Economics Questions

Re: Inflation is NOT theft?

NonAntiAnarchist — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 08:53:46 GMT

I'm with OldGuy. Too late to type up a post, though..

But great discussion.

Re: Inflation is NOT theft?

ThatOldGuy — Sat, 24 Mar 2012 03:42:33 GMT

Wealth is the sum of one’s economic goods: everything you own is your wealth. There is no formula for the calculation of wealth: it’s all of one’s property in economic goods. As such, wealth is not “calculated” in cardinal terms as mathematical calculation implies. I also never stated that wealth could be “calculated.”

Of course money is an economic good. Inflation diminishes the value (purchasing power) of the currency. This is why inflation can’t be theft: the inflating agency doesn’t aggressively seize economic goods (units of currency) from you and me; rather, inflation allows for a lesser valuation of the inflated currency as a medium of exchange.

So in arguing that inflation is theft, you must be asserting that one has property rights in the value of his economic goods or you must be asserting that the agency inflating the currency is aggressively seizing the currency from others who have property rights in the seized units of currency as a result of legitimate means (i.e. homesteading, producing, or exchange).

To this, you respond by quoting Hoppe and then stating that one steals when one is “increasing one’s own wealth at another’s expense.” This may be true when it applies to economic goods, those over which one has property rights, but no one has property rights to the value of his goods- unless, you’d like to argue otherwise. Hoppe in that instance uses wealth in the sense of purchasing power, in that the purchasing power of a currency, held by those who cannot inflate, is diminished by inflating that currency. Hoppe is saying that the inflating firm is arrogating itself greater purchasing power, by producing more units of currency on which it has an aggressively imposed monopoly, and that a consequence of this inflation is a decline in the purchasing power of those holders of the currency who do not have such capabilities. Of course, the morality of such an action is liable for scrutiny; this is not to say that such action constitutes a “theft” as I have defined it.

One is not increasing one’s wealth, as I’ve defined it, at another’s expense in inflating a currency; no one is aggressively seizing the economic goods of anyone else in doing so. A condition, whereby a currency is legal tender, has been imposed on others by the inflating firm; the same firm has aggressively acquired a monopoly on the production of this currency (without anything else, these actions constitute aggression and are argumentatively unjustifiable). This firm owns its printing presses, its ink, its paper, the labor, the plants as well as all other factors of production necessary to produce this currency.

So this firm produces $1,000 billion and exchanges these units of currency for goods in the market. These units of currency are sold to (say) a weapons manufacturer. The weapons manufacturer sells weapons to the firm. This is a voluntary interaction. Are the means for this transaction and the means (the currency) for all other transactions, trading goods against this currency by this firm, maintained by aggression? Yes. Is it possible that this new money entering the economy allows for a demand, from this inflating firm, which would otherwise not exist, positively affecting the demand curve for the goods that this weapons manufacturer produces allowing for a higher pricing of goods than would otherwise be the case? Yes. Will there be consumers that do not have access to this new money, or if they do they will have access to less of it than the inflating firm? Yes. Is there anything in this scenario that is involuntarily done? All transactions are voluntary amongst the parties involved; it is the imposition of a currency that is aggression and is argumentatively unjustifiable and all actions, including inflation, stemming from this fundamental aggression are, likewise, unjustifiable.

There is no theft occurring, at least as I defined it; wealth is not gained at another’s expense in the sense that A is aggressively seizing (theft) part or all of the economic goods (in this case, currency) from B, but in the sense that B’s economic goods are interpersonally valued less than they would be in the absence of inflation (the purchasing power has declined); A and B agree to trading terms, that are set by their interaction, voluntarily. While B may have savings denominated in the inflated currency, and he will no doubt lose purchasing power in this currency insofar as it is inflated, it is the value of his economic goods, insofar as the goods concerned are units of the inflated currency, that is declining; he is not having all or part of his economic goods (wealth) involuntarily taken (theft) from him: the value of his economic goods (specifically, currency) is declining.

