A Jacobin's Perspective on the IRS

[Spartacus]

I support the income tax if it promotes economic growth.

Hungarian economist Béla Balassa outline his 6-step plan for economic growth in The Theory of Economic Integration (1961). I believe our domestic, foreign and monetary policy reflect this theory and therefore whatever advances Integration drives economic growth.

There are two issues with the income tax, if it is necessary and if it is legal.

The argument against the IRS and income tax is easy. It may be legal in a convoluted way but it required an AMENDMENT to the Constitution. In other words, the Founding Fathers made a mistake. And it wasn't a minor change, it allowed for direct taxes without being equally distributed -- one of the Communist planks.

I have long suspected Humpty Dumpty (Charles Dodgson) of authoring the US Code and Code of Federal Regulations. A relevant reminder:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all."

For example, I searched Internal Revenue Agent on http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/. It shows 3-results, the first being this:

27 CFR 26.11 (Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms)

Revenue Agent. Any duly authorized Commonwealth Internal Revenue Agent of the Department of the Treasury of Puerto Rico.

Secretary. The Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico.

Secretary or his delegate. The Secretary or any officer or employee of the Department of the Treasury of Puerto Rico duly authorized by the Secretary to perform the function mentioned or described in this part.

Then I read 31 USC Sec. 1321 which created trust fund #2 "(2) Philippine special fund (internal revenue)". Sometime later (prior to 1940), trust fund #62 was created as "(62) Puerto Rico special fund (Internal Revenue)." Note the capitalization of "Internal Revenue".

Then I read Treasury Order 120-01 (outdated) -

The terms 'Director, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division' and 'Commissioner of Internal Revenue' wherever used in regulations, rules, and instructions, and forms, issued or adopted for the administration and enforcement of the laws specified in paragraph 2 hereof, which are in effect or in use on the effective date of this Order, shall be held to mean 'the Director'.

Then I read § 7801. Authority of Department of the Treasury which says:

the term "internal revenue officer" shall, when applied to those provisions, mean any officer of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives so designated by the Attorney General

I don't want to repeat old arguments but can you explain the relationship between the IRS, Puerto Rico, the Federal Alcohol Administration (FAA) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF)?

For years I've heard about your IRS Master File but never seen one until recently. The Master File is heavily coded and through a FOIA request the IRS was forced to release its Rosetta Stone -- the infamous Document 6209, currently 674 pages. The IRS even describes it cryptically: "Document 6209 is a reference guide which contains ADP and IDRS data relative to various components of the IRS."

I have seen an IRS Master File decoded that says my friend is a cattle rancher in the US Virgin Islands. I'm told everyone's Master File says they are a resident of a Federal Territory with a funny job description.

If the IRS is so legitimate and lawful why is there all this obfuscation?

I greatly appreciate the guidance and insight of the posters here. I wanted to respond to previous posts months ago but my account (AdamW) was deleted by accident along with my posts. I re-created the account but it's restricted from posting.

I found the comments deviously brilliant -- the rational behind the Cheek defense and how much of our federal income tax goes to interest. I'm not against the FED -- I'm in awe of it.

My only contention is that as technology efficiencies increase, eventually the necessity for money will decrease. If it's true we spend 80 cents of every dollar on energy related needs, with the eventual advent of a room temperature superconductor (or ultra high efficient renewable energy), the definition of economics will change from the efficient use of scarce resources to the coherent use of limitless resources.

Therefore, the income tax should be a temporary measure to drive Economic Integration through harmonization of monetary policies and labor markets (debasement of the currencies, open borders, customs unions). This growth spawns technological innovation, which will eventually change the world for the better.

I'd greatly look forward to your responses. As another brilliant poster pointed out, my original name referenced a remarkable Bavarian philosopher.

Unlike other "tax protesters", I'm intrigued by ideas like Integration, customs unions, regional monetary unions, military Keynesianism, fractional reserve banking and any means to increase efficiencies in government and technology. I believe they emulate aspects of Godwin's Indefinite Perfectibility of Man. Thus I respect radical social planners (e.g. Dr. Robert Pastor) but I don't necessarily agree with them.

I see an intellectual Revolutions of Revolutions approaching, with the philosophical Jacobins fighting for Constitutional Republics and the Sovereignty of the individual against the Fabian Globalists' plan of Integration based on collectivism. With the failure of the Treaty of Lisbon, the fractures in the European Monetary Union and the approaching bifurcation point of globalization (too much inductance?) the world seems poised for major change.

Barack Obama offers new hope for globalization but the only way the intellectual elite will achieves HG Wells' idealistic and noble dream of an Open Conspiracy will be through Jeffersonian globalism -- one which punishes collectivist governments by sanction or by force, one with a world commodity currency and one which ensures the Natural Rights of all Men worldwide. Weishaupt and Godwin were right, this is the philosophical basis for Jesus Christ's teachings -- the ability of man to grow, learn and evolve in order to render political government useless.

