibility to inform our friends and neighbors of these truths. Sending them the URL for this page is one great way to do that! Most are ignorant or afraid or both. We should endeavor to cure their ignorance and give them sufficient information and support so that they need no longer fear the IRS.
11. Despite the illegal and immoral conduct of the government [most notably the Treasury Department, the IRS, and the US Department of Justice, Tax Division] the truth is that US Individual Income Tax applies primarily to aliens and only to working American Citizens in very narrow circumstances that are not generally applicable to the public at large.

 

[FrankRizzo]

And if that wasn't enough reading for you folks here's some more. It should be noted that I'm sure I will be paying these taxes this year since that is the only way to get that bonus check from the government. I just find this subject very interesting and I'm very open to spreading the word and a good
debate. Hopefully some other people on here will be able to chime in on this subject too.

Constitutional Issues of Taxation

Most Americans understand that all government functions must be authorized by their state constitution or the Constitution of the United States. While this understanding may not be as firm as it was in our grandparents' day, it is still fairly well acknowledged. However, some feel that when it comes to matters of taxation, the government throws the Constitution out the window and all must follow the dictates of the government or pay the piper. While this is not legally true, there is ample reason for people to feel this way. The purpose of this article is to clarify what the Constitutional boundaries of taxation are and what we can do to stay clear of the boundary markers.

First and foremost we want to assure you that even government's taxing authority must be exercised in compliance with your state constitution, or if a federal tax, with the US Constitution.

Some of you who have investigated the Constitutional limits of taxation know that the subject can be difficult and frustrating. The Constitutional issues of taxation must be understood not only through a proper view of law, but also through a proper view of history. Taxation is as much a part of our nation's history as is King George III or George Washington.

We will attempt to break down the Constitutional realities of federal taxation for you without inundating you with court cases and other citations. We will try to present a plain-English explanation that weaves together all the essential legal realities that are elsewhere [in other web sites and books] explored in such excruciating minutia (sometime correctly, sometimes not). We hope to give you a strong and logical framework into which you can place all that you have read or seen, as well as all that you may find in the future.

Prior to the creation of the federal Constitution, the United States had been operating under the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation had a few glaring deficiencies, but the most problematic was the inability of the US to compel payments from the states to cover the operating costs of the federal government. In other words, Congress (which is nothing more than the states of the Union voting on what the national government will do) was authorizing the Executive Branch to take various actions, but then some of the states were not paying the bills responsibly for the actions Congress had authorized.

When the US Constitution was created, the Founding Fathers sought to correct this problem by giving the federal government clearly defined taxing powers. Direct taxes were to operate solely upon the state governments, while indirect taxes were to operate upon whomsoever would avail himself of a privileged activity (i.e. indirect taxation). However, because the states (as colonies) had been subject to taxes that were used for political punishment, as well as at times enduring taxes rates that were considered intolerably high, the Founding Fathers clearly specified the forms of the taxation that could be laid, along with the rules that the government must follow in order to Constitutionally lay such taxes.

What Does The US Constitution Permit?

The Federal Constitution only permits the government to lay two forms of taxation. One is a "direct tax" and the other an "indirect tax". Together these two forms of taxation comprise the whole; much like the northern and southern hemisphere - there's no third choice.

The term "indirect tax" never appears in the Constitution. The Constitution permits the US Government to "lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises..." [See Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1.]

Although there has been some debate about the meaning of the word "taxes", as it appears in the above quote, it is generally held that its use refers to the direct taxes authorized in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, while "duties, imposts and excises" are the three species of taxes which comprise the class of indirect taxes.

So how can we tell the difference between these two forms of taxation that the US Supreme Court has called "the two great tax classes"?

Here's a solid definition of "direct tax" straight from the US Supreme Court:

"Direct taxes bear upon persons, upon possessions, and enjoyment of rights". Knowlton v. Moore, 178 US 41

[See Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, which grants the U.S. the power to lay a direct tax.]

In other words, direct taxes cannot be avoided because they are upon things that are fixed - such as your physical being, your real property, and certain fundamental rights.