John James:
Because in the context of inflation, wealth is not implicitly defined as the value of the sum of one's money. But even still, that'sirrelevant, as you already stated in the very same instance that "Wealth is the sum of economic goods in one's possession"...unless of course you'd like to argue that money is not an economic good.

Keeping wealth as I have defined it in mind, it is very relevant to the discussion at hand that wealth be defined in terms of the total of economic goods which one possesses as this is the legitimate definition of wealth relative to the definition that I have inferred from your posts. If you are arguing that an inflating firm is stealing economic goods from consumers then this is obviously theft; however, this is not what occurs in inflation, while it is easily seen in what we recognize as taxation. Taxation is theft, indisputably, as it is a practice that is the aggressive seizure of economic goods (units of currency and/or sometimes goods that are not currency), perhaps in return for fencing of stolen goods amongst the thief and the thief’s victims (what is recognized as social policy).

What happens in inflation is that a firm, recognized as the sole producer of an aggressively imposed currency, produces more of this currency which will reduce the value (purchasing power) of all units of this currency when demanders, insofar as the inflated currency is used as a medium of exchange, for this currency are outpaced by the supplier of this currency; man has no property rights in the value of his goods, and to argue otherwise would constitute a performative contradiction, as I have briefly stated before but am willing to elaborate if necessary. By quoting that section of Hoppe’s writing, you are arguing that inflation is theft on the basis that wealth, as Hoppe uses it, includes that the values of goods can be economized and are thus a part of one’s wealth when this is not the case as I’ve stated above.

Re: Inflation is NOT theft?

Live_Free_Or_Die — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 22:59:16 GMT

It doesn't really matter if there is no provision or law or statute or whatever that gives the IRS its power. It exists and it has power. It doesn't matter if it has Legitimate Authority or not. It has power, so it has Authority. If you would like to argue with the IRS about your taxes and what not, then I wish you luck. But if the IRS wants to, it will steamroll you. It does not matter if it has Legitimate Authority or not.

Not going to engage in this thread anymore. See previous post @Clayton

You two make the same argument. The law is what the IRS says. Law does not matter because government does what government does.

Your responses have proven my point far better than a litanty of citing legislative history ever could have. I simply interjected in this thread I do not agree with the presumption legal tender is forced. I suggested the problem may not be government but found in a mirror.

In the course of the ensuing discussion it has been revealed that whatver the law is does not matter. Things like lawful authority, etc. do not matter. The only thing that matters is believing whatever people who have the guns say. If the IRS says this is how it is... then that is how it is. As Clayton pointed out...

SLAVERY

GETS SHIT DONE

Re: Inflation is NOT theft?

gotlucky — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 22:27:49 GMT

@Clayton

Thanks for pointing this out. Not all gold does follow the rules of collectibles, though much of it does. I do not know how gold bullion is taxed, but the purpose of bullion is typically to store wealth. It is not typically used in everyday transactions like gold collectible coins (not that gold collectible coins are typically used either).

Re: Inflation is NOT theft?

Live_Free_Or_Die — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 22:20:04 GMT

Actually, the WTF is yours, I just pointed it out - you said the US government is a corporation. Then you tried to substantiate with the definitions section of USC 28. Against my better judgment, I'll spell it out for you. A definitions section of a statute or contract spells out the "full meaning" of any shorthand words or phrases used in the statute or contract so as to remove the potential for confusion or vagueness in the language while preventing the text from being any more wordy and bulky than it already is. Hence, the def'ns section of USC 28 is simply saying, "whenever the words 'United States' are used in this section, understand it to refer to one of the following: 'a Federal corporation', 'an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States' or 'an instrumentality of the United States'." It is obvious that this definitions section is not even attempting to say "the US government is a corporation", leaving aside the absurdity of trying to infer that the US government is a corporation from the definition section of one of its own statutes.

This is only for the benefit of the lurkers since I don't waste time on DHS's paid disinfo trolls.

You are so full of shit. DHS disinfo troll? Give me a break.

Here is the part I especially like. When it suits YOU you say...

The law is this... and this is the context of the law... because the context of definition is limited in scope to this section....

