The most frequently-missed tax deduction

Satori Hub Author 2 years ago

I naturally did, frippo. The Constitution also says that the federal government only has absolute jurisdiction in the District of Columbia, not the States within the Union.

While it was given the authority to lay and collect taxes and duties, nothing guaranteed them the right to do it in storm trooper outfits, in clown suits... or involuntarily. Income taxes are voluntary, and what most Americans consider "income taxes" today are, in fact, excise taxes anyway.

In future, please keep your Comments free of unnecessary antagonism, and I won't be tempted to simply delete them on that basis alone.

Satori Hub Author 2 years ago

Hi Michelle, and thanks for your Comment!

I both agree and disagree with you, myself. Yes, there's no integrity in using goods and services and not subsidizing them. There's also no honor in pretending we have a political dialogue and debate in this country when all we do is complain, don't back it with action, and expect things to magically get better. Political dialogue should be backed by accountability, and as a country we've been long on whining and short on action. That's no good, obviously. As for Wesley Snipes, I wasn't passing judgement on his character, just attempting to give the average reader a cue to how not-fringe sovereignty is.

While I know it may look like a loophole, a return to sovereign citizenship is actually a return to the category of citizenship held by our forefathers when the country was founded. Since then the corrupt politicians we both love to hate have bent, folded, spindled and mutilated our system of governance, and I'm attempting to educate people exactly as you describe - introducing them to the subject through something that everybody's interested in: not spending more money than necessary. Have a look, here's some great introductory information on the subject:

http://gemworld.com/USAvsUS.htm

Michelle, it sounds like we have a lot of the same concept here. I realize that it can be tough to get a read of someone's overall approach through one short Hub here. But yes, I agree that the public needs to be better educated - heck, we've even got members of the CIA, NSA, and other alphabet gestapo dropping out, and writing notices to the American public to the tune of, "There's some really vile stuff going on. We can't tell you exactly what it is, but you guys desperately need to get control over your government, America, pronto." I think pretty much everybody who's taken the time to look into the situation has more or less the same take on it, and when people are too unmotivated /and/ continue to subsidize the problem indiscriminately, that's not only counterproductive... it boils down to a socially-accepted form of treason. I myself live on the street now and have for the last seven or so years, because I've lived "off the grid" for about the last fifteen rather than subsidize the problem. I may not be able to change the average American's choices myself, but I can certainly do my best to avoid funding the problem while there's no accountability in sight. You just don't feed the monster that bites you, that's all.

As an interesting aside, research I came across several years ago gave me a pretty solid conclusion that federal taxes don't actually go towards vital goods and services, and that those are primarily paid for by sales taxes. The country did pretty well for decades before the "income" tax (actually a form of excise tax) came along, and when it did it was introduced like these things always are as a temporary measure. Also, did you know that "driving" is supposed to only be a commercial activity that's supposed to be licensed? You only need license from your government to do something that would otherwise be against the law, and everybody has the right to use the roads as part of their right to travel. FTD florist delivery guys, taxi drivers, and pizza boys are all drivers, but we're not supposed to be. So as for how necessary the DMV is to "license" supposed "drivers" who are generally not using the roads for commercial gain, I think that's a pretty heavy scam. It's also why we call the front-right seat the "passenger seat". By getting licensed, we're assumed to be driving for hire. And taxed and regulated as such.

Again Michelle, thanks for your readership, and your Comment. Be well.

Satori Hub Author 2 years ago

Hey there!

Yes, it's very much a privilege to drive - and accepting government privileges is considered a way of establishing a contract with them. You can contract to waive your rights in exchange for these dubious privileges, which can be (and are) taken away at whim by the government. It's considered part of a contract of "personhood" you entered into when you opted (supposedly knowingly and of your own free will) to become a federal citizen. Ordinarily, the federal government doesn't have any authority or jurisdiction beyond the 10x10 square miles of Washington D.C.. But they've pretended that if they establish imaginary zones in the continental U.S., and if citizens contract into them "willingly", they can then exercise jurisdiction under commercial contract law, just as corporations enforce their claims. Never mind that it's /not/ "willingly", and these contracts most people don't seem to have heard about. More importantly when the federal government uses its time to come up with this stuff, time that people paid for, political figures are embezzling their paychecks /while/ committing treason all at the same time. All that's lacking is the accountability, and it's tough to hold them accountable when the entire country seems to be defrauded by it all.

