Why we pay taxes, who has to pay taxes, and redeeming lawful

[David Merrill]

I say that if you think your name is the full or legal name then you automatically swear out just such an oath and take on the color of official capacity, utilizing the trust on social government as your bond. Fine! It is when that same government assigns trusteeship back upon you, and you automatically accept because you do not know your true name that you become unable to effectively refuse for cause that appointment.

Search out METRO organization around here for the suitors Charter of Freedoms and Exemptions Granted to Patroons (1629) bonding the Libels of Review. Bobbinville might feel his Charter supersedes mine but with the METRO organization development since 1958 I argue that municipal jurisdiction, City of XXXXX worldwide prevails.

I enjoy the copyright 1877 for my history lessons. I might get some images about Poppinville's charter for comparison?

[allodial]

... with the METRO organization development since 1958 I argue that municipal jurisdiction, City of XXXXX worldwide prevails.

Is that to say that the so-called "governments" are able to only function as municipal corporations or subdivisions of municipal corporations and no more--that they are as a result of METRO severely blunted? It seems that cities are favored by some for the same reason scrip is favored. Its interesting that Federal Reserve Banks are always associated with a city (i.e. municipal corporation) rather than with a county.

Police officer: Do you live in "the city"?
Respondent: No. I live in my house.
Police officer: Is your house in "the city"?
Respondent: No. Its on the side of a hill.

Note, "the city" vs. "the City of Chicago". (Canada they say means "village".) A village is a type of municipal corporation or municipality. Do you live in the kanata? (However there are some say that Canada is named after the Portuguese word for river or byway. (Page 159 of this book.)) In the village or in the river or in the street? Take your pick?

[David Merrill]

Motla68 has not been posting for quite some time.

It is however good to hear passion about lessons learned. It puts off potential new suitors how I will tell them they are where I was in the late '90's... So I can relate to how you feel.

Your gist seems to be about not owning or being responsible for anything? I am not getting where you are coming from. Sometimes I can place a pundit's name or doctrine title though.


P.S. I have been studying Science of Mind - no necessarily buying into it - Ernest Shurtleff HOLMES was a channel. A Course in Miracles is also taught under the same roof. That is channeling too.

I have been looking into it enough to comprehend remembering or unity, whatever you want to call the metaphysics of attributing part or all of experiencing this reality as something we create or co-create. - Even miscreate by our ego being in charge...

This is something I read into your proposition therefore - that we own anything in the physical reality at all. If you perceive there is a Creator God, then does not He own everything. That is to say, if God is out there and not within you according to Genesis - the Image and Likeness doctrine.

The money system says, IN GOD WE TRUST. Therefore the money at least declares that God is the Trustee. The declaration went on the money at about the same time the federal government began printing fiat currency. So I suppose it is to say, IN COLORADO WE TRUST being that the first fiat began here based on the GILPIN NOTES.

[ariacook]

Not a soul wants to pay taxes. Every person does, however, want the stuff taxes pay for though some differ on how they should be collected. State income taxes are despised by some and a few states are considering ditching them, but there's evidence as to how good and bad they really are.

[David Merrill]

Not a soul wants to pay taxes. Every person does, however, want the stuff taxes pay for though some differ on how they should be collected. State income taxes are despised by some and a few states are considering ditching them, but there's evidence as to how good and bad they really are.

Thanks for posting that.

I am not sure if it is the opening paragraph you quoted or the nature of the article itself you are expressing as interesting. The idea of "fair share" in the topic sentence though, always strikes a sour note with me. It is a very difficult matter to hash out with skeptics who would label me a tax protester.

For 100 years now come December 23 Congress has approved elastic currency and for this nation it has smoothed over, starting with the Great Depression many a missed meal and leaky roof. Then it would seem for a millennium China has build a Wall and studied English and has been buying up bonds of debt so that they might have a nice place to move when the industry poisons geographic China. I posted articles about A-China-Ca as this website was being built years ago.

Then there are the economic woes that spread like Bail-in in Greece - just plain socializing the wealthy.

The Fed act introduced fractional lending that expanded the money supply and was built to be abolished in twenty years. It is now a hundred years. Does that mean it is too late to solve the bad idea in the manner intended by Congress?

[Freed Gerdes]

The Fed now makes sure you pay your 'fair share' whether you choose to do so voluntarily or not, by debasing the currency. I just heard an argument similar to the 'every person wants the stuff taxes pay for' concerning the roads. Who owns the roads? Does the government own the road? They paid for it, but with money they stole from the citizens. Following other arguments presented above, the state exists for the benefit of the citizens, established with their consent. So I consented to let the state build the road, with tax money they took from me at gunpoint (I did not consent to the tax demanded; it was foisted on me by subterfuge and deceit, and since becoming aware of the fraud involved, I have chosen not to pay the tax in the future). Actually, since money is fungible, it is unclear which tax money was used to build the road, although the highway fuel tax is specifically designated for this purpose, and I did consent to pay that tax when I purchased gasoline, so I own the road, and this argument fails.

Now, what is your fair share? That would depend entirely on what services, provided by the government, you expect to consume during the tax year, or maybe all future tax years. A ridiculous concept, and one that is put forward to try to legitimize theft. Your fair share is whatever you choose to voluntarily contribute, since the association with the government is voluntary. And the only legitimate purpose of government (per Lysander Spooner) is to protect property rights and provide for defense against foreign enemies, surely 1% of your income should be sufficient for those legitimate purposes. Everything else the Federal (corporate) government does is organized theft, designed to take the maximum amount of money/resources from one group (in this case Republicans and Tea Party libertarians) and give it to another group (the Free Shit Army, aka Democrat voters, welfare recipients, and illegal immigrants). Since the Federal Reserve is already taking 10% of your earnings every year through counterfeiting of the currency, you have no further obligation to contribute, but of course you can do so out of charity if you choose...

[JohnnyCash]

The simplest way to avoid that 10% inflation hit, Freed, is to use a different currency. For example, if you used bitcoin, a digital currency that bypasses government & central banking altogether, not only would you avoid the Fed debasement, you'd avoid taxation as well. And if you had earlier stored some of your savings in bitcoin, you'd be settin' pretty right about now: https://coinbase.com/charts

[Peaceful]

Freed, I loved your post about roads. So many people can sudden passion for roads when trying to justify taxation. They usually fail to differentiate between taxes at the gas pump or otherwise that pay for roads vs. the misconception that income taxes do. I always love to point out states with no income taxes where I noticed a lot of roads when I passed through them.

This may be a bit off topic here, but if you ever have fun dealing with not papers, but PEOPLE agents of a labor board or IRS, I find it amazing how often misconceptions of words play in, this time more dangerous if you fall for it. When agents ask if you or one that pays you if you are "making any money" or were "paid money", at least mentally (watch what you say out loud) the answer should truthfully be "NO." You were not paid in any money. If cash, any "money" you have from working is more likely FRNs (maybe legal tender, but not 'MONEY'), unless said cash includes loose change in coins. That coinage may be 'Money' but not taxable, being there are no federal reserve coins, only minted Treasury coins.

With FRN's, is it not truthful that you neither "made" money (such an odd phrase) by minting your own currency, NOR received money being that FRNs are not 'money' but instead papers you can exchange/trade or CONVERT INTO money? You DID receive money if paid by gold/silver coins or Treasury coins (pennies, dimes, etc.), but why would any agent need to ask you about that non-taxable activity anymore than asking if you ate Lucky Charms cereal for breakfast? If you get paid by check or direct deposit even, I still don't see where anyone was given nor made any lawful definition of 'MONEY'... only an option to convert what was given into money.

Not debating what constitutes as taxable activity, I am aware of the often regurgitated terms agents are trained with to attempt to trip you up. My point here is merely to illustrate the odd, but constant wording that is SPOKEN (vs. written) by agents and the importance to only handle things in writing as best you can.

[Freed Gerdes]

I am well aware of bitcoin, JC, and have considered putting some assets into it, but I am not that computer literate, and am discouraged by the NSA. Plus bitcoins have not found wide acceptance yet, although that is changing fast. I see the banksters continuing to mess with bitcoin, using pump and dump schemes to cause users to doubt the exchange value of the unit, much as they are manipulating the price of gold to cause the masses to refuse to see it as a stable store of value. If you perceive the lengths the US neocons are willing to go to to keep Iran from selling oil in currency other than dollars, and now refusing to allow Iran to sell oil for gold [see this link: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-1...lear-work.html], you will understand that the banksters have a stranglehold on the entire world economy, and they will not give it up without a fight, perhaps using nuclear weapons. So I see a rough road ahead for bitcoins...