BUT WHEN IT DOES NOT BENEFIT YOU I HAVE TO LISTEN TO THIS BULLSHIT OF THE LAW DOES NOT MATTER AND GOVERNMENT DOES WHAT GOVERNMENT DOES...

Re: Inflation is NOT theft?

gotlucky — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 22:09:10 GMT

Live_Free_Or_Die:

Government is going to do what government wants to do and to say otherwise is stupid, ignorant, or evil. I get it. Hear it all the time. Just admit it's perfectly ok if government wants your life and you will submit to government attempting to murder you.

It is not ok for government to take my life and I will not submit to it. If government wants to take my life I will resist. What chance does one individual stand against a couple million armed service members, several hundred thousand armed police, and nuclear weapons? Despite terrible odds it doesn't matter, I will not submit to government taking my life.

You cite government as the problem? I cite a belief people have that government can do what it wants to do is a problem.

Neither Clayton nor I are talking about the state ought to do. Both of us would like to see it abolished. However, that does not change the actual power that the state holds. Clayton already provided 2 links, and I will provide another 2:

Ex post facto law in the United States

Desperate British Government Launches Task Force Against Flea Markets

Again, neither Clayton nor I are talking about what the government ought to do. We are just merely stating what it does do.

Re: Inflation is NOT theft?

Clayton — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 22:08:58 GMT

PS You will see the term collectible pop up in some of these pages. The State/IRS considers gold to be a collectible. So you may not necessarily see gold listed in these pages, but since gold is a collectible, it follows the rules of collectibles.

I don't think this is true for bullion coins and bars... be careful about acting on your own advice when it comes to tax law. It is so easy to misunderstand the language of the tax code. Much of it is meant to be misunderstood.

Clayton -

Re: Inflation is NOT theft?

Clayton — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 22:04:20 GMT

I did not create the U.S. Code. Please explain why the United States being defined as a federal corporation is even in the code if it is patently circular? What do I have to justify? It is stated in the U.S. Code. Since it is your WTF... you justify the Code and why such a definition exists.

Actually, the WTF is yours, I just pointed it out - you said the US government is a corporation. Then you tried to substantiate with the definitions section of USC 28. Against my better judgment, I'll spell it out for you. A definitions section of a statute or contract spells out the "full meaning" of any shorthand words or phrases used in the statute or contract so as to remove the potential for confusion or vagueness in the language while preventing the text from being any more wordy and bulky than it already is. Hence, the def'ns section of USC 28 is simply saying, "whenever the words 'United States' are used in this section, understand it to refer to one of the following: 'a Federal corporation', 'an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States' or 'an instrumentality of the United States'." It is obvious that this definitions section is not even attempting to say "the US government is a corporation", leaving aside the absurdity of trying to infer that the US government is a corporation from the definition section of one of its own statutes.

This is only for the benefit of the lurkers since I don't waste time on DHS's paid disinfo trolls.

Clayton -

Re: Inflation is NOT theft?

gotlucky — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 21:54:20 GMT

Live_Free_Or_Die:

Obviously if the first sentence is false the rest of it can not stand as true if Time Dollars are substituted. But let me skip that obvious point and address the rest of the paragraph as written.

No, this is not obvious. The rest of his paragraph does not hinge upon the first statement. Remove the first statement and then read the rest of the paragraph. Clayton claimed that both parties must report the barter exchange to the IRS as income. Lo and behold, this is actually the case. I will provide links later in my post.

Live_Free_Or_Die:

If there is even exchange of property what is the basis for gain? For the less astute reader on law I shall clarify that point. In a previous post I indicated an alleged tax liability is incurred when their is a witness you receive income. I used an employer example and a W-2. For purposes of discussion let it be assumed neither party claims a loss for the hypothetical transaction of 5 gold pieces for a car. The contract explicity states the 5 gold pieces are an even exchange of property for a car.

That behavior is not allowed by the IRS. Obviously, anyone here who has basic understanding of Austrian Economics would agree with the idea that both parties benefit from the exchange. But the IRS does not care. They have this thing called "fair market value". It needs to be reported with a different form, not a W-2. Again, I'm going to provide links later in my post.