By contrast, an indirect tax is a tax that you can avoid by choosing not become involved in the activity upon which the tax is laid. An example of this might be importing products from another country into the United States. In such a circumstance one is required to pay an import duty. However, one can avoid paying an import duty simply by not importing foreign products into this country. Another example might be distilling rum in the Virgin Islands and importing it into the states of the Union. If one wishes to avoid the taxes involved in such a process, one need only to refrain form the activity.

In short, an indirect tax is a tax that you can choose to avoid without giving up the normal affairs of life. However, if one cannot avoid a taxable activity without sacrificing the ordinary affairs of life, the tax is not indirect, but direct.

Since within the class of indirect taxes, the excise tax is the one most familiar to the American public; what exactly is an excise tax?

"The term 'excise tax' and 'privilege tax' are synonymous. The two are often used interchangeably."
American Airways v. Wallace, 57 F.2d 877, 880

Here is a more detailed definition:

"The obligation to pay an excise is based upon the voluntary action of the person taxed in performing the act, enjoying the privilege or engaging in the privilege which is the subject of the excise, and the element of absolute unavoidable demand is lacking" People ex rel, Atty Gen v. Naglee, 1 Cal 232; Bank of Commerce & T. Co. v. Senter, 149 Tenn. 441SW 144

You will note that two elements are mandatory upon the government if a tax is to be classified as an excise, and thus avoid the requirement of apportionment. The first is that your actions must be "voluntary". In other words, as stated earlier, you must be free to steer clear of the "taxable activity" without sacrificing the ordinary affairs of life. Secondly, if you steer clear of the "taxable activity" the government cannot make a demand upon you for the tax that you cannot avoid by stating (or showing) that you were not involved in any excise taxable activity. We will revisit this issue later in the article.

How Does "Income Tax" Fit Into The Constitutional Scheme?

Although the tax that concerns most people is "income tax", the Constitutional question really rests on whether a tax (any tax) is a "direct tax" or an "indirect tax". As an example, Congress may pass a tax law that clearly structures a tax as a direct tax, and call that tax an "income tax". The following month they may pass another tax measure that is clearly structured as an indirect tax, and also call that an "income tax". If properly constructed, one bill would lay a direct tax, while the other bill would lay an indirect tax, and both would be referred to (by ignorant politicians) as "income tax" bills. You can see that the term "income tax" does not really answer a Constitutional question concerning taxation. For almost a century now people have been making the mistake of trying to define "income tax" as being exclusively within one tax class or the other, not understanding that it can be can be either depending on how Congress structures any particular tax.

As a nation, we have been fixated by the phrase "income tax", but it is important to know that term is one that can shift like the wind. We must focus on the issue of direct v. indirect. While the phrase "income tax" has a historic meaning in law, that formerly fixed meaning has been eroded to the point of near uselessness by misapplication of the phrase by Congress, the courts, and the public over the last 90 years.

[Editor's Note: Historically speaking, until the adoption of the 16th Amendment blurred the lines, the US Supreme Court had always viewed an "income tax" as a tax solely in the form of a direct tax. The Court did not view "excise taxes" as "income taxes". In many of the Court's decisions between 1913 and 1921, the Court clearly stated that the various tax acts passed by Congress, which laid excise taxes under the guise of "income taxes", were not really "income tax acts".]

Constitutional Regulations

In addition to allowing the national government to lay direct and indirect taxes, the US Constitution also mandates two "rules" concerning how the government can lay such taxes.

* Direct taxes must be "apportioned among the several states which may be included within this Union". [See Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4.]

* "All duties, imposts and excises [indirect taxes], shall be uniform throughout the United States". [See Article I, Section 8, Clause 1.]

Although there has been some debate on what apportionment actually means in a political sense, it is safe to say that it requires the population data from the most recent census be used to distribute the tax burden evenly throughout the states of the Union.

Uniform means that each person taxed in a given circumstance will be taxed at the same rate as any other person would be taxed in the very same circumstance. As an example, if a person produces 80 proof dark rum in the Virgin Islands and brings it into the United States at the port of New Orleans, he will be taxed exactly the same as any other man who would do exactly the same thing. However, if a man produces 100 proof dark rum in the Virgin Islands and brings it into port at New Orleans, it is Constitutional for him to be taxed at a different rate because his circumstance (bringing in 100 proof rum) is different from that of the first man (who was bringing in 80 proof rum).