The interstate highways have put simple usage of the roads into the federal government's venue under their lawful authority over interstate commerce, and because it's also delegated to them to handle interstate disputes generally. It's one of the few things they actually /were/ designed to do. But they've created federally-owned subsidiary corporations (such as STATE OF CALIFORNIA, which is a completely different entity than the state of the Union, California, and the same goes for the rest of the states) and get you to contract with their Department of Motor Vehicles to get a license to drive for commercial gain. Poof! You've just contracted into their jurisdiction - you've even gone over there on your own to /apply/ for that benefit. Now you're obliged to scrape and bow to all manner of hokey contractual commercial statutes, from federal legislation to state (that is, the STATE OF ______ states) and have even made yourself liable for violations of local municipal ordinances (since CITY OF ______ are municipal corporations of STATE OF ______). Fun stuff. By the way, the Supreme Court has ruled and consistently upheld that you're not obligated to follow contract-based city ordinances, or any other statute unless you've accepted benefits:

("...The individual may stand upon his constitutional right as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights. "

Hale vs Henkel, 201 U.S. 43.)

The "gotcha" sentence there of course is, "His power to contract is unlimited.". Meaning, if you establish a contract with the government to the contrary, you're certainly free to waive your rights and be treated like cattle. But keep in mind, the degree to which peace officers and court magistrates will "silently presume" that you've established such a contract often varies with their professional and political integrity. When they have the guns, they're often going to "presume" that you've waived your rights. Because nobody's going to stop them, and by now they've pretty much washed these original concepts of law out of the heads of the majority of citizens who would organize against this stuff and put a stop to it.

For more on voluntary servitude and the artificial category of citizenship the federal government has created (the legal category is "persons"), be sure to check out:

Voluntary Servitude by Deception

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6b4YrXayzE

It's worth noting that since they never bought the land of the States and don't lawfully control the territory, just those people in them that have contracted in, the legislation and statutory law that's established today can't just generally apply to anyone in that region. So they have to subtly establish that their edicts are directed only to a certain, specific focus of people. "Persons", in fact, usually. "All persons must...", "No person shall...", "Any person who...", etc. It has a very precise legal definition that has more to do with what contractual obligations you've made yourself liable for, and not that you're a [presumably] bipedal mammal. If people came to re-learn this, most of the corruption that's set in over the last century and a half would be impossible to commit today.

Anyway, to answer your questions, by "off the grid" I mean living without any ID, Drivers License, Social Security benefits, and so on. I'm a California citizen. I'm not a federal citizen, and I don't want to be. That means that I can't be employed, however, since employment is defined as a federally-regulated activity done for commercial gain, which is completely different that simple hire or work. (That's why they needed a different name for it.) And since the majority of Americans don't seem to understand that they're two completely different things, nearly all the work in this country has magically been replaced with "employment"... which I can't do. So I work under the table where I can, and write on HubPages to get by. I shun federal benefits and privileges, and so as a direct result I live on the street, computing with a laptop. Cops still harass me and attempt to hold me liable for violations of the local city ordinances (like our unconstitutional sleeping ban aimed at the homeless on behalf of Santa Cruz's tourism-friendly merchants), and judges usually refuse to hear the issue of jurisdiction (though that's unconstitutional too). So, I go through it all for the joy of getting to be Right, and the knowledge that I'm not funding the estimated 600-800 concentration camps that are built and just waiting in this country ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0P-hvPJPTi4 ) means that I can sleep at night. Usually. When the noisy bar crowd walking down the street at 2am isn't waking me up. =)

Thanks again for your interest, Michelle. I'm glad you checked back!

Satori Hub Author 2 years ago

Hi OpinionDuck. =)

The courts have put many people in jail for trying to stand up for their rights. Sometimes, it was because they didn't properly understand or convey the concepts they were trying to uphold. Other times, judiciary foul play has been at work. While the court system frequently does an outstanding job of upholding the truth of law, at least relative to the job most of the citizenry has been doing at it, the judges can't toe the line alone without the support of the citizenry. With all the corruption in the country, it's a bit like standing on one of the few patches of dry land that are left in the midst of a flood. That being said, cases are often sandbagged in the lower courts and this sabotages the nature and scope of rulings made in the high courts. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court does consistently rule in favor of the principle of sovereignty, although it seldom comes up to them in the context of the citizenry anymore.

That having been noted, we have precious few courts of law in the Union at the moment. Their own court system recognizes that it no longer operates under the rule of law anymore, but under "force of arms" or what it euphamistically calls the "penumbra of necessity". (Translation: We don't actually have the authority to do what we're doing, but the nation's in a state of crisis so we're doing it anyway.) There isn't any stare decesis in the court system at present, and case precedant is currently maintained as fictive only. This may have something to do with the fact that the Constitution's been purportedly suspended for over 75 years now, with the federal checks and balances suspended during a prolonged state of national emergency. It's all being run by the President in his role as Commander in Chief of the military, due to the state of national emergency declared in 1933 from which the federal government never stood down. Subsequently, there have been at least three other declarations of national emergency that remain in effect, leaving the federal government in crisis mode and well outside the law for years. At this point, I'd be hesitant to use federal practices as valid reference of what the law is, because they've manifestly estranged themselves from it. My dog would actually make a more credible declaration about the law than the federal government would at this point, because at least he's never broken it. By definition, one must be within the law in order to have a valid enough standing within it to be trusted in ones' determinations about it.