Live_Free_Or_Die:

1. Who gained?

2. What is the basis for gain?

3. Who witnessed gain occurring in order to have standing to make a claim there was a gain?

If there is no gain there is no revenue. If there is no revenue there is no income. No income, no tax.

See above.

Live_Free_Or_Die:

Again, if we are going to have a conversation using appeals to authority (which I am ok with), what matters is what Congress states so long as Acts of Congress conform to the Constitution of the United States of America. Under this system ignorance of the law is not an excuse. All citizens have a duty and obligation to cure their ignorance of the law. It is the duty of each citizen acting in a state of non-ignorance to observe lawful legislation that conforms to powers delegated in state or federal constitutions and disregard unlawful legislation that does not.

I am not talking about what ought to be. I am talking about what is. I do not care what is written in the Constitution of the United States because the US government does not care. The State breaks the rules all the time. What is important to the State are the rules that are enforced, written or unwritten.

Live_Free_Or_Die:

If we want to get really technical the federal government denied the IRS is an agency of the United States in Diversified Metal v. IRS. If we are arguing on authority I could care less what the IRS states or any other entity that is not an agency of the United States. If we really want to get technical Larry Becraft did some excellent research on the subject:

It doesn't really matter if there is no provision or law or statute or whatever that gives the IRS its power. It exists and it has power. It doesn't matter if it has Legitimate Authority or not. It has power, so it has Authority. If you would like to argue with the IRS about your taxes and what not, then I wish you luck. But if the IRS wants to, it will steamroll you. It does not matter if it has Legitimate Authority or not.

Live_Free_Or_Die:

Maybe the confusion is on my end. Attempting to follow your directions I pulled up the pdf. I have the search box in the bottom left of the screen and typed in "barter". As you can see the box is red indicating no result. Perhaps you could specify the page numbers and I will be happy to scroll to the correct page just in case my computer is not working properly or there is a user error on my end.

The page number in the top left hand corner is "96 Stat. 600". It starts near the bottom of the page. You may have better luck if you open it in Adobe Reader.

Live_Free_Or_Die:

I said it doesn't matter what the IRS says is money or a medium of exchange. Arguing on authority, I offer Article 1, Section 8.

It does not matter what the Constitution of the United States says. The government clearly does not follow what is written. The Constitution has no power, but the IRS has power. So it is very relevant what the IRS claims about taxable mediums of exchange.

Live_Free_Or_Die:

Right now the conversation is lingering on the hypothetical orange and apple trade. You have asserted there is a tax liablity because of an alleged obligation for citizens to disclose the trade of an apple for an orange to government. I am unable to agree or disagree until there is evidence introduced Congress legislated on the matter.

I said earlier in this post that I would provide some links from the IRS. Here they are:

Bartering Tax Center

Topic 420 - Bartering Income

Barter Exchanges

Bartering Income

Tax Responsibilities of Bartering Participants

Tax Requirements for Barter Exchanges

And here is a link to a Forbes article called Do You Barter? The IRS Wants Its Cut. It should help with an analysis of the previous links.

What is important to take away from this is that the US government does actually tax barter exchanges. The State does not use its full resources to go after small barter exchanges, just as it does not go after yard sales and high school kids mowing lawns. It just costs far too many resources to the State to enforce all of its rules. But you can rest assured that if barter exchanges became a significant percentage of the US economy, the IRS would change its attitude and use its full powers to tax barter exchanges.

PS You will see the term collectible pop up in some of these pages. The State/IRS considers gold to be a collectible. So you may not necessarily see gold listed in these pages, but since gold is a collectible, it follows the rules of collectibles.

Re: Inflation is NOT theft?

Live_Free_Or_Die — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 21:24:39 GMT

Time Dollar, Ithaca Hours, Bitcoins, etc. are play-monies, they are not serious alternatives to FRNs... they retain all the bad attributes of FRNs (fiat, unbacked, inflationary, etc.) without the brand-value. I was not trying to say there is nothing at all whatsoever which can be exchanged without inducing a tax burden. My point is that none of the recognized alternatives to fiat money (gold, silver, etc.) can be used as money without incurring additional tax burden vis-a-vis FRNs due to barter tax and capital gains tax on inflationary valuation.