The Dastardly 16th Amendment!

Because this site is about facts, and not about rhetoric or hyperbole, we will not delve into the ugly waters of what the 16th Amendment might have been intended (secretly or otherwise) to accomplish, or how the politics of the 16th Amendment were devious, or whether or not the 16th was properly ratified. We will stick to "what is" in this day and age.

We describe the 16th Amendment as "dastardly" not because of the politics attendant to its drafting or its alleged ratification, but because of the great misunderstandings that have followed its alleged ratification and the massive governmental theft of property from the American people that has occurred due to that misunderstanding. It is a completely factual statement to say that the 16th Amendment has resulted in the largest fraud ever perpetrated by a government against its Citizens.

We say "fraud" because one of the elements of the crime of fraud is to remain silent when there is a clear duty to speak, and certainly our government has a clear duty to come out and tell the public that most Americans do not owe a penny of Subtitle 'A' or 'C' taxes, either under the original provisions of the Constitution, or under the alleged authority of the 16th Amendment (as you will see later).

Although the government has always had a duty to speak out, recently representatives of the United States Department of Justice and the Internal Revenue Service had agreed to attend a hearing arranged by We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education and Congressman Bartlett. [The hearing was originally scheduled for Sept. of 2001, but was rescheduled for Feb. of 2002.] The purpose of the hearing was for the American people to get straight answers to some disturbing questions about US tax law and the administration of tax policy. Two weeks after receiving the first 199 questions, the DOJ and the IRS broke their word and pulled out of the hearing.

The questions that were submitted to DOJ and IRS can be viewed at, http://www.givemeliberty.org/bartlettresponse/draftquestions01-22-02.html

Furthermore, the federal government (with the state governments acting in complicity) continually seizes property not lawfully subject to seizure, routinely forces nontaxpayers into regulatory administrative tribunals, and repeatedly puts people in jail for not paying a tax they never legally owed. [See The Willful Failure to File Scam.] And all of this government deceit and manipulation became possible only because the 16th Amendment exists.
What Did The 16th Amendment Do?

The 16th Amendment was an attempt to overturn, by Constitutional Amendment, the supposed tax limitations placed on the national government by the decision of the US Supreme Court in the case of Pollock v. Farmer's Loan and Trust Co., 157 US 429 (1895). [While we see the 16th Amendment as being wholly unnecessary as a response to the Pollock decision, that discussion would require an entire separate article.]

Here is what the 16th Amendment says:

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.

That's it! That's the entire text of the Amendment that has caused so much confusion and trouble.

Historically, Americans of yesteryear were aware that a direct tax was upon their person, or their real property (including slaves), or their exercise of other fundamental rights. They were also aware that a tax on the fruits of one's property (such as receiving payment from renting a piece of real property) was also a direct tax unless those earnings where in the course of a privileged activity, and then they were subject to an excise tax.

In Pollock, the US Supreme Court stated that a tax upon earnings derived from one's existing property (real or personal) must be considered a direct tax subject to the rule of apportionment. This gave rise to concern in banking and government circles because they felt (and we agree) that corporations are something that is legislated into existence by the government and therefore the fruits therefrom is properly subject to an excise tax.

In other words, the Pollock decision made no distinction between a man earning rent from his private property, and a man earning a return on his investment in a corporation. The former must properly be considered a direct tax, while the latter should rightly be considered an excise. The rent from a man's private property is his "private affairs", and thus outside government's authority to lay any tax except a direct tax subject to apportionment.

However, profit or gain (to a shareholder) from a corporate enterprise should properly be income subject to taxation as an excise taxable activity - after all, there would be no opportunity for said profit if the state hadn't granted the corporation into existence.

We may never know whether the framers of the 16th Amendment had a legitimate concern about Pollock being used to challenge the 1909 Corporate Tax Act, or whether it simply provided a convenient excuse to try and alter the Constitution's tax regulation (i.e. apportionment for direct taxes). Fortunately, it matters not what their intentions may have been; it only matters what was actually accomplished.

