A great blow was struck to the freedoms our forefathers died to secure when we allowed these taxes to be instituted, and normalized.
The 4th amendment to the bill of rights is clear.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated”
For the govt. to come to your home and take what is yours is a clear violation of one of the documents our whole nation was founded upon.
I don’t see how we can call ourselves a free nation when just living is justification for people with guns to come and take all you own.
It makes DC a den of thieves, and our supreme court a court of fools.
Seems like the only sorta fair tax must be a sales tax.
The govt provides the safety to make the money, to buy nice stuff. So the more you buy, the more taxes you pay.
Payroll, and other taxes on large employers may be justified as well. They receive more benefit from the govt. than any individual ever will. They can pay for that.
Yeah sure corporations will pass that tax onto us. We pay it either way. Only one way preserves our rights, and the other is an acknowledgment that our rights are meaningless if the govt. says so.
Anyone who violates your home for any reason is a foul criminal. Having a badge, or other credentials does not change that.
A reasonable tariff, 5-8%, on all goods coming in is a good way for the government to earn revenue without having too much power over the citizenry. Another good way to earn revenue is for it to provide communications and transportation infrastructure and charge user fees. See my P4P project description here: How Do We Escape the Panopticon? - by V. N. Alexander
The problem with sales tax is the seller has to collect it and keep records, which the state is then able to demand to inspect.
I follow Henry George in realizing that land tax is necessary on excessive ownership. Land is a finite natural resource and if the super wealthy can buy it up, they can hoard it. Everyone would get to buy and own an average size lot for the area (bigger for family farms) property tax free, with progressive taxes being levied on any one or corporation who owns larger than average lots.
Maybe a flat yearly fee on private business, per location, and dependent on the type of business. Like small retail store in the city, small rural store, large retail, industrial, etc.
And public corporations’ books should be open to inspection.
I forgot to say no property tax on a primary residence. Because yeah, someone could own 1000’s of homes and sit on them, or flood the market with them just to manipulate the housing market.
I personally think banks, and utilities, possibly other things deemed necessities, like public transport, should be owned by the public.
People cry socialism!, so instead we develop things with our money then basically gift it all to companies who immediately cut corners to maximize profits.
And it seems like instead of havign govt. controlled banks, we now have bank run govt. With banks that give themselves free money causing inflation, devaluing, of all our currency.
They can lend non-existent money now with I think just 5% actual funds in reserve. We’d go to jail if we tried a scam like that. They definitely shouldn’t earn any interest on the new money they are creating.
At least have one govt. bank, that did all the money creating, so it would profit us, as it devalued our money, and sort of equal out.
It is true that Creator endowed rights and liberties aren’t taxable. However, government privileges are subject to and object of the authority of the gubmint.
The question : how did your right to labor become a revenue taxable privilege?
For most Americans, wages became taxable via FICA. No law compels participation. No law punishes non-participants, hence the tax is voluntary.
Our consent to national socialism is the basis for the “income tax” on wages.
. . .
However, another point is that consenting citizens waived / surrendered their endowed rights.
Geo.Wash. Sums it up nicely in 1783 - long before the constitution
. . .
“It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.”
_ _ _ George Washington; “Sentiments on a Peace Establishment” in a letter to Alexander Hamilton (2 May 1783); published in The Writings of George Washington (1938), edited by John C. Fitzpatrick, Vol. 26, p. 289.
IN SHORT, NO citizen has any endowed right to life, liberty or private property, since he OWES a duty to the STATE, to defend it and pay for it. Shut up, sit down, pay and obey.
CONSENT OF THE CITIZENRY
’ Our theory of government and governmental powers is wholly at variance with that urged by appellant herein. The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and restricted only to the extent that they have been VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED BY THE CITIZENSHIP to the agencies of government. The people’s rights are not derived from the government, but the government’s authority comes from the people. The Constitution but states again these rights already existing, and when legislative encroachment by the nation, state, or municipality invade these original and permanent rights, it is the duty of the courts to so declare, and to afford the necessary relief. The fewer restrictions that surround the individual liberties of the citizen, except those for the preservation of the public health, safety, and morals, the more contented the people and the more successful the democracy.’