That's leaving aside the fact that the US government will simply act extra-legally or retroactively change the rules once it realizes an oversight. There is no meaningful alternative to FRNs in the territorial US. To say otherwise is either stupid, ignorant or evil. Inflationary policy would be impossible without the money monopoly. This inflationary policy hurts the would-be saver by forcing him to incur risks beyond those associated with secure storage of money in order to protect the value of his assets.

Government is going to do what government wants to do and to say otherwise is stupid, ignorant, or evil. I get it. Hear it all the time. Just admit it's perfectly ok if government wants your life and you will submit to government attempting to murder you.

It is not ok for government to take my life and I will not submit to it. If government wants to take my life I will resist. What chance does one individual stand against a couple million armed service members, several hundred thousand armed police, and nuclear weapons? Despite terrible odds it doesn't matter, I will not submit to government taking my life.

You cite government as the problem? I cite a belief people have that government can do what it wants to do is a problem.

Re: Inflation is NOT theft?

Live_Free_Or_Die — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 20:55:04 GMT

Find me a single, practicing lawyer (in corporate law) who will agree with your statement, "The United States government is a corporation." The definitions section of USC 28 does not in any way, shape or form imply that the United States government is a corporation. I mean, it's patently circular - a Federal corporation is chartered by the Federal government, so who wrote the charter that created the Federal corporation called "the US government"???

I did not create the U.S. Code. Please explain why the United States being defined as a federal corporation is even in the code if it is patently circular? What do I have to justify? It is stated in the U.S. Code. Since it is your WTF... you justify the Code and why such a definition exists.

What the hell does a lawyer have to do with anything? Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Are you saying words don't mean what words mean and it is impossible for a citizen to comprehend the law he is expected to observe? Give me a break with the lawyer BS.

This is on a par with the "your birth-certificate is traded on the stock exchange" crap.

What the hell is that? Have I heard it? Sure. Is there any evidence to substantiate it? None that I have seen. It is written in the U.S. Code the United States is defined as a federal corporation. You are comparing something that is written to something that is unwritten. Not even close to par, what are you smoking?

Re: Inflation is NOT theft?

Live_Free_Or_Die — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 20:44:30 GMT

Federal Reserve Notes are the only duty-free medium of exchange.

While it is true that you may claim his first sentence to be false

Was that hard? But then you have to go off the deep end and state...

that does not disprove the rest of the paragraph at all.

Obviously if the first sentence is false the rest of it can not stand as true if Time Dollars are substituted. But let me skip that obvious point and address the rest of the paragraph as written.

If I buy your car for $5,000, that $5,000 is income for you but the car is not income for me and does not have to be reported as income for tax purposes. But if I buy your car for 5 gold pieces, the transaction is a barter transaction and both parties must report the items in the exchange as income to the IRS at the "fair market value." Suddenly, the car becomes taxed.

If there is even exchange of property what is the basis for gain? For the less astute reader on law I shall clarify that point. In a previous post I indicated an alleged tax liability is incurred when their is a witness you receive income. I used an employer example and a W-2. For purposes of discussion let it be assumed neither party claims a loss for the hypothetical transaction of 5 gold pieces for a car. The contract explicity states the 5 gold pieces are an even exchange of property for a car.

1. Who gained?

2. What is the basis for gain?

3. Who witnessed gain occurring in order to have standing to make a claim there was a gain?

If there is no gain there is no revenue. If there is no revenue there is no income. No income, no tax.

What matters is what the IRS states.

Again, if we are going to have a conversation using appeals to authority (which I am ok with), what matters is what Congress states so long as Acts of Congress conform to the Constitution of the United States of America. Under this system ignorance of the law is not an excuse. All citizens have a duty and obligation to cure their ignorance of the law. It is the duty of each citizen acting in a state of non-ignorance to observe lawful legislation that conforms to powers delegated in state or federal constitutions and disregard unlawful legislation that does not.