The US Supreme Court has ruled on the meaning of the 16th Amendment many times. However, because each case has had different particulars, it is sometimes difficult to understand the decisions in a cohesive fashion or to give all the cases one settled meaning. Fortunately, we don't need to spend a lot of time reconciling all the various particulars of each case because the Court has been very clear as to the definition of "income" as used in the 16th Amendment. Since the Amendment only grants Congress the power to "to lay and collect taxes on incomes", that definition is rather critical.

Let's look at what the various courts have said about "income" and the 16th Amendment:

"The Treasury Department cannot, by interpretive regulations, make income out of that which is not income within the meaning of the revenue acts of Congress, nor can Congress, without apportionment, tax as income that which is not income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment."
Helvering v. Edison Bros. Stores, 133 F.2D 575

The last part of that quote is crucial to a proper understanding of the impact 16th Amendment, and indeed the entire tax structure of the federal government. It is essential that you understand that only "16th Amendment income" can be taxed without apportionment.

"The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but the individuals' Right to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed." Corn v. Fort, 95 S.W.2d 620 (1936)

From these two decisions alone, we can pinpoint some very crucial information.

* All property (which includes income) other than "16th Amendment income" can only be taxed if the tax is constitutionally apportioned.

* "16th Amendment income" can be taxed without apportionment.

* Obviously the courts are making it clear that there is a real and significant distinction between "income" in the ordinary sense, and "16th Amendment income".

* A Citizen's property (which includes ordinary income) cannot be taxed as an excise.

Do you feel like we're narrowing in on the meat of the issue? Good, because we are!

Now that we know the points indicated above, what we really need to know is what is "16th Amendment income". Once we know that, we should be getting a pretty good handle on what is Constitutionally taxable and under what rules! Interestingly, in order to find the meaning of the word "income", as used within 16th Amendment, we must first explore the meaning of the word "income" as it is used within the 1909 Corporate Tax Act.

"As has been repeatedly remarked, the corporation tax act of 1909 was not intended to be and is not, in any proper sense, an income tax law. This court had decided in the Pollock case that the income tax law of 1894 amounted in effect to a direct tax upon property, and was invalid because not apportioned according to populations, as prescribed by the Constitution. The act of 1909 avoided this difficulty by imposing not an income tax [direct], but an excise tax [indirect] upon the conduct of business in a corporate capacity, measuring however, the amount of tax by the income of the corporation".
Stratton's Independence, LTD. v. Howbert, 231 US 399, 414 (1913)

As an indirect (excise) tax, the Corporate Tax Act of 1909 was not a tax upon property, but was a tax upon the privilege [enjoyed by the shareholders] of doing business in the corporate form, and the tax to be paid for exercising that privilege was determined by how much profit each shareholder took from the corporation.

So why is the 1909 Corporate Tax Act so important?

"[Income]must be given the same meaning, in all the Income Tax Acts of Congress that it was given in the Corporate Excise Tax Act, and what that meaning is has become definitely settled by the decisions of this court".
Merchants Loan & Trust v. Smietanka, 255 US 509 (1921)

By this decision, the Court stated that it would accept only one definition of "income" [under the 16th Amendment] and that any tax law that Congress wanted to pass under the authority of the 16th Amendment would have to use just that one definition of "income" - and that definition was the one Congress used in the 1909 Corporate Tax Act! In short, the Court was telling Congress that since the 16th Amendment was a part of the Constitution [the non-ratification issue had not yet been raised] its meaning must be fixed and permanent, and since Congress could not be trusted to stick to one single definition, the Court was giving Congress one single definition with which to work if it wished its income tax acts to pass Constitutional scrutiny by the Court.

So now that we know the "form" of the tax being laid in the 1909 Corporate Tax Act, and we know that its definition must be used in every income tax act Congress might create, what has the Court said about the definition of "income" in the 1909 Corporate Tax Act?

"[Income is] derived--from--capital--the--gain--derived--from--capitol, etc. Here we have the essential matter--not gain accruing to capitol, not growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value...severed from capitol however invested or employed and coming in, being "derived", that is received or drawn by the recipient for his separate use, benefit and disposal--that is the income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description...". [emphasis in original]
Eisner v. Macomber, 252 US 189 (1920)

O.K...so now we know the "form" of the 16th Amendment income tax, the fact that all 16th Amendment income taxes must use the same definition of "income", and we have the formula for determining what "16th Amendment income" is. The only thing we're really missing at this point is specifically what activity is taxable under the 16th Amendment!

"Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of 'income', it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principle or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities."
Doyle v. Mitchell Brother, Co., 247 US 179 (1918)

In June of 1909 President Taft made a speech before Congress. After commenting on the Pollock decision, he stated:

"...I therefore recommend an amendmentimposing on all corporationsan excise tax measured by 2% in the net income of such corporations. This is an excise on the privilege of doing business as an artificial entity"
Congressional Record, June 16, 1909, Pg. 3344

Two months later Congress drafted the Corporate Tax Act of 1909.

So, if Congress could pass a tax bill laying a tax on the profits of corporations prior to the 16th Amendment, why was the 16th Amendment needed? We may never know what the true intention of the framers of the 16th Amendment were, but there are three prevailing opinions:

* They honestly felt that the Pollock decision could be a threat to taxing corporate investment profits and so they moved to overturn the Pollock decision's holding that a tax upon the gains from existing property was a direct tax.
* They did not think Pollock was a threat, but it made a convenient excuse to attempt to undermine the constitutional rule of apportionment on direct taxes, which many greedy politicians found terribly restrictive to their goal of robbing the American people through taxation.
* They felt that shareholder's profits from state-charted corporations could not be reached by the federal government for tax purposes without the Amendment.

Because item #3 is the least well recognized, we'll take moment to explain that theory (items #1 & 2 needing no explanation).

The vast majority of corporations that existed (then as now) were corporations chartered by the legislatures of the states of the Union. While the federal government had the power to lay excise taxes, such power was limited to certain subjects that were traditionally and historically within the purview of the federal government for excise purposes. There was no historical, traditional, or constitutional basis for the United States to assume it had the power to lay an excise tax on Citizens of the states of the Union who were enjoying a privilege which was sought solely from their state governments. The 1909 Corporate Tax Act had authority over corporations created by Congress, corporations created in a federal possession or territory, and corporations operating in interstate commerce, but not plain old state-charted corporations generally. Under this theory, the 16th Amendment was necessary only to bring the profits of state-charted corporations within the Constitutional reach of the federal government.

How Does The Corporate Tax Act and the 16th Tie Together?

"[Income]must be given the same meaning, in all the Income Tax Acts of Congress that it was given in the Corporate Excise Tax Act, and what that meaning is has become definitely settled by the decisions of this court. In determining the definition of the word 'income' thus arrived at, this court has consistently refused to enter into the refinements of lexicographers or economists, and has approved in the definitions quoted, what it believes to be the commonly understood meaning of the term which must have been in the minds of the people when they adopted the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution." Merchants Loan & Trust v. Smietanka, 255 US 509 (1921)

Immediately at the end of that passage from Merchant, the very first citation provided by the Court is, Doyle. And how did the Doyle court define "income"?

"...gain or increase arising from corporate activities."

We wonder how much more clear the Court has to be before people will understand that "16th Amendment income" is only related to the privilege of profiting from investing in corporations.

Let's take this a bit further and explore this statement from a US Supreme Court decision:

"The word 'income' as used in the Amendment does not include a stock dividend since such a dividend is capital and not income and can be taxed only if the tax is apportioned among the several states..."
Eisner v. Macomber, 252 US 189 (1920)

While a "cash dividend" represents profit to the shareholder, and is thus "income" under the 16th Amendment, a "stock dividend" is not profit that been "severed from capital" as is required to meet the definition of income under the 16th Amendment (ibid, Eisner). The Eisner quote featured above clearly illustrates that the apportionment clause of the Constitution is alive and well and has not been repealed or substantially altered by the 16th Amendment.

