Private Credit vs Public Money in re Taxation

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

This question is directed to David Merrill, and all others as well. (we all know David has posted a lot here on the issue of private fed credit so I ask for his particular response, besides anyone else's...)

I understand that this concept of private credit is being held to create the nexus for taxation. I wonder, what indirect taxes are constitutionally permissible based on the (rare these days) public money economy? Is it possible to even participate in social security w/o private credit?

How does the income taxation contemplated in the 16th amendment work (if at all) when the transactions are in public money? What are the other connections for "revenue-taxable events", in lawful u.s. money instead of private credit?

Btw- there may really be 3 money systems here- private Fed credit, public treasury money, and actual legal tender gold and silver coins. Since $50 in zero-interest public treasury money is still worth far less than a troy ounce of gold...

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

This question is directed to David Merrill, and all others as well. (we all know David has posted a lot here on the issue of private fed credit so I ask for his particular response, besides anyone else's...)

I have tried to address the entire issue in two videos:

http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/convincing.html
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...06869308133588


http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...04912516&hl=en

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

I understand that this concept of private credit is being held to create the nexus for taxation. I wonder, what indirect taxes are constitutionally permissible based on the (rare these days) public money economy? Is it possible to even participate in social security w/o private credit?

For simplicity note where the US is in debt:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2187rank.html

In my first video - the 1984 Article anyway, there is a SC case saying that SSA benefits are to be considered taxation and subject the taxpayer to Title 26 USC - the Internal Revenue Code.

So in a simple scenario, the boss (employer) takes out SSI payments and Withholdings before Joe goes home friday afternoon with his $350 paycheck. He drops in at the boss's bank to cash it but specifies:

Redeemed in lawful money pursuant to Title 12 USC §411

Joseph Henry (signed) dba Joseph H. Jones (printed)

And to designate a living man, let's put a red thumbprint on that signature.

Social Security is still structured like insurance (and few people know that after 10 years [40 quarters] you can stop paying the premiums and still get the benefits when you reach 65). So the payments you contribute can be viewed as premiums upon a future insurance claim.

The Withholdings, let's say $50/paycheck are held in account with the IRS. And at the end of the tax year, Joe can file for a full refund. He should send a few copies of his non-endorsed paychecks with the 1040 Form to explain why there were withholdings taken but no taxable income.

I wonder, what indirect taxes are constitutionally permissible based on the (rare these days) public money economy?

I am not evading this question - simply pointing out that "public" often means "governmental". Look it up in law dictionaries. And like "United States" when a term has two or three different meanings it becomes difficult to answer a question with that word in it, in only the context of one definition. Therefore I tried to express a simple scenario and of course point out that when one redeems lawful money, the amount of the paycheck is drawn off the national debt - instead of added on.

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

How does the income taxation contemplated in the 16th amendment work (if at all) when the transactions are in public money? What are the other connections for "revenue-taxable events", in lawful u.s. money instead of private credit?

In my first video about the 1984 Article a major purpose of the 16th Amendment is described at Minute Mark 20:00. To answer your question though, the Supreme Court has ruled that Income Tax is unconstitutional. Therefore Income Tax had to be constructed in private contract and the 16th Amendment allows these private contracts to be tried in the courts of the US.

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

Btw- there may really be 3 money systems here- private Fed credit, public treasury money, and actual legal tender gold and silver coins. Since $50 in zero-interest public treasury money is still worth far less than a troy ounce of gold...

Yes. You have spoken about this. I believe that you are including numismatics as the third system. I presented Doug Mudd at the Numismatics Society in Colorado Springs with a written question about redeeming lawful money. Amber, the curator/librarian and Doug first ignored me as though they never got the written request. But on a second or third trip there, Doug finally could hold his peace no longer. He was very annoyed that I came to a numismatic society to get answers about US notes and FRNs. It became clear that both Amber and Doug had been considering my letter quite a bit. At least according to such experts, numismatics is a forum for collectors and albeit maybe a currency system in itself, is simply an amusement - to take a coin away from its weight in metal.

But all in all I feel that numismatics translates when exchanging the coins buying and selling, to the accepted currency system - US notes at $42.22/ounce gold or more commonly FRNs at about $900/ounce gold. If you go between these windows, you will crash the elasticity of the FRN since amendments to the Bretton Woods Agreements in 1976. See the footnotes:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releas...0608assets.htm



Regards,

David Merrill.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

A private act may be published as a public law when the general public is afforded the opportunity of participating in the operation of the private law. The Internal Revenue Code is an example of private law which does not exclude the voluntary participation of the general public. Had the Internal Revenue Code been written as substantive public law, the code would be repugnant to the Constitution, since no one could be compelled to file a return and thereby become a witness against himself. Under the fifty titles listed on the preface page of the United States Code, the Internal Revenue Code (26 USC) is listed as having not been enacted as substantive public law, conceding that the Internal Revenue Code is private law. Bouvier declares that private law "relates to private matters which do not concern the public at large." It is the voluntary use of private credit which imposes upon the user the quasi contractual...

how does this stand in light of this quote from "U.S. vs WARE"

In sum, counsel's position is contrary to the monetary provisions of the Constitution which are set forth in Article I, s 8 . These provisions plainly empower Congress to deal with all monetary problems and to declare what constitutes legal tender. His argument is also in conflict with the Acts of Congress which establish money policies as well as rulings of the Supreme Court on this subject. Therefore, the theme which he advances, namely that the court should reestablish the gold standard at least for purposes of considering his client's case, is contrary to all federal law on the subject, constitutional, statutory and judicial decisions. Counsel loses sight of the fact that a change in the standard as to legal tender would not exclusively apply to the accused. It would apply to the government as well. Thus, the change would not effect his obligation to file a tax return.

this seems to imply that the monetary standard used doesn't affect tax obligations.