If we want to get really technical the federal government denied the IRS is an agency of the United States in Diversified Metal v. IRS. If we are arguing on authority I could care less what the IRS states or any other entity that is not an agency of the United States. If we really want to get technical Larry Becraft did some excellent research on the subject:

Many years ago, I tried to find within the Internal Revenue Code the section which created your agency, the Internal Revenue Service, but I was unable to find it. I then decided to locate other sources of information regarding how the Internal Revenue Service was established and what I found was nothing short of amazing.

In 1972, an Internal Revenue Manual 1100 was published in both the Federal Register and Cumulative Bulletin; see 37 Fed. Reg. 20960, 1972-2 Cum. Bul. 836, a copy of which is attached for your convenience. On the very first page of this statement published in the Bulletin, the following admission was made:

"(3) By common parlace [sic] and understanding of the time, an office of the importance of the Office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue was a bureau. The Secretary of the Treasury in his report at the close of the calendar year 1862 stated that 'The Bureau of Internal Revenue has been organized under the Act of the last session...' Also it can be seen that Congress had intended to establish a Bureau of Internal Revenue, or thought they had, from the act of March 3, 1863, in which provision was made for the President to appoint with Senate confirmation a Deputy Commissioner of Internal Revenue 'who shall be charged with such duties in the bureau of internal revenue as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, or as may be required by law, and who shall act as Commissioner of internal revenue in the absence of that officer, and exercise the privilege of franking all letters and documents pertaining to the office of internal revenue.' In other words, 'the office of internal revenue' was 'the bureau of internal revenue,' and the act of July 1, 1862, is the organic act of today's Internal Revenue Service."
This statement, which again appears in a similar publication appearing at 39 Fed. Reg. 11572, 1974-1 Cum. Bul. 440, as well as the current IRM 1100, essentially admits that Congress never created either the Bureau of Internal Revenue or the Internal Revenue Service. To conclude that "Congress thought it had created this agency" is an admission that even the government itself cannot even find anything which created either agency. The only office created by the act of July 1, 1862, was the Office of the Commissioner; neither the Bureau nor the Service was actually created by any of these acts.

I have no doubt that when employees of the IRS were researching its origins so that this statement could be included within IRM 1100, those employees must have performed a very thorough investigation. This obviously is the best position that your agency can develop regarding precisely how the IRS came into being. But besides the problem that these acts simply did not create either the Bureau or the IRS is the fact that these acts were repealed by the adoption of the Revised Statutes of 1873. Therefore, it would appear that your agency has never been created by any act of Congress, and this is a serious flaw.