Let's take a moment to evaluate where we are:

* The Constitutional question we really need to be asking is whether a particular tax is a direct tax or an indirect tax. What label that tax wears, such as "income tax", has basically become irrelevant due to misapplication of the phrase for the last 90 years.
* In historical terms, an income tax (pre-16th Amendment) was always considered to be a tax that was direct.
* In historical terms, and in the words of the US Supreme Court, the 1909 Corporate Tax Act was not an "income tax" [direct tax].
* The 1909 Corporate Tax Act was an excise tax upon the privilege of doing business in the corporate form. This is confirmed by both Congress and the US Supreme Court.
* Profit from corporate business ("16th Amendment income") is not that which the tax is laid upon, but merely a "yardstick" by which is computed the amount of tax that is due in exchange for exercising the privilege. In other words, profit from corporate business ("16th Amendment income") determines the value of the privilege, and thus the amount of tax to be paid.
* The US Supreme Court has said that the definition of "income", as used in the 1909 Corporate Tax Act, must be used by Congress for all its (16th Amendment) income tax acts.
* The US Supreme Court has stated that the definition of income used in the 1909 Corporate Tax Act is what the American people had in mind when they adopted the 16th Amendment.
* The definition of "income" as used in the 1909 Corporate Tax Act is the exact same definition that the US Supreme Court has said must be used when applying the 16th Amendment.

Is The 16th Indirect, or Direct without Apportionment?

There has been much debate about whether the 16th Amendment authorized shareholder profits to be taxed by the federal government as a direct tax without apportionment, or merely confirmed that shareholder profits are taxable as an indirect (excise) tax, and therefore apportionment is of no constitutional concern.

At this point in history there is a judicial split. Six federal circuits see it one way, while the remaining five federal circuits see it the other way. While we feel confident that "16th Amendment income" is taxable only as an excise (for reasons too numerous to delve into here), in a broader sense we say, "Who cares?" If we know that "16th Amendment income" only applies to dividends, patronage dividends, and interest paid as profit or gain from a corporate investment, do we really care which type of tax it is? The US Supreme Court has stated that the 16th Amendment must have been intended to "harmonize" the taxing clauses of the Constitution, so whichever way one views it, a tax on "16th Amendment income" has still been deemed proper and Constitutional by the US Supreme Court. The bottom line is this: If you invest your money in corporate activities and you receive dividends, patronage dividends, or interest from your investment, you owe the tax under the authority of the 16th Amendment!

Before we leave this topic, we will tell you that in the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR, Co., 240 US 1 (1916), the US Supreme Court made it clear that the purpose of the Amendment was to reverse the Pollock decision (at least in part) by taking [corporate] investment income out of the class of a direct tax, and placing it back in the class of an indirect [excise] tax, where it "inherently belongs". [If you'd like to tie your brain in knots, we encourage you to read the Brushaber decision.] Interestingly, federal circuit courts on both sides of the direct/indirect issue cite Brushaber as their primary authority.
"Business" v. Private Affairs

The law can be a tricky thing because words used in the law often times do not have the same meaning as when we use them in common speech. A prime example of that would be the word "business". When we use the word the word "business", we usually mean only that a person, or persons, is engaged in some effort to make money. We don't mean to imply any special meaning beyond that. However, when the government uses the word "business" in its laws, about 95% of the time, they mean only the activities of corporations (and other state-created fictional entities).

When an American Citizen engages in a non-regulated activity from which he earns his living, such activity is not "business", as such term is used in most statutes. When an American Citizen engages in a non-regulated activity from which he earns his living, he is actually engaged in the pursuit of his "private affairs". However, he must keep his affairs private, lest he stumble into "business"! What are some of the actions that can change your private affairs into "business"? Getting a business license; getting a resale permit; filing state or federal tax returns that reflect the earnings from your livelihood; getting involved with your state's department of Consumer Affairs, performing employee withholding under subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Code, acquiring a Taxpayer Identification Number, giving out a Taxpayer Identification Number, etc.

A "business" usually owes taxes and is generally subject to government regulation, but for most Americans the pursuit of their own "private affairs", which includes the earning of one's own livelihood, is not a taxable activity - unless you make it so.

Original Intent consultants can help you steer clear of engaging in "business". Click here for information on our consulting services, including our phone number. You can also reach us by clicking on the "contact us" icon in the left border of every page of this site.

Also, to better understand this issue we encourage you to read the Original Intent piece on Federal Income Tax.

But What If I Don't Have "16th Amendment Income"?

If one does not have "16th Amendment income", then one cannot have any tax liability under the authority of the 16th Amendment. However, it is important to note that there are others activities that can give rise to liability for other forms of taxes.

