Yesterday, 10:41 PM
The definitions of early legal dictionaries, scholarly economists, and jurists, see: 'capitation' and 'personalty' taxes. False ideologies, like yours, are why such matters were debated so vigorously throughout the Federalist debates, being seriously concerning to the unsettled masses. For example, just because some dickheaded, cocksucking, asshole, motherfucker name Anthony Stephen Fauci (who neither is nor possesses the certifications of a scientist, microbiologist, chemist, virologist, infectiologist, epidemiologist, or immunologist, but who is only a general MD practitioner that has never actually practiced on his own patients, despite all of his crazy and medically baseless experimenting he's authorized or performed on his unwitting victims) and William Henry Gates III (a college dropout, who is a seriously misguided technocratic eugenicist, a lying, punk-ass, dweeb that defrauded and stole the achievements of others in order to peddle his shitty Windows software, mostly on the backs of hardworking taxpayers through government contracted purchases) conspired one day to conveniently redefine was a medical vaccination is, does not factually alter the empirical definition of what is a vaccine.
No, people can protest taxes for many, many reasons, in-fact for as many reasons as there are classes and types of taxes; in doing so does not establish them as being a "crackpot." The Legislature has even recognized this, for example, in their ratification of the RFRA, i.e., 42 U.S. Code § 2000bb–3.
The matter of taxing individual pay has remained one of the most contentious issues throughout the last century, so much so that the IRS constantly either demands or begs of Congress to amend or implement new statutes to deter, to instill fear upon, the mass of taxpayers to overwhelm them from so much as doubting anything outside of what the IRS preaches to them upon each passing tax season. ...And yet SCOTUS to date, has steadfastly avoided granting certiorari to all such tax cases even though such cases meet the necessary requisites for their review and of which have numbered in scores upon scores of over the decades...which is especially worrisome being that the reality is that SCOTUS has heard and reheard other tax matters over and over and over throughout the centuries, and many of those cases subject-matter that the the Court had agreed to review were plain ludicrous, obviously misguided, or otherwise flagrant or illogical in premise, e.g., federal judge salaries' were wholly exempt from income taxation until 1939 (O'Malley v. Woodrough, 307 U.S. 277 (1939); or even the findings in Pollock, i.e., that because the source of the tax was constitutionally exempted from direct taxation so also was the gains and profits realized from those sources.)
(Honestly, I am of the belief that SCOTUS dares not touch the taxing of wages issue for they know that they will be massively buried by nation wide amicus curiaes from every side of the debate, so much so that it will take their staff years and years to summarize them all--that is aside from the fact that they are likely very aware of the truth about income taxes laws being grossly misapplied, along with the incessant abuses being committed by the IRS and state taxing boards, and that the current taxing system is necessary to the continued financial interests of the Federal Reserve ponzi-scheme.)
Find latest posts
View Articles
View Blog Entries
Originally Posted by phill4paul
Connect With Us