At the state level, it is a well acknowledged rule that a duly constituted office of state government must be created either by the state constitution itself or by some legislative act; see Patton v. Bd. of Health, 127 Cal. 388, 393, 59 P. 702, 704 (1899)("One of the requisites is that the office must be created by the constitution of the state or it must be authorized by some statute"); First Nat. Bank of Columbus v. State, 80 Neb. 597, 114 N.W. 772, 773 (1908); State ex rel. Peyton v. Cunningham, 39 Mont. 197, 103 P. 497, 498 (1909); State ex rel. Stage v. Mackie, 82 Conn. 398, 74 A. 759, 761 (1909); State ex rel. Key v. Bond, 94 W.Va. 255, 118 S.E. 276, 279 (1923)("a position is a public office when it is created by law"); Coyne v. State, 22 Ohio App. 462, 153 N.E. 876, 877 (1926)("Unless the office existed there could be no officer either de facto or de jure. A de facto officer is one invested with an office; but if there is no office with which to invest one, there can be no officer. An office may exist only by duly constituted law"); State v. Quinn, 35 N.M. 62, 290 P. 786, 787 (1930); Turner v. State, 226 Ala. 269, 146 So. 601, 602 (1933); Oklahoma City v. Century Indemnity Co., 178 Okl. 212, 62 P.2d 94, 97 (1936); State ex rel. Nagle v. Kelsey, 102 Mont. 8, 55 P.2d 685, 689 (1936); Stapleton v. Frohmiller, 53 Ariz. 11, 85 P.2d 49, 51 (1938); Buchholtz v. Hill, 178 Md. 280, 13 A.2d 348, 350 (1940); Krawiec v. Industrial Comm., 372 Ill. 560, 25 N.E.2d 27, 29 (1940); People v. Rapsey, 16 Cal.2d 636, 107 P.2d 388, 391 (1940); Industrial Comm. v. Arizona State Highway Comm., 61 Ariz. 59, 145 P.2d 846, 849 (1943); State ex rel. Brown v. Blew, 20 Wash.2d 47, 145 P.2d 554, 556 (1944); Martin v. Smith, 239 Wis. 314, 1 N.W.2d 163, 172 (1941); Taylor v. Commonwealth, 305 Ky. 75, 202 S.W.2d 992, 994 (1947); State ex rel. Hamblen v. Yelle, 29 Wash.2d 68, 185 P.2d 723, 728 (1947); Morris v. Peters, 203 Ga. 350, 46 S.E.2d 729, 733 (1948); Weaver v. North Bergen Tp., 10 N.J. Super. 96, 76 A.2d 701 (1950); Tomaris v. State, 71 Ariz. 147, 224 P.2d 209, 211 (1950); Pollack v. Montoya, 55 N.M. 390, 234 P.2d 336, 338 (1951); Schaefer v. Superior Court in & for Santa Barbara County, 248 P.2d 450, 453 (Cal.App. 1952); Brusnigham v. State, 86 Ga.App. 340, 71 S.E.2d 698, 703 (1952); State ex rel. Mathews v. Murray, 258 P.2d 982, 984 (Nev. 1953); Dosker v. Andrus, 342 Mich. 548, 70 N.W.2d 765, 767 (1955); Hetrich v. County Comm. of Anne Arundel County, 222 Md. 304, 159 A.2d 642, 643 (1960); Meiland v. Cody, 359 Mich. 78, 101 N.W.2d 336, 341 (1960); Jones v. Mills, 216 Ga. 616, 118 S.E.2d 484, 485 (1961); State v. Hord, 264 N.C. 149, 141 S.E.2d 241, 245 (1965); Planning Bd. of Tp. of West Milford v. Tp. Council of Tp. of West Milford, 123 N.J.Super. 135, 301 A.2d 781, 784 (1973); Vander Linden v. Crews, 205 N.W.2d 686, 688 (Iowa 1973); Kirk v. Flournoy, 36 Cal.App. 3d 553, 111 Cal. Rptr. 674, 675 (1974); Wargo v. Industrial Comm., 58 Ill.2d 234, 317 N.E.2d 519, 521 (1974); State v. Bailey, 220 S.E.2d 432, 435 (W.Va. 1975); Leek v. Theis, 217 Kan. 784, 539 P.2d 304, 323 (1975); Midwest Television, Inc. v. Champaign-Urbana Communications, Inc., 37 Ill.App.3d 926, 347 N.E.2d 34, 38 (1976); and State v. Pinckney, 276 N.W.2d 433, 436 (Iowa 1979).

This same rule applies at the federal level; see United States v. Germaine, 99 U.S. 508 (1879); Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 441, 6 S.Ct. 1121 (1886)("there can be no officer, either de jure or de facto, if there be no office to fill"); United States v. Mouat, 124 U.S. 303, 8 S.Ct. 505 (1888); United States v. Smith, 124 U.S. 525, 8 S.Ct. 595 (1888); Glavey v. United States, 182 U.S. 595, 607, 21 S.Ct. 891 (1901)("The law creates the office, prescribes its duties"); Cochnower v. United States, 248 U.S. 405, 407, 39 S.Ct. 137 (1919)("Primarily we may say that the creation of offices and the assignment of their compensation is a legislative function... And we think the delegation of such function and the extent of its delegation must have clear expression or implication"); Burnap v. United States, 252 U.S. 512, 516, 40 S.Ct. 374, 376 (1920); Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell, 269 U.S. 514, 46 S.Ct. 172, 173 (1926); N.L.R.B. v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Louisville, 350 U.S. 264, 269, 76 S.Ct. 383 (1956)("'Officers' normally means those who hold defined offices. It does not mean the boys in the back room or other agencies of invisible government, whether in politics or in the trade-union movement"); Crowley v. Southern Ry. Co., 139 F. 851, 853 (5th Cir. 1905); Adams v. Murphy, 165 F. 304 (8th Cir. 1908); Scully v. United States, 193 F. 185, 187 (D.Nev. 1910)("There can be no offices of the United States, strictly speaking, except those which are created by the Constitution itself, or by an act of Congress"); Commissioner v. Harlan, 80 F.2d 660, 662 (9th Cir. 1935); Varden v. Ridings, 20 F.Supp. 495 (E.D.Ky. 1937); Annoni v. Blas Nadal's Heirs, 94 F.2d 513, 515 (1st Cir. 1938); and Pope v. Commissioner, 138 F.2d 1006, 1009 (6th Cir. 1943).

