Monday, July 30, 2007

26 USC and You

Title 26 USC is impeccably Constitutional BECAUSE, as written, it DOES NOT tax the income of the average American wage-earner. It only taxes "taxable income", which does not include "eliminated income", "exempt income", or "excluded income" (all terms from the Tax Code).

See: Be sure to view the two short videos---the link for them is on the right side of the page, at the picture of a ball & chain. Those videos are a demonstration (with results) of data-mining the Tax Code to determine the meaning of key sections.

The uninformed believers in the Individual Income Tax respond by saying something like, "Taxable income is gross income minus deductions" (and so the tax applies to all); but they leave out this CRUCIAL introduction--- "Except as otherwise provided...", found in the description of gross income.

The Tax Code is riddled with phrases like that. "Section XX.XX to the contrary notwithstanding...", or, "Except as provided for in Section XX.XX...", "In general...", "Notwithstanding Section 61...", "Other than those specified...", "Except for excluded income...", etc.---when deciphering the Tax Code, ALL such phrases must be researched further.

The average duped American never bothers to fully research anything beyond, "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual a tax...". No wonder they think the tax applies to everyone! You folks who oppose the Tax Honesty Movement really do need to read the ENTIRE THING---26 USC, Subtitle A, Chapter 1 (the Income Tax)...and when it says things like, "Notwithstanding Section 61...", you have to go to 61 and see what they're talking about if you expect to truly understand the Tax Code.

Some dupe/dope in one comment on another website said something like, "They [members of the Tax Honesty Movement] keep saying 'Show me the law!'---well, it's on the very first page!". Such people don't have a clue; they don't do proper due diligence.

For those new to this blog, here a few pertinent points:
1. the purpose of the 16th Amendment was to correct a glitch in the 1909 Corporate Excise Tax Statute;
2. several Supreme Court rulings (never reversed) between 1918 and 1923 concluded that the word "incomes" in the 16th Amendment meant "gain or profit from corporate activity", and that the Amendment conferred "no new taxing powers" upon the Fed Govt;
3. Fed Govt services are not paid for by individual income taxes (those revenues pay the interest on the national debt, according to the Grace Commission)---Govt services are paid for by corporate taxes, many excise taxes, SS taxes, Medicare taxes, duties, imposts, a few miscellaneous taxes, and more borrowed money.


Phil A said...

Scott, I must recommend 'FAT’ by Rob Grant, Published by Gollancz. ISBN 978-0-375-07820-8. available on Amazon, there is a link on my blog.

I think you might find it both amusing and thought provoking. It makes some excellent points re statistics and the scientific method.

Scott C. Haley said...

I can't promise that I'll ever get to it. I'm WAY behind on my "nonessential" reading...too busy doing research on Common Law, the individual sovereignty movement, the philosophical foundations of individual Liberty, and similar subjects.

Nevertheless, I do appreciate the is duly noted.

Even though I don't know exactly what the book is about, I'll say this: I've never had much faith in statistical "scientific" studies. The steps in the Scientific Method go way beyond simply statistical studies. Without testing one's hypothesis with some version of a controlled experiment, one is not really engaged in a scientific study. Statistics by themselves "prove" very little...if anything. [Perhaps that is the thesis of the book...if so, it is correct.]


Phil A said...

Scott, You nailed it.

It is amusing fiction, good entertainment that slides some interesting facts in along the way and mentions some interesting factual reading in the acknowledgements.

Such as The rise and fall of modern medicine by Dr J LeFanu, Panic Nation by S Feldman & V. Marks, The Obesity Epidemic by Paul Campos, The Epidemiologists by John Brignell, etc.

Curiously enough I am also very busy at the mo, doing some intensive training, so my blogging has slowed down a little of late.

Scott C. Haley said...


Thanks for letting me know.

The Corporate Media in this country are famous for reporting (and promoting) "scientific" findings that merely are statistical studies---virtually worthless. Most of health fascism is based on that very concept.

Phil A said...

Ditto in the UK. they find some tiny supposed correlation, based on massaged figures, and try to claim it is statistically significant.

By the time you throw in a + or - margin of error a reputable statistician would discard it.

Then the State tries to foist dubious authoritarian legislation on us based on it.

In our case the researchers often turn out to represent a ‘charitable’ group or foundation that turns out to be part or fully state funded in a roundabout way.