Correct The Unlawful Legal System - they're just a bunch of CTULS

[Wakeman52]

MTD isn't that difficult actually, pretty much all of the popular accounts packages have it built into them and once you have set them up with your details, its pretty much a case of pressing a couple of buttons.

Obviously, it depends on whether you keep the information up to date but if you're running a business, this should be a given ( but not always).

The other one , which is more of a pain, is the Construction Industry Scheme (CIS) which is on its third version since I started over 30 years ago. This can be a ball ache as different contractors/subbies have different rates of deduction and now we have the reverse charge system for VAT as well, to avoid large scale VAT fraud.

PAYE is now all done using RTI software and means that you cant hang onto it (like we used to do in the old days to help cashflow) without incurring penalties.

My only bugbear is that HMRC still sometimes get it wrong and theres no easy system in place to address these but my inner conspiracy theorist says this is done on purpose because most people would rather send a payment for £30 rather than spend 2 hours on the phone!

Edited for spelling

I remember, with little affection, the teething pains of the first iteration of CIS (714s). My view of MTD is coloured by a friend in the accountancy profession who's life has been recently dominated by dealing with the issues it raises for their clients. MTD and its relative, RTI, do seem to be a means to improve HMG's cashflow, in the face of staffing reductions. The latter should however mean that suddenly dropping off the PAYE system without good reason is going to be noticed. BvT's 'affidavit' (I still marvel at the construction of a entire world-view based on a cancelled parking ticket) is neither good nor a reason.

[longdog]

The latter should however mean that suddenly dropping off the PAYE system without good reason is going to be noticed.

I got noticed when I dropped off PAYE in the late 1980s. It only took them about three months to send me a letter saying "WTF are you?" in a rather long winded way.

When I went self employed twenty years later I made a point of doing a day or two of PAYE agency HGV driving per week and the bulk of my income fell into the "What the tax man doesn't know about is tax free" category.

[serfmaninthepolis]

I know we have to let people find out the hard way but its like filming a nature documentary and watching a small animal get eaten in the most painful way by a predator and not intervening.

The real issue is the fantasy of the rule of law. Murray Rothbard, a legit economist (so you can't just call him mentally ill) makes roughly the argument that these people make, except he is under no delusion that violent predators will respond to "magic words"

"The great German sociologist Franz Oppen-
heimer pointed out that there are two mutu-
ally exclusive ways of acquiring wealth; one, the
above way of production and exchange, he called
the “economic means.” The other way is simpler
in that it does not require productivity; it is the
way of seizure of another’s goods or services by
the use of force and violence. This is the method
of one-sided confiscation, of theft of the prop-
erty of others." (https://cdn.mises.org/Anatomy%20of%20the%20State_3.pdf p. 15)

"We are now in a position to answer more fully
the question: what is the State? The State, in the
words of Oppenheimer, is the “organization of the
political means”; it is the systematization of the
predatory process over a given territory" (ibid. p. 16)

"The State provides a legal, orderly, system-
atic channel for the predation of private property;
it renders certain, secure, and relatively “peaceful”
the lifeline of the parasitic caste in society. 5
...
The classic paradigm was a conquering tribe paus-
ing in its time-honored method of looting and mur-
dering a conquered tribe, to realize that the time-
span of plunder would be longer and more secure,
and the situation more pleasant, if the conquered
tribe were allowed to live and produce, with the
conquerors settling among them as rulers exacting
a steady annual tribute. 6" (ibid. p. 17)

Etc. etc. So, they have a fairly good argument that the State and its employees are predators that engage in what, biologically, is called "conspecific predation," that is, they prey on animals of the same species. Obviously, from a bioloigcal perspective, this is not right or wrong, it is just a fact. Now, one thing humans can do, of course, which is covered further on in Rothbard's work (again, he had his PhD and Professorship and everything so you cannot dismiss him as "mentally ill") is lie. For example, the bear will not try to convince the salmon that the bite it is taking out of the salmon is some sort of legitimate exaction, he will just go ahead and do it. But this parasitic caste of humans have realized that if they indoctrinate their slaves into believing that there is a legitimacy to the predation, they can predate with greater ease.