Originally Posted by David Merrill

To answer your question though, the Supreme Court has ruled that Income Tax is unconstitutional. Therefore Income Tax had to be constructed in private contract and the 16th Amendment allows these private contracts to be tried in the courts of the US.

which case(s)?

[indio007]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

this seems to imply that the monetary standard used doesn't affect tax obligations.

Close .. what it says, is the form of legal tender doesn't affect whether there is a tax obligation or isn't one.

Even if there is a gold standard. The paper has no intrinsic value and is nothing more than a promise to pay.
What the promise to pay relates to is pretty much irrelevant ... it could be cottage cheese . it don't matter.

A tax obligation arises the instant you realize a gain benefit or interest from the usage of someone elses proprietary issue of currency. It must be refunded.

People seem to forget the law shuns profit.

The court is merely saying "Back the legal tender with whatever you want... it's still the gov't issue of currency and you used it. As an operation of law, there is a tax obligation."

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Originally Posted by indio007

A tax obligation arises the instant you realize a gain benefit or interest from the usage of someone elses proprietary issue of currency. It must be refunded.

People seem to forget the law shuns profit.

The court is merely saying "Back the legal tender with whatever you want... it's still the gov't issue of currency and you used it. As an operation of law, there is a tax obligation."

How does the above stand with this:

According to Bouvier, public money is the money which Congress can tax for public purposes mandated by the Constitution.

it seems that with the 16th amendment, indirect taxes on income are valid no matter which money is used.

The only difference is the constitutional limitation on the purpose of raising the revenue. Which seems more political than judicial.

[indio007]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

How does the above stand with this:



it seems that with the 16th amendment, indirect taxes on income are valid no matter which money is used.

Exactly ... and no matter who the issuer is. If you issue private currency and another entity accepts and uses it in the course of business , and that usage subsequently realizes a profit . That profit can be taxed and (re)venued to the source.

The only difference is the constitutional limitation on the purpose of raising the revenue. Which seems more political than judicial.

The income tax is an excise tax. It's a tax on the usage of the currency. Anyone can opt out of using it at any time.

It's a privilege tax.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

how does this stand in light of this quote from "U.S. vs WARE"

In Ware; according to the quote provided, the litigant demanded metals. I have addressed this. In Rickman; the litigant already endorsed private credit and rendered his FRNs as good as lawful money. So the court (9th Circuit) was saying effectively by endorsing private credit he waived his right to redeem lawful money. However the court admitted that FRNs are not lawful money - they are redeemable in lawful money.


this seems to imply that the monetary standard used doesn't affect tax obligations.

If one is not endorsing private credit from the Fed, the Fed is not involved. Ergo, no tax obligation. Ware got sidetracked saying that the court should view his case specially in an artificial light about metals. At least that is what I see at a glance. Congress says in Ware that US notes shall be lawful money and Congress says that FRNs are redeemable in lawful money.

which case(s)?

I got that from the 1984 Article. I have heard several times that until central banking in America (1913) and the 16th Amendment allowing private contracts to be prosecuted in the courts of the US, that a few initial attempts to install an income tax failed. Mainly that 1894 Decision.

http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/convincing.html
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...06869308133588

In 'Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust Co.' 158 U.S. 601 (1895) the Supreme Court had declared the income tax of 1894 to be repugnant to the Constitution, holding that taxation of rents, wages and salaries must conform to the rule of apportionment. However, when this decision was rendered, there was no privately owned central bank issuing private credit and currency but rather public money in the form of legal tender notes and coins of the United States circulated.

Regards,

David Merrill.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

I have heard several times that until central banking in America (1913) and the 16th Amendment allowing private contracts to be prosecuted in the courts of the US, that a few initial attempts to install an income tax failed. Mainly that 1894 Decision.

thats a good observation- it's often possible to infer a cause from a result. There was indeed a reason for the 16th amendment. Som e of our attorney-friends here mentioned that after 100 years, the POLLOCK case was actually overturned anyway- perhaps in light of the current financial system.

Originally Posted by indio007)

If you issue private currency and another entity accepts and uses it in the course of business , and that usage subsequently realizes a profit . That profit can be taxed and (re)venued to the source.

so is redeemed debt-free u.s. treasury lawful money taxable on it's use? As in quarters dimes nickels pennies and any "noted representation" thereof?

and how does gold and silver coinage fit into this?

as in :

when this decision was rendered, there was no privately owned central bank issuing private credit and currency but rather public money in the form of legal tender notes and coins of the United States circulated.

so is the 16th amendment moot at this point?

If you have been observing some of the other threads, it has become quite apparent that "gain and profit" is a result, not the first cause.

The answer "use of private credit" or any other privilege makes sense...I am seeking the 'sources' upon which taxation is applied.

[Sapiens]

Originally Posted by indio007

People seem to forget the law shuns profit.

Indio, can you please explain this.

Thank you.

-Sapiens

[indio007]

Originally Posted by Sapiens

Indio, can you please explain this.

Thank you.

-Sapiens

It might take me awhile to dig up the exact citation. I read it awhile back and I can't remember exactly where.
I will look though.

The idea is any transaction or series of transactions between parties is supposed to be par or balanced. If someone sells you something and you sell it for more than you paid you have a profit. This is against equity. Profit isn't unlawful it's just not the optimum application of the law. Scales of justice and all that crap.