Back to the campaign.

[Spartacus]

Perhaps if someone has a link to a rebuttal of Paul Andrew Mitchell's 31 Questions that may help in clearing up my mistakes.

Also here's another interesting part (non-tax related) of the US Code:

(6) Motor vehicle.— The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.

(10) Used for commercial purposes.— The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.

[Imalawman]

Yawn.

16th amendment was not necessary to tax earnings from labor - private or public sector.

IMF does not have people having funny professions in federal territories.

Stop drinking the kool-aid.

[Spartacus]

Ok, so the 16th Amendment wasn't needed to tax. BUT what is the logic in taxing? Doesn't the federal government get revenue from other sources? Show the rationale.

And you can yawn all you want, but you just ignored Federal Definitions of words without any explanation as to why they are defined that way. Why?

IRS isn't even in Title 31 except for one mention. Why?

Show me a legitimate rebuttal to Paul Andrew Michael.

And it was Flavor Aid not Kool-Aid but I guess you were never one to bother with the details eh?

Again how can you just ignore those definitions?

[Spartacus]

And I will scan and post the Master File and the copy of what the codes mean. It says my friend is a cattle rancher in the US Virgin Islands. This is a document from the IRS.

You are saying that 6209 doesn't exist or doesn't matter or what?

Or you just say ignore it?

[wserra]

I support the income tax if it promotes economic growth.

You are confused. The purpose of taxes is not to promote economic growth, but rather to fund all of the myriad tasks people want government to perform. While the imposition of taxes should take the effect on the economy into account, the taxes themselves are an extremely inefficient way to boost the economy - if they do so at all.

The argument against the IRS and income tax is easy. It may be legal in a convoluted way but it required an AMENDMENT to the Constitution.

Wrong in several ways. Perhaps a poster with more patience than I will list them.

In other words, the Founding Fathers made a mistake. And it wasn't a minor change, it allowed for direct taxes without being equally distributed -- one of the Communist planks.

Wrong in several more ways. Perhaps a poster with more patience than I will list them.

I have long suspected Humpty Dumpty (Charles Dodgson) of authoring the US Code and Code of Federal Regulations.

Humpty Dumpty wasn't Dodgson. Lewis Carroll was the pen name of Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, and Humpty Dumpty was a character in his classic Through the Looking Glass.

For example, I searched Internal Revenue Agent on http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/. It shows 3-results, the first being this:

27 CFR 26.11 (Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms)

Revenue Agent. Any duly authorized Commonwealth Internal Revenue Agent of the Department of the Treasury of Puerto Rico.

Secretary. The Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico.

Secretary or his delegate. The Secretary or any officer or employee of the Department of the Treasury of Puerto Rico duly authorized by the Secretary to perform the function mentioned or described in this part.

Which is taken from (and only applies to) Part 26 of Title 27, entitled "PART 26—LIQUORS AND ARTICLES FROM PUERTO RICO AND THE VIRGIN ISLANDS". Were you concerned with a matter dealing with stuff from Puerto Rico or the USVI? If not, why do you worry about this definition?

If the IRS is so legitimate and lawful why is there all this obfuscation?

Enough. Let's be polite and just say that you're easily obfuscated.

[wserra]

Show me a legitimate rebuttal to Paul Andrew Michael.

Consult DSM-IV.

[Demosthenes]

BUT what is the logic in taxing? Doesn't the federal government get revenue from other sources? Show the rationale.

Congress passed the income tax into law because they needed the money. The first income tax was introduced in the 1860s to pay for the Civil War. The government had simply been printing money to pay for the war, but that caused brutal levels of inflation.

http://www.tax.org/Museum/1861-1865.htm

The modern income tax was introduced just shy of a 100 years ago because the national debt was skyrocketing. The voters were also very upset with the god-awful system of tariffs and saw the income tax as a way to spread the burden of government from the worker bees to the upper classes as well.

[Demosthenes]

And I will scan and post the Master File and the copy of what the codes mean. It says my friend is a cattle rancher in the US Virgin Islands. This is a document from the IRS.

You are saying that 6209 doesn't exist or doesn't matter or what?

Or you just say ignore it?

{snicker} You're kidding, right?

[Nikki]

Ok, so the 16th Amendment wasn't needed to tax. BUT what is the logic in taxing? Doesn't the federal government get revenue from other sources? Show the rationale.
Until such time as the federal government can set up an alternative source capable of generating as much revenue as the income tax, the income tax will stay. Do you have any suggestions for an appropriate source?