_ _ _ City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944
Only those who consent to be governed, are obligated to support and defend their sovereign governments. This was also stated in the Declaration wherein the Founders (and all subsequent citizens) pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor (obedience). Folks who have pledged their lives and property to the STATE have NOTHING to squawk about !
(What? They didn’t tell you this in government approved indoctrination centers? Fortunately, all facts are in the public record available at any county courthouse law library.)
While I haven’t read your essay (How Do We Escape the Panopticon?) in great detail, I did scan it. I think you are on point on some issues but not others. For example, why not just amend the consitution to give every person the privacy that the Declaration of Independence cites? If there were an amendment added to the Bill of Rights stating that all citizens (not persons) have a right to privacy in their homes, their thoughts, and in their communications and those rights cannot be assigned without due process and records of ceding. Make it clear that checking a box on a screen does not allow or cause one to relinquish those rights. Make it a crime punishable by seizure of assets for anyone to abrogate or violate those rights. Make facial recognition by technical means a crime. Make tracking cellular phones a crime. Require cell phone makers provide software options that allow users to turn off all radio signal transmission and other means of tracking unless the user opts to turn them on. I’m no lawyer (by the Grace of Almighty God) but I’m confident wording to stop the intrusion on our lives could be crafted and passed into law, but I won’t hold my breath until congress acts to do so. No, that would have to be done by a Convention of States under Article V. If I missed your point, please make it again, more carefully.
Turning to government revenue. I don’t understand your statement: “The problem with sales tax is the seller has to collect it and keep records, which the state is then able to demand to inspect.” I think you misspoke, or you are in error in assuming that sales taxes would be identifiable by one paying them. We already have sales taxes in every state and territory. Sellers of goods and services add their amounts to purchases and remit the amounts collected in aggregate to the states - without any identification of the individuals who paid them. A federal sales tax could be administered in the same way. By having providers of goods and services collect and remit those taxes in the aggregate to the states and the states, in turn, remitting those amounts in the aggregate to the federal government, there would be no ability to identify who paid them or for what goods or services. Referring to my previous paragraph, amendments protecting the rights to privacy should be extended to all electronic transactions making it illegal for anyone to collect data from them without court orders.
Michael’s idea of payroll and other taxes on corporations is intriguing. I wish he had been more specific.
Your idea of and across-the-board tariff needs expansion. I would rather see a tax placed on foreign goods and services for access to American markets based on revenues collected. For example, Apple would have to pay a percentage tax on the gross sales of iPhones in the US in order to have access to the market and China would have to pay a percentage of gross sales for any goods their government sells in the US. Recognizing that such taxes would require a great deal of tracking and tracing - and that smuggling and black market skullduggery would be incented - I’m confident that modern technology is up to the task - if its creation and use is kept out of the hands of bureaucrats. Place the onus on the private sector and shift personnel a the IRS to auditing that process instead of income tax returns.
For those who argue that a federal income tax would be regressive, provision must be made to provide scaled credits based on household income (with no income exclusions and limits on ownership of assets). Only those who wished to receive the credit would be required to file income tax returns to prove their income. It would be far simpler than the current morass that is the US tax code.
There are a few government run institutions in America that work reasonably well . . . police and fire protection, water and sewer service, waste collection and disposal, streets and roads, . . . They are mostly local level services. Streets and roads do fall to the states in most cases but federal funds are involved. The USPS (despite VN Alexander’s protestations of faith in the institution) is a prime example of why the federal government should not provide the service. Sure, the USPS is quasi-public but certainly does not compete in a free market economy. I think it has probably outlived its usefulness and should be abolished.
The banking industry performed far far better before interstate banking was legalized. Consolidation in that industry put far too much money and power into far too few hands. Mega-banks should be broken up. States should regulate banks with federal audit supervision of both the states and the banks states regulate. Investment banks should be broken up to, but I don’t have a plan for doing so. I don’t know but I suspect a select group of people like Scott Bessent and others could devise a plan.
