http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 9a06#26917Is it correct that before the Victory Tax, only those receiving money from federally privileged activities paid "income" tax?
And, if so, how can I document that?
freeme
After a few commments by other posters, SkankBeat chimes in:
"Freeme" responds:Did you try reading CTC [Cracking the Code, the tax scam book by federal prison inmate Peter E. "Blowhard" Hendrickson]? I think it is mentioned in there, something like 3% prior to 1939. Keep in mind there was more going on than just the victory tax to roll out the income tax scam to the masses. Things really started picking up speed with the social security act of 1935.......
Uh-oh!Yes, I have been through CtC multiple times, and, according to Pete, the percentage prior to the Victory Tax had gone as low as 3%.
I also understand about the groundwork.
What I am trying to find out is whether or not those who were paying prior to the Victory Tax were paying based upon federally privileged "income."
![Shocked :shock:](./images/smilies/icon_eek.gif)
Don't even go there, "freeme."
Then, "freeme" writes:
Freeme is in dangerous waters now.I found this on the site below:
"Prior to World War II, no one outside the government paid income tax; the people were, and understood themselves to be, immune from that tax. During WWII, Congress passed the Victory Tax (56 Stat. 884) to impose an income tax on every individual in The United States of America, something which had not been done by any previous income tax act."
http://www.constitution.org/tax/us-ic/h ... orytax.htm
Is this true?
And, if it is, can it be documented?
freeme
No Crackhead has ever responded to my challenge about the federal tax cases in the 1920s and 1930s, which I have posed repeatedly. The challenge is: If, as Peter Hendrickson claims, the federal income tax is imposed only on earnings received in an "activity" in connection with the exercise of a "federal privilege," how do you explain the court cases in the 1920s and 1930s where taxpayers who clearly were engaged in activities NOT connected to a federal privilege -- and these were the taxpayers making the big bucks with the heavy duty tax lawyers -- how do you explain why there is NO RECORD of any of these taxpayers ever raising the "federal privilege" argument in cases before the Board of Tax Appeals?
Freeme is in dangerous territory because, as far as I can tell, no Crackhead has ever thought to try to research the tax cases back in the 1920s and 1930s.
One of Blowhard Hendrickson's lies, if I recall correctly, is that in those olden days from 1913 to about the 1940s, everybody somehow "knew" that the federal income tax somehow applied ONLY to "income" connected to a federal privilege.
Yet, we know that no one with private sector income ever raised the "federal privilege" argument in court back then, despite the fact that the people paying the taxes were the people most likely to KNOW THE LAW and most likely to be able to afford tax lawyers.
Gee, I hope "freeme's" questions don't lead to some uncomfortable discoveries over there......
![Cool 8)](./images/smilies/icon_cool.gif)