Regarding loss of ones' right to remain silent, you are correct inasmuch as it's become the standard practice today. But standard practice cannot rewrite the law, because it doesn't have that authority. If someone put a loaded gun to my head, it wouldn't cause me to lose my right to life. If they came up to me every day and did it, that still wouldn't (although you might wonder why I didn't take action to put a stop to it). And if a group of people made it a widespread practice, that still wouldn't take away my right to life. It would just make them liable on several counts of criminal activity, because each time they did it that would be a crime.

This is why statements extracted under threat, duress or coercion are considered void in law automatically. So are contracts, by the way. Worth keeping in mind when a peace officer hands you a little scrap of yellow paper where you promise to appear in court, and threatens to take you to jail unless you sign it. I've been qualifying my signatures with things like, "Officer refused to establish jurisdiction. Signed under threat of kidnap." to good effect. Once in a while, you'll get a good judge who not only recognizes the right thing, but is willing to do it when it counts. This would happen more frequently if the citizenry demanded it.

It's difficult to assess the law from the modern practices in this country. One has to go back to the law as it was established initially, to get past so much of the rot that's set in through the last two hundred years or so. The government has purported to grant itself more powers that it was, in fact, given. How convenient that must be. For ordinary mortals like myself, I cannot legitimately give myself something that I don't already have. I could steal it from somebody else, but then I'd be a criminal. I'd still be a criminal regardless of whether anybody caught me at it or not, and I don't choose to live that way. I also refuse to contract with a government entity that was established guaranteeing certain absolute rights, then does its best to rob me of those rights whenever it fancies. This is why treason is still a capital (or should I say capitol, here) offense. The only thing preventing me from getting it resolved in a court of law is that we don't seem to have any left, and I'm currently in a distinct minority among the citizenry. But given the state of the Union, that's sure to be a temporary situation. =)

Thanks again for your comments, OpinionDuck.

Satori Hub Author 20 months ago

What a patriotic sentiment. "Don't research and discuss what the law /actually/ is, or we'll send our goons at you for rocking the boat." I don't think promoting that kind of silence-through-paranoia is becoming to a liberty-loving citizen of this country.

"When citizens fear their government, you have tyranny; when the government fears its citizens, you have freedom." - Thomas Jefferson

No, there's obviously been no fundamental drift from the founding basis of our country whatsoever. Particularly in the notions held by the mainstream citizenry.

Satori Hub Author 11 months ago

You're correct.

Insurance used to be outlawed, because it was considered immoral for gambling. Instead, people would have an economy that wasn't sabotaged by the government, make enough to have one parent work and raise several kids and have a nice house. And they didn't have to count on the government being huge enough to do all sorts of things they never designed it to do - as well as become so overgrown that it started doing terrible things with its newfound power and size as well. Because the system wasn't overburdened with governmental corruption, people would make enough to be able to keep a savings account for emergencies, and not pay or have to rely on a government to get them out of emergencies it created in the first place.

I wouldn't need governmental help - I could manage quite successfully on my own - if not for the harms the government causes for me and for others. When a government or anyone else violates your rights, they are liable. So who really owes who, there?

Since it would be wrong of me to fund something that harms myself and others, it would be wrong of my to pay taxes even if I were required to.

Also, an exemption is permission. I don't need permission from someone to avoid doing something I wasn't required to do in the first place.

Thanks for your readership, and your comment.

Satori Hub Author 10 months ago

Gracious as ever, Truth. I appreciate your feedback, and can't wait to read your next Hubs on the topic.

In two days I begin a series at the local homeless shelter, regarding learning the law, asserting rights, and how to take rights violations and turn them into claims and damage amounts. The idea is that people on the streets are often victims of rights violations, and unlike most of those who are housed they have more spare time and certainly a lot of motivation to apply themselves to learning and asserting our rights as citizens. This allows us to take the current situation and use it as financial incentive to get citizens reinvolved in the law once again. We may even find homeless people with the time to follow up on rights abuses getting crowdfunded from housed citizens on the internet to start answering some of these causes that are in all our interests. If successful, this could become a model for chapters at homeless shelters across the country.

If you want to find people interested and motivated to act on this, finding those most affected by the situation is a great place to start.

Wish me luck. Thanks again for your readership, and your comment.

Be well,

- Satori