The best - and perhaps only - way to protect the US dollar is to stop inflation. Inflaction is mostly caused by government printing money to cover borrowing occasioned by deficit budgets. There have been calls for a balanced budget amendment in the past. That movement should be revived but it can only happen if enough states petition for a constitutional convention of states to consider and craft an amendment to the constitution. Deficit budgets should be unconstitutional unless the POTUS has declared a national emergency, congress has affirmed that declaration by a super-majority vote in both chamers (2/3rd seems about right), a pre-determined definition of what would constitute an end to the emergency built into the declaration, and preventing congress to raise taxes to increase revenues to balance a budget. Congress should not be in the business of spreading tax dollars to any entities through outright gifts. Instead, if any state or local government has needs it cannot meet, they should be required to borrow from the federal government at market interest rates with fixed terms for repayment with consequences for default that include turning governors and legislatures out of office.
Thank you, Ahr, for taking the time to scan my article and to write a reply to it that’s almost as long.
To answer your questions would take me longer than it would for you to just read my article more carefully.
If only those who consent to pay taxes / duties / tariffs (whatever you call the funds necessary to running a government) pay them, do you honestly think that enough money could ever be collected to pay for services governments provides? It’s easier to believe that he moon is made of cheese! You quoted Washington who clearly believed in divine rights but also believe in duty to the state (a collection of people not the entities that make up ‘government’).
It would be closer to an equal state if people paid according to the value received for services of the state. Consider that you pay for water and sewer service based on meters recording your usage. How would one assess those benefits that are not directly measurable, such as national defense? One method might be to base it on the value of assets owned or controlled by individuals and groups or the revenues produced by those assets or some combination of both. Shouldn’t people who live in mansions pay more for fire and police protection - based on what is being protected - than people who live in modest homes? Should renters pay for fire protection or should the owners of the properties they rent? Sales taxes are payments for access to the goods and services markets provide, no? Why not tax both buyers and sellers/service-providers who use those markets?
Your post fails to recognize the most basic of economic principals: There is no such thing as a free lunch. Somebody pays for everything that is touted as being free.
Your ideas need further definition and justification.
Feel free to express your opinions. But they do not comply with existing law and court citations.
It is understandable. After 92 years of national socialism, and ‘emergency rules,’ most Americans have no clue.
Just go visit your local county courthouse law library and read the law for yourself.
Write a polite questionnaire to your public servants, judges, district attorneys, sheriffs, legislators, etc, and ask these questions:
How and when did I give consent to be governed?
How and when did I surrender my Creator endowed rights in exchange for government privileges, subject to taxation?
How and when did you inform me that I had consented to mandatory civic duties that obviously abrogated my endowed rights to life and liberty?
Why aren’t there any lawful dollars in circulation?
How can I alienate title to private property without lawful money?
Pursuant to the Constitution, Congress can only coin money (stamp bullion) or borrow money, therefore Congress cannot create money (nor bullion). And it cannot give such a power to anyone else. Who has the power to create money?
What statute or treaty imposes an obligation to enroll into FICA before living and working in the USA? And if there is none, what is the procedure to withdraw consent and receive a refund of all taxes erroneously paid due to fraud used to induce participation?
Under money madness, the basic economic principle is " Whoever makes the money, rules."
Under the USCON, Congress has the power to “coin money” (stamp bullion) and to “borrow money”. If Congress had the power to CREATE money (bullion) why would it need the power to borrow it?
Why tax it back before spending it?
. . .
Simple : government is not “printing money” but borrowing it.
12 USC Sec 411
‘… The said notes shall be OBLIGATIONS of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in LAWFUL MONEY on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.’
OBLIGATION - A debt instrument, such as a loan, mortgage, or bond.
The dollar bill (FRN) is an IOU, issued on the authority of Congress to BORROW money.
Ahem - where’s the lawful money lent to the Congress?
LAWFUL MONEY - “The terms ‘lawful money’ and ‘lawful money of the United States’ shall be construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States…”
Look around - do you see any gold or silver dollars in circulation?