And you can yawn all you want, but you just ignored Federal Definitions of words without any explanation as to why they are defined that way. Why?
Perhaps because the alleged research conducted to come up with those definitions was directed to ignore any area of true relevance, such as 26USC.

IRS isn't even in Title 31 except for one mention. Why?
Why should it be in 31USC when 26USC handles the entire issue.

Show me a legitimate rebuttal to Paul Andrew Michael.
PAM has absolutely no legal background other than his experience in losing his income tax cases and conducting a string of unsuccessful lawsuits. In addition, all of his contentions have been addressed by various courts and deemed laughably frivolous.

And it was Flavor Aid not Kool-Aid but I guess you were never one to bother with the details eh?

Again how can you just ignore those definitions?

Until such time as you actually conduct any legitimate research, your comments don't even warrant additional replies, except, perhaps, in a bad french accent accompanied by flying cows.

[Spartacus]

You are confused. The purpose of taxes is not to promote economic growth, but rather to fund all of the myriad tasks people want government to perform. While the imposition of taxes should take the effect on the economy into account, the taxes themselves are an extremely inefficient way to boost the economy - if they do so at all.

Actually, you are confused. I did not say the purpose of taxes -- I said the purpose of income tax. It harmonizes labor markets, wages and promotes Integration which drives economic growth. The FED and IRS allowed for us to grow rapidly, driving innovation and increasing economic growth. The IRS's policies are intricately tied to Balassa's 6-steps.

Wrong in several ways. Perhaps a poster with more patience than I will list them.

I concede all points on the amendment and legality of it. Too ambiguous and not relevant or practical to my debate.

Humpty Dumpty wasn't Dodgson. Lewis Carroll was the pen name of Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, and Humpty Dumpty was a character in his classic Through the Looking Glass.

This response to me indicates a cognitive problem in yourself. Most people would realize I was relating Humpty Dumpty to Dodgson's version, since he wrote the words I was quoting. Of course, Humpty Dumpty isn't Dodgson's creation -- the original poem existed before Dodgson.

Which is taken from (and only applies to) Part 26 of Title 27, entitled "PART 26—LIQUORS AND ARTICLES FROM PUERTO RICO AND THE VIRGIN ISLANDS". Were you concerned with a matter dealing with stuff from Puerto Rico or the USVI? If not, why do you worry about this definition?

There is no other definition. No other mention. No other definition. Did I mention there is no other definition? Wait, there's no other definition.

Clearly, the IRS, F.A.A. and BATF are related you just can't answer how.

Read these and disprove them please -

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/cooper/cooper.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm

Enough. Let's be polite and just say that you're easily obfuscated.

I will put up $3000 of my own money to debate you or any other member in this form, in a public venue of sorts. We can let a non-biased panel or audience vote and see who they believe is right. The winner gets the money.

You ignore what I say and are unable to legitimately support your stance.

I'm ready any time.

[Spartacus]

Until such time as the federal government can set up an alternative source capable of generating as much revenue as the income tax, the income tax will stay. Do you have any suggestions for an appropriate source?

If we had no income tax today, we'd have the same revenue as around 10 years ago. Perhaps we need to learn how to spend money more wise? How much of the federal income tax goes to pay interest on the debt? Is there another system where we wouldn't have to pay interest on the $900B+ the FED holds?

Why should it be in 31USC when 26USC handles the entire issue.

Because the IRS purports to be part of the Department of Treasury and 31USC describes the Department of Treasury's organization. Why don't I see IRS?

Until such time as you actually conduct any legitimate research, your comments don't even warrant additional replies, except, perhaps, in a bad french accent accompanied by flying cows.

I'd be surprised if you could define half the words in my post. My point was income tax in relation to the policy of Economic Integration which you apparently were unaware existed.

I have money to burn for a debate.

[Spartacus]

{snicker} You're kidding, right?

I will scan the Master File which was decoded with 6209.

Please explain what 6209 is, if I'm mistaken. Or explain why its codes would say my friend was a cattle rancher in the US Virgin Islands?

[Spartacus]

Congress passed the income tax into law because they needed the money. The first income tax was introduced in the 1860s to pay for the Civil War. The government had simply been printing money to pay for the war, but that caused brutal levels of inflation.

http://www.tax.org/Museum/1861-1865.htm

The modern income tax was introduced just shy of a 100 years ago because the national debt was skyrocketing. The voters were also very upset with the god-awful system of tariffs and saw the income tax as a way to spread the burden of government from the worker bees to the upper classes as well.

So it is true that in the 80s 100% of federal income tax was lost or spent on interest. When interest rates rise again, a large part of our federal income tax will go to the private FED right?

Whatever, you believe, I challenge you to spend 20 minutes and listen to Jerry Nelson, Corporate Communications for the Federal Reserve in Chicago.

www.MeetTheFed.com

Jerry is very smart and says some remarkable things.