Again, it's not that this is right or wrong, but it is pretty well staked out academically as at least a defensible position. Of course it is not a legal argument, but you can also make an economic argument for why it is not. Your average state employee is not a landed aristocrat who gets 40l a year for his Judicial Commission, who spends an additional 30l a year executing it. He is in debt nearly to his eyeballs. Presume he realized "oh my god, I am a predator, and natural law says predation is wrong" (not that it does). He would quit his job, default on his mortgage in exactly the same way as these people do, except for different reasons. And if he has a wife, she leaves him, just like this guy Ward's wife left him. If he has kids, the wife can portray him as some crazy person to the addled Family Court Judge, etc.

IMO most of these problems are avoided if you teach people Austrian/Libertarian economics from a young age, then they expect to be predated upon and take up the view that the state is like a big Pirate/Biker Gang and you can avoid them, but, ultimately, if they catch you, they do whatever they want with you, and there is no rhyme nor reason to it, all they do is tell you "it is legitimate when we beat you up because we wrote down that we are allowed to beat you up!" But legitimacy does not enter into it, that is a legal idea, not a biological one: biologically, the constable, the judge, etc. all have desires, and to meet those desires, they have two choices: labor or robbery, and they picked robbery. Whether this is a bad choice or not is another matter entirely, because "bad" might just be another propaganda term, e.g. the robbers say "opposing our robbing is bad" and the victims say "robbing us is bad!" It could be, as Hamlet said, "there's nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so," and what one thinks tends to depend a lot on what one wants out of life.

[serfmaninthepolis]

If they start the three / five / seven letter process with the usual insane bollocks and threats, or something long those lines, the employer is probably going to stop deducting tax permanently by the simple expedient of firing them.

The process on CTULS is Baron von Trampbeard's 65-page Affidavit setting out the 'claims', followed by an 'invitation to withdraw' said claims, followed by a lien if the claims aren't withdrawn. A few years ago a disgruntled footler served a lien on me at work (via email). Our Chief Counsel, never having come across such quasi-legal drivel, was baffled until I showed her a few of the threads on here. We ignored it, never responded and as anticipated nothing more was ever heard about it.

I think you can divide their claims into two types, those seeking freedom and those seeking to avoid paying for things. Freedom type claims would be "I can grow cannabis if I like" and payment avoidance would be "I don't have to pay for fuel." The issue with the idea of having to pay for fuel is that people are not allowed to harvest timber as their ancestors did---like, for thousands of years humans were free to harvest timber, now they're not allowed to do that, so I think there is at least a kind of argument that the entity prohibiting timber harvest (housebote it was called!) has some duty to provide access to a substitute for what it no longer allows people to maintain---if you have some sort of "natural law" bent and don't just think existence is a war of all against all and if people freeze to death or starve, who fucking cares, as long as they aren't me or my family. I guess there is that point of view.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

I think we have a returning word salad exponent using a burner email.

[serfmaninthepolis]

I think we have a returning word salad exponent using a burner email.

You're not even happy if someone agrees with you, I guess =]. The state is a predator, as Rothbard says, it's not word salad, fren.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

You're not even happy if someone agrees with you, I guess =]. The state is a predator, as Rothbard says, it's not word salad, fren.

But I don't agree with you. It is word salad.

[John Uskglass]

they have a fairly good argument that the State and its employees are predators

'What have the Romans ever done for us?'

[mufc1959]

So many wins ... or (to paraphrase Associate Chief Justice Rooke in Meads vs Meads) so many unenforceable, meaningless, foisted unilateral agreements, created in their "own Court of Record".

[Hercule Parrot]

IMO most of these problems are avoided if you teach people Austrian/Libertarian economics from a young age, then they expect to be predated upon ...

Yeah, but this is bollocks. Rothbard was a frothing right wing libertarian who never did a day of useful work in his life. He and the trashy "Mises Institute" (based in Alabama, lol) are funded by greedy rich men who resent regulation and taxes. They got rich by exploiting others, and they want to retain that privilege. So they pay dumb stooges to circulate dumb "Anarcho Capitalist" theories, encouraging people to see their elected governments as their enemy.

It's like the wolves bribing some dumb or nasty sheep to persuade the rest of the flock that they're being oppressed by all the fences, shepherds and sheepdogs etc. Let's tear it all down with the help of our wolf friends, and then we'll all be free....

[John Uskglass]

Deleted

[longdog]

You're not even happy if someone agrees with you, I guess =]. The state is a predator, as Rothbard says, it's not word salad, fren.

Word salad is exactly what it is I'm afraid.