A partial list of such activities might include; being an employee of the federal government or any of the governments indicated at 26 USC 3401(c); dealing in distilled spirits under any applicable parts of Title 27 of the United States Code and Chapter 51 of the Internal Revenue Code; doing business in tobacco products covered under Chapter 52 of the Internal Revenue Code; engaging in any of the various activities covered under Subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code, etc.

All of the above referenced activities are excise taxes. In other words, if one wishes to avoid the tax, stay away from the excise taxable activity.

If you don't have any 16th Amendment income, and you aren't involved in any excise taxable activity, the only way for the government to Constitutionally tax the money you earn in the course of pursuing your private affairs (which you now know includes earning your livelihood) is to do so by enacting a direct tax upon private earnings. No such tax exists today in America.

And remember, Subtitle 'C' "employment taxes" are not upon private Citizens involved in exchanging their labor for compensation in the private sector. For more on this subject, go to our page on Federal Employment Taxes.

Ratification of the 16th Amendment

There are serious and valid concerns about whether the 16th Amendment was lawfully ratified in accordance with the requirements of the US Constitution and the constitutions of the states of the Union. We will not delve into that discussion here because we are attempting to deal with the legal realities that currently exist concerning federal taxation. We hope that those who are pursuing the non-ratification cause will eventually be successful in having the faulty ratification process acknowledged by the federal government, and thus have the 16th Amendment invalidated.

If you wish to learn more about the issue of the non-ratification of the 16th Amendment, you may go to http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/index.asp

Is the Income Tax Voluntary?

The answer to that question is a resounding "yes"...and "no".

Over the years some people have used the sentence, "Income tax is voluntary" as a mantra; chanting it over and over again as if it has magical qualities, or as if by repeating it enough times, their own tax liability (if any) might evaporate. Unfortunately, wishing income tax liability away will not alter reality.

First we must understand that in tax matters there are two forms of "voluntary". One is the voluntary act that creates liability; the other is "voluntary compliance". The two are not the same issue.

Voluntary compliance means that when a person properly and lawfully owes any tax, that person acts independently and responsibly to file his return and pay his tax timely. Without a reasonable amount of voluntary compliance the tax system would collapse. Of course taxation in general terms is a necessary feature of government and a collapse of the nation's legitimate tax system is not in anyone's interest. What Original Intent objects to, as we believe you do, is the unlawful and coercive collection of income taxes from American Citizens concerning whom no Constitutional income tax liability exists.

Because no direct tax on private earnings exists in this country, our tax system is voluntary. But the part that is voluntary is whether or not you want to engage in excise taxable activities, and thus create liability that would not otherwise exist. However, if you choose to engage in an excise taxable activity, the tax is not voluntary for you any longer - you volunteered and you must pay the tax.

There is another way Americans continually volunteer to pay federal and state income tax when they would not otherwise owe anything - you give people who pay you money your Social Security Number when they request a "tax number". By doing this, you declare that the money you are being paid is subject to state and federal taxation, even if it was not so subject until you gave out the number! For more on this, see our Federal Income Tax article.

How Can An Excise Tax Be Converted To A Direct Tax?

As you may recall, one of the foundations of an excise tax is "the element of absolute unavoidable demand is lacking". Once this element is gone, the tax becomes a de facto direct tax, solely due to the mode of enforcement. Here is what the US Supreme Court has said on the subject:

"[The Pollock court] recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct tax was adapted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard the form and consider the substance alone and hence subject the tax to the regulation of apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply." Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR Co., 240 US 1 (1916)

What the Brushaber court is saying is that any income tax, which has been structured as an excise tax, but is enforced in such a way as to effectively covert the tax to a direct tax, would cause the court to declare it unconstitutional due to lack of apportionment. What type of enforcement might effectively convert an excise tax to a direct tax? Once the demand for the tax money is unavoidable, and you can no longer avoid the demand and/or the collection of the tax, even when you have not engaged in any excise taxable activity, that is when the Executive Branch's enforcement of the tax has converted the tax, in substance, from an excise into a direct tax.

I suspect that there are probably a couple of hundred million Americans who would agree that the way the IRS enforces today's income tax has effectively converted the excise [income] tax to a direct tax, and thus the tax should be constitutionally apportioned among the state of the Union.

