100 Years Of The Income Tax...
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (53)
sorted by:
SCOTUS had ruled the 16th amendment wasn’t even necessary, as income—what we now call capital gains—was always taxable. Wages were never included in the legal definition. All taxes on wages are unconstitutional per SCOTUS, yet here we are.
Wages and tips are NOT income. You traded your labor, the hours of your life, for that money. It was an even exchange.
INCOME is capital gains. You did nothing for the money except invest other money. The American system created more cash for you. (I'd say one to two percent tax should be enough for the tiny fedgov we SHOULD have).
I'd like to see the country try scrapping all taxes in favor of a love-offering basis. Like church. You get to give whatever amount your heart and mind lead you to give. If you're getting good and respectful service from your tiny fedgov, you give more. If not, you don't. That'll teach them to do good and stay tiny.
Thought I just said that but yeah. There's literally no case law overturning the SCOTUS cases on this matter and yet somehow everyone just fell in line and started paying "income tax" on their wages. Legal illiteracy is a crime in this country. The only reason they get away with it is that just like with the January 6ers, anybody in recent decades who tried to fight the color of law system we have was met with swift penalties and never allowed appeals high enough to make a difference.
The same is true regarding our right of travel/locomotion. SCOTUS has ruled like 19 different times that we don't need a license to ride our cars (drive has a legal definition and it's how they get us, by replacing "ride" with "drive" in common vernacular, forcing us through legal language into something we never needed to involve ourselves with). But try fighting the system on that point and see what happens. Just not worth the headache so even when people know the truth, such as me, we fall in line.
Interesting. I assume horse and buggy drivers didn't require a license.
Horse and buggy RIDERS didn't. DRIVERS did. That's the word they used to swindle the public on the topic.
A driver is someone who transports goods and people from place to place on public roads for pay. That can be regulated and thus, is subject to licensure.
A rider is someone who merely uses public roads to get around by whatever means they have available for any reason other than employment.
To simplify the idea, it actually does help to go back to horse and buggy days.
You ride a horse. You drive cattle. But you're still riding on a horse when you're driving cattle.
The lingo still exists in modern day when talking about bicycles and motorcycles. You ride a bike, but you..drive a car? No. None of use drive cars. Not even bus drivers or tax drivers or truck drivers "drive" any of those vehicles. They drive people in buses and taxis and they drive products in trucks. Yet this is how the lingo gets us. We work backwards logically "Oh you're a truck driver so you drive a truck, and I'm a car driver cause I drive a car." None of it is legally accurate and yet here we all are, using the lingo day and night, thinking we're subject to Vehicle Codes that have nothing to do with 90% of us.
And of course, police don't know this, and even if they do, they want to keep their job, so they don't put up with it and are more than happy to keep oppressing the people they're supposed to serve under color of law. And so many people like the idea of forcing people to pass a test to get a license to ride their cars that it's nearly impossible, even armed with the truth, to get a critical mass of people to care enough to band together and do something about it. These guys on the internet calling themselves Sovereign Citizens have tried, but more often than not they end up with a judge who doesn't want the curtain pulled back on that issue and invariably rule against them without any legal basis whatsoever.
Yeah, we agree
Didn't mean to make it seem like a disagreement there, rather to amplify your remark