Since 1933, Congress will not redeem their IOUs with lawful money. They’re busted, kaput, dead broke. . . and we sheeple voluntarily underwrite them, via FICA.
“The Social Security Act does not require an individual to have a Social Security Number (SSN) to live and work within the United States, nor does it require an SSN simply for the purpose of having one…”
The Social Security Administration
Get your own personalized letter from the SocSecAdmin . . .
Read the law for yourself . . .
SOCIAL SECURITY ACT OF 1935 FULL TEXT
In two important cases, Helvering v. Davis and Flemming v. Nestor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Social Security taxes are simply taxes and convey no property or contractual rights to Social Security benefits. Benefits are at the sole discretion of Congress.
“. . .Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything. This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value for themselves, but for what they will buy. In another sense, because they are legal tender, Federal Reserve notes are “backed” by all [your] goods and services in the economy.”
FRNs are not redeemable since 1933 (a violation of Title 12 USC Sec 411);
Government is therefore bankrupt;
FRNs are worthless;
FDR confiscated all lawful money (gold coin) in 1933;
FRNs are legal tender on obligated parties; (Federal government is an obligated party, according to 12 USC Sec. 411) and
They are backed by YOUR goods and labor (FICA makes all participants into obligated parties [contributors] on said notes, so they become legal tender). If you have an account and SocSec number, you’re a human resource pledged as collateral.
Great job, CONgress! Kite bad checks and get the muggles to underwrite them!
FYI : gold dollars are defined in the Coinage Act of 1792.
244,000 x 32151 = 7,844,844,000 troy ounces
$162,167,317,829 in gold coin, pursuant to the Coinage Act of 1792.
[$162 billion]
Debt : $36,892 Billion (May 24, 2025)
ASK CONGRESS TO EXPLAIN OWING $36,892 BILLION WHEN ONLY $162 BILLION DOLLARS IN GOLD EXIST WORLDWIDE.
eCONomics = CON Game.
DENOUNCE THE FRAUD?
It is obvious that CONgress was never lent $36.9 trillion dollars (in gold), so the obligation to repay $36.9 trillion dollars cannot be lawful or even possible.
BUT
“…The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law… shall not be questioned.”
. . . clause 4, 14th amendment, USCON
You almost had it. People and family trusts shall own property tax free. Any incorporation, LLC, governmental or other business shall pay a 20 percent annual tax unless they sublet property to family farms or family ranching.
Property tax is unconstitutional but the income tax is simply misrepresented and people just need to educate themselves. Not DJT, Ron Paul or anyone else understands that and certainly won’t tell us, but it’s true. It’s not a direct tax like they would have you believe. It’s an excise and is more akin to a sales tax. It is a tax on federal privilege. You have to be benefitting from the federal government to be liable for it.
That should be considered a monopoly and shouldn’t be allowed, or there should at least be a cap on how much land you can own before getting taxed, especially for corporations
I’ve studied it a bit, so I know that’s true. I heard some people sued successfully over having their property stolen for tax evasion. But it doesn’t change anything. It’s still applied in an unconstitutional manner.
I think we need to not vote for anyone who is not onboard with total abolition, and restructuring in a manner that protects citizens rights.
I think it must be very simple. Like a sales tax.
I think the govt. should be in the business of banking and maybe insurance. Even a dimwit could turn 3 trillion, or whatever the current revenues are, into a much larger sum. Bank loans, credit card laons, and other loans, are basically zero risk in aggregate these days. So it’s criminal that private entities are earning huge interest rates on them. Let the govt. earn that interest, and be the largest stock holder on wall street.
Maybe interest woudl again be based on risk.
Currently private banks create new money for themselves, by loaning non-existent money, and then earning interest on that as well. I think they only need 5% in reserve or something crazy. They should only be collecting interest on the 5% they actually had to loan. At the very least the interest on the rest of that new money should all go to the govt.
But then they just won’t lend, and growth would be hampered. So I think taking away all lending that makes new money makes sense.