Summary

This article could certainly have been at least twice as long as there is no shortage of material to examine concerning the Constitutional powers and limits of federal taxing authority. We hope that what we've given you has been effective in communicating the fundamental elements of the subject. We hope you have a better understanding of federal taxing authority than you did when you began reading the article.

Let's review what we've covered:

1. The US Constitution grants the federal government the authority to lay only two classes of taxation - direct and indirect.
2. Direct and indirect taxes are subject to Constitutional regulations concerning their mode of operation.
3. Direct taxes are subject to apportionment - even after the 16th Amendment.
4. Indirect taxes are subject to the rule of uniformity.
5. No direct tax on private earnings exists in this country - the disagreement of the federal courts notwithstanding.
6. The federal judicial circuits are split as to whether the 16th Amendment merely confirmed the government's excise taxing power concerning shareholder profits from corporate investment, or whether the Amendment created a new "special" form of direct tax that does not require apportionment.
7. In the Brushaber case, the US Supreme Court stated that any tax act under the authority of the 16th Amendment must properly be considered an excise, and is thus not subject to apportionment.
8. The definition of income used in the Corporate Tax Act of 1909 must be used in the income tax acts of Congress (passed under the authority of the 16th Amendment).
9. The definition of income used in the Corporate Tax Act of 1909 is the same definition that must be used when interpreting the 16th Amendment.
10. The 16th Amendment only pertains to "income" in the form of dividends, patronage dividends, and interest from corporate investment.
11. The 16th Amendment tax is upon the privilege (to shareholders) of operating a business as an artificial entity.
12. The 16th Amendment tax is not upon "income"; the income is only the yardstick used to determine the value of the privilege, and hence the amount of tax to be paid.
13. If you have no 16th Amendment income, you have no liability for a tax imposed under the authority of the 16th Amendment.
14. Other legitimate types of federal and state taxation do exist beyond the tax imposed under the authority of the 16th Amendment. They are all excise taxes.
15. Capital investment funds, even when invested in a corporation, are not subject to taxation except by a direct tax subject to apportionment.
16. A tax on your private earnings still needs to be apportioned to be constitutional.
17. If you wish to conduct only your private affairs, do not trespass into areas that give rise to the presumption of federal or state authority for taxation and/or regulatory authority.
18. In most statutes, "business" means the activities of a legislatively created entity such as a corporation, partnership, statutory trust, etc., and does not embrace the your private affairs, which includes your livelihood.
19. Giving out a SSN or TIN (when lawfully required) creates a powerful presumption of federal and state taxing authority over your earnings.
20. Signing any federal or state tax forms (including a Form W-4, creates a powerful presumption of federal and state taxing authority over your earnings.
21. The Gross Income argument is legally accurate, but is not intended to take the place, and does not take the place, of a constitutional argument.
22. If you choose to engage in an excise taxable activity, you must pay the tax.
23. If you choose to engage in an excise taxable activity, you are expected (by the government as well as your fellow citizens) to practice voluntary compliance.
24. An indirect tax can be effectively converted into a direct tax by improper enforcement by the Executive Branch. In that event, the US Supreme Court has said that it is its duty to declare the former excise tax to be a direct tax absent apportionment, and thus unconstitutional.

 

[Gypsy Nirvana]

What gets me is that the American War of Independance seems to have happened due to the British imposing taxes on the people in what was then their colony.....


Now we are looking at a situation where-by the American people are complaining about the taxes that are imposed upon them by their own government..........will this lead to another American war of Independance from Taxes?.....fought by the people......for the people......?

 

[Crazy Composer]

Well, Gypsy, the powers-that-be certainly deserve to be fought. Problem is... Americans are too fat and happy to fight their masters. Keep em fat and happy, by any means, and the farm animals won't revolt.

Just a few minutes ago I saw one of my goats was out of his pen, he didn't like the new goat food I bought, so he was not happy and wanted to get out. After getting his new food, he won't even think about getting out, there's no need to go seaching for something better. Humans are herd animals too, and those powers-that-be know this, and work that angle... HARD.

The Boston Tea Party was about shitty tea. hahaha! We were tired of getting all the second-hand schwagg while Britain was getting the headies.