Since I have reached the conclusion that the IRS has never been created by Congress, I am asking you to provide to me the citation of any statute which really did create the IRS. Since this is a question of profound national importance, I request that you provide an answer to me within 20 days. Failing a response within that time period, I shall conclude that you cannot find any such statute and shall act accordingly.

.

Regarding:

Well, as I said, I quoted from the above source that you provided. I found my quote by hitting "control + F", which is the "search document" function in most web browsers. Then I typed "barter" into the search box. I was provided with only 2 results, though I actually saw that the word barter did appear at least 3 times, which suggests the search function for that document is not perfect. However, I'm sure you can repeat these steps to find the quote I provided in my previous post.

http://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/PL97-248.pdf[

Maybe the confusion is on my end. Attempting to follow your directions I pulled up the pdf. I have the search box in the bottom left of the screen and typed in "barter". As you can see the box is red indicating no result. Perhaps you could specify the page numbers and I will be happy to scroll to the correct page just in case my computer is not working properly or there is a user error on my end.

This may not have been directed at me, but I will respond anyway. This seems to be hypocritical. Earlier, you stated that it doesn't matter what the State/IRS says. Just because they claim something isn't money doesn't make it so, you claimed.

I said it doesn't matter what the IRS says is money or a medium of exchange. Arguing on authority, I offer Article 1, Section 8.

The Congress shall have Power

To lay and collect

To borrow

To regulate

To establish

To coin

To provide

To promote

To constitute

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare

To exercise

To make

The power to define appears to be a narrow power. Allow me to use an analogy...

Who has authority over your name? Are you able to call yourself whatever you want whenever you want or does someone or something have such authority over you? If you decide to call yourself A today and B tomorrow do you cease to become A? If I met you yesterday and addressed you as A today am I wrong? Will you respond to being called A if you are now B? If you respond to being addressed as A does that mean you are not really B? Is naming oneself an act to define your identity?

But now you are claiming that the State can call itself a corporation? Well, just because the State calls itself a corporation doesn't make it so...

I am not debating whether the State CAN call itself a corporation. I cited an example where the State DOES call itself a corporation since I got a "Dude WTF" to using "USA, Inc".... There is a difference iiregardless of any sarcasm exhibited on my part. Although I could really care less about this USA, Inc. thing since this is a major deviation to the topic at hand in the thread.

I am interested in the point I made in my original post. The presumption in this thread about legal tender being forced. I do not believe it is. I will be happy to continue this appeal to authority conversation so long as the thing asserted can be substantiated in Congressional legislation. If we are engaging in conversation for the pursuit of truth I firmly believe the truth of the matter shall be revealed.

Right now the conversation is lingering on the hypothetical orange and apple trade. You have asserted there is a tax liablity because of an alleged obligation for citizens to disclose the trade of an apple for an orange to government. I am unable to agree or disagree until there is evidence introduced Congress legislated on the matter.

Re: Inflation is NOT theft?

Clayton — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 19:02:55 GMT

You tell me dude, WTF?

Find me a single, practicing lawyer (in corporate law) who will agree with your statement, "The United States government is a corporation." The definitions section of USC 28 does not in any way, shape or form imply that the United States government is a corporation. I mean, