It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by koji_K
I don't want to sound closed-minded, but you lost me with this part. David Icke is the guy who writes about lizard-like aliens controlling the world?
Originally posted by koji_K
I know there are some arguments to be made against the failure of the free-banking era, but can you offer me anything that I could respectfully offer as a source in, say, a discussion with a constitutional theorist or banking law historian? (You mention he cites sources, so I suppose I will look through his books next time I'm in the bookstore.)
Originally posted by koji_K
Further, I'm not sure what you mean about printing the money. Yes, the Fed controls the money supply, through the purchase and sale of treasury bonds.
Originally posted by koji_K
The treasury is the only government agency authorized to actually print money, although I have no doubt the government can authorize national banks to do so if it pleased, like some private banks do in the UK. The lesson of the free banking era I was trying to convey was the danger in letting just anyone print their own money. Such money becomes valueless without safeguards, which the states proved unwilling to implement.
-koji K.
[edit on 17-5-2005 by koji_K]
Originally posted by koji_K
Originally posted by n01ukn0w
I think the correct question should have been, where in the Internal Revenue Code is anyone made liable to pay income taxes. Just because somebody says you are liable, doen't mean you are liable. Where in the Code is the income tax imposed and makes Americans, Citizens or anyone for that matter liable to pay? A statute must be explicit in stating that YOU are liable and must pay the specified tax. If you can find a statute that imposes an income tax, makes you liable, and states that you must pay that tax, you will have done something absolutely amazing! Why? Because the statue does not exist. Don't take my word for it. Look it up yourself.
US Code of Laws Title 26
You'll find it here, the very first statute in the code (26 USC (A)(1)(a)(i)):
frwebgate.access.gpo.gov...:+26USC1
You are generally correct, if someone says you are liable, it doesn't mean you are liable. However, that does not apply if that someone is the legislative branch of government, your democratically elected leaders who make the rules. The US Code is the most fundamental set of laws the United States has after the Constitution, and it is formulated by the two houses of congress. Remember, the legislature makes the rules, the executive enforces them, and the judicial branch interprets them. This is American government in a nutshell.
-koji K.
Originally posted by n01ukn0w
You obviously haven't studied law. Any tax imposed must state liability to apply. Congress can impose taxes all day long, but as long as no one is "liable" the tax is moot and no one has to pay. If no statute makes one "liable", then it is just words and has no effect. Take for instance section 5701(a) that imposes Tabacco taxes, 5703 (a) and (b) makes persons "liable" to pay the tax imposed by section 5701. Although you have found the statute that imposes a tax, you have found nothing that makes anyone "liable" to pay the so called income taxes. Good try though.
Originally posted by koji_K
You state that congress cannot redefine the word "income". This is true, however, the Supreme Court, as supreme interpreter of the wording of the Constitution, can.
Originally posted by n01ukn0w
koji_K I understand your hesitation about what I said. It is a touchy subject for which there are no clear answers. You know titles/lables of subchapters can not have any effect of law, they only help catagorize laws that are passed. For the life of me I can't remember the Supreme Court ruling on that one. Anyways I'm not trying to convince anyone, only that IF the laws were written equally there would be a liability clause for the income(aka employment) tax, just like the tobacco tax has a similar clause.
[edit on 17-5-2005 by n01ukn0w]