[Joey Smith]

Paul Andrew Mitchell a/k/a Mitchell Modelski is a nut who has been well-known to Quatloos for some time. His theories are totally off-the-wall and wrong, and no more deserving of a reply than a little kid who argues that there is a giant grape vine somewhere that one can climb up to the moon.

BTW, one of the planks of the Communist Manifesto was the abolition of child labor? Are you also against that?

Start THINKING for yourself and not just making a sheeple-ish regurgitation of what the village idiot says.

[Spartacus]

Paul Andrew Mitchell a/k/a Mitchell Modelski is a nut who has been well-known to Quatloos for some time. His theories are totally off-the-wall and wrong, and no more deserving of a reply than a little kid who argues that there is a giant grape vine somewhere that one can climb up to the moon.

BTW, one of the planks of the Communist Manifesto was the abolition of child labor? Are you also against that?

Start THINKING for yourself and not just making a sheeple-ish regurgitation of what the village idiot says.

Did you see my larger point, about the income tax in relation to Economic Integration? Do you even know who Balassa is?

And I just linked US Code and CFR definitions, words that are not define anywhere else in the code, and you can't reply. You CAN'T explain it.

Start thinking for yourself, ask why an IRS? Do we need one? Both sides of the debate are mindless -- they repeat the same ol' argument and counter-argument without ever asking why.

It's about economic integration. I will put $3000 in someone's pocket to debate me on the radio, in person or whatever if you can convince a neutral party you are right and I'm wrong.

[Imalawman]

Paul Andrew Mitchell a/k/a Mitchell Modelski is a nut who has been well-known to Quatloos for some time. His theories are totally off-the-wall and wrong, and no more deserving of a reply than a little kid who argues that there is a giant grape vine somewhere that one can climb up to the moon.

BTW, one of the planks of the Communist Manifesto was the abolition of child labor? Are you also against that?

Start THINKING for yourself and not just making a sheeple-ish regurgitation of what the village idiot says.

Did you see my larger point, about the income tax in relation to Economic Integration? Do you even know who Balassa is?

And I just linked US Code and CFR definitions, words that are not define anywhere else in the code, and you can't reply. You CAN'T explain it.

Start thinking for yourself, ask why an IRS? Do we need one? Both sides of this debate are mindless -- they repeat the same ol' argument and counter-argument.

I will put $3000 in someone's pocket to debate me on the radio, in person or whatever. Let's see who wins.

I accept in the event certain conditions are met. $3,000.00 for how long of a debate? What rules apply? What radio station? What dates? I will want $1,500.00 up front and the remainder upon completion of the debate. Of course there will need to be more details ironed out, but its a start.

[Judge Roy Bean]

I see someone has found the random word generator again.

[Spartacus]

I accept in the event certain conditions are met. $3,000.00 for how long of a debate? What rules apply? What radio station? What dates? I will want $1,500.00 up front and the remainder upon completion of the debate. Of course there will need to be more details ironed out, but its a start.

Great. There has to be a scope to the debate. My argument is that income tax drives economic integration and thus is used as political tool to promote policies of CFR-globalization. As such, the income tax and FED were created in a potentially illegal, immoral way through obfuscated laws to pull people under a false jurisdiction. However, it could be rationalized in the sense that it is driving economic growth.

Radio works. Escrow company or person. Biggest hurdle is an impartial jury/audience.

And to clarify, your position is that everything the IRS and government says is true, and anyone who questions it is either mentally ill or foolish or an agent of Russia or what?

[BBFlatt]

If you are looking for definitions pertaining to income tax law, 26 USC 7701 is a good place to start.

§ 7701. Definitions

(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof--
...
(11) Secretary of the Treasury and Secretary.
(A) Secretary of the Treasury. The term "Secretary of the Treasury" means the Secretary of the Treasury, personally, and shall not include any delegate of his.
(B) Secretary. The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate.
(12) Delegate.
(A) In general. The term "or his delegate"--
(i) when used with reference to the Secretary of the Treasury, means any officer, employee, or agency of the Treasury Department duly authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury directly, or indirectly by one or more redelegations of authority, to perform the function mentioned or described in the context; and
(ii) when used with reference to any other official of the United States, shall be similarly construed.
(B) Performance of certain functions in Guam or American Samoa. The term "delegate," in relation to the performance of functions in Guam or American Samoa with respect to the taxes imposed by chapters 1, 2, and 21, also includes any officer or employee of any other department or agency of the United States, or of any possession thereof, duly authorized by the Secretary (directly, or indirectly by one or more redelegations of authority) to perform such functions.
(13) Commissioner. The term "Commissioner" means the Commissioner of Internal Revenue...