I don't think you're going to get far citing a complete lunatic like Murray Rothbard as a source in a UK forum. He was after all a guy who thought parents should be allowed to let their children starve to death or sell them as it's preferable to the sheer horrors of a welfare system and social medicine. Not something that's likely to go down well here. The guy was just a sociopath who only other sociopaths thought had anything of any value to say.

[Burnaby49]

Now the question is: how do we stop criminals from being criminals?

Actually no. The correct question is;

Now that nobody's bothered to even reply to the gibberish in our worthless liens how do we enforce them?

[mufc1959]

Now the question is: how do we stop criminals from being criminals?

Actually no. The correct question is;

Now that nobody's bothered to even reply to the gibberish in our worthless liens how do we enforce them?

They need to ask assassin over on the latest incarnation of GOODF.

[longdog]

Now the question is: how do we stop criminals from being criminals?

Actually no. The correct question is;

Now that nobody's bothered to even reply to the gibberish in our worthless liens how do we enforce them?

Isn't it obvious you fool? You simply threaten the people who refuse to read the gibberish in your worthless lien with another worthless lien.

Or there's always The Kommon Lore Klown Kort of course.

[serfmaninthepolis]

they have a fairly good argument that the State and its employees are predators

'What have the Romans ever done for us?'

Nothing. Everything should be proved by battle, ala David v. Goliath, or, more contemporarily (after the Norman Conquest no less (!)) Wulfstan v. Walter (1066).

"My Lord, I am ready to prove it per oath and battle!"

And then, if you disagree with the Judgment, you can appeal it in the same manner. "Use your words" is something only cake-eating Italians could think is a good idea. Battle is the only real judge.

[serfmaninthepolis]

You're not even happy if someone agrees with you, I guess =]. The state is a predator, as Rothbard says, it's not word salad, fren.

Word salad is exactly what it is I'm afraid.

I don't think you're going to get far citing a complete lunatic like Murray Rothbard as a source in a UK forum. He was after all a guy who thought parents should be allowed to let their children starve to death or sell them as it's preferable to the sheer horrors of a welfare system and social medicine. Not something that's likely to go down well here. The guy was just a sociopath who only other sociopaths thought had anything of any value to say.

This is very soviet, comrade, everyone who disagrees with the law of the Soviet (Council) is mentally ill! All good comrades are OK with letting the soviet take a little bite . I mean, if you cannot sell them, obviously they are not your children, so I think your position is OK, you just have to admit children are property of the state, this idea that "they're no one's property...the state can force them to go to school, countermand parental medical decisions, etc. doesn't mean they're the state's..." is untenable, IMO.

In the glorious people's republic, everything, including children, belongs to the republic, just as Plato, the communist, envisioned =]

[serfmaninthepolis]

IMO most of these problems are avoided if you teach people Austrian/Libertarian economics from a young age, then they expect to be predated upon ...

Yeah, but this is bollocks. Rothbard was a frothing right wing libertarian who never did a day of useful work in his life. He and the trashy "Mises Institute" (based in Alabama, lol) are funded by greedy rich men who resent regulation and taxes. They got rich by exploiting others, and they want to retain that privilege. So they pay dumb stooges to circulate dumb "Anarcho Capitalist" theories, encouraging people to see their elected governments as their enemy.

It's like the wolves bribing some dumb or nasty sheep to persuade the rest of the flock that they're being oppressed by all the fences, shepherds and sheepdogs etc. Let's tear it all down with the help of our wolf friends, and then we'll all be free....

Well, it's a very strange sort of animal that thinks fences make it free. The primary freedom that undomesticated animals have is the capacity to battle to adjudicate resource contentions. So, if you are told that, if someone places his hand on your shoulder and says "STOP IN THE NAME OF THE LAW," you are not supposed to poke his eyes out, that is domestication, and it really does seem like it means you are not free to poke his eyes out. And in exchange what do you get? Is there anything you can be given in exchange for your freedom to blind people who touch you without consent?

[Juisarian]

Is the "no politics" rule just for partisan contests or does or cover deep philosophical examinations too? Because it's too early in the morning for this Star Trek bullshit.

[John Uskglass]

this Star Trek bullshit

I'm fairly certain the United Federation of Planets is funded by taxation.

The OP's position is, of course, classical anarchism with half of it missing. That being the bit where resources are held in common. Property being theft and all.

Is there anything you can be given in exchange for your freedom to blind people who touch you without consent?

As the OP seems unfamiliar with it, here's the full 'Romans' quote:

apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

As the man said 'Taxes are the the price we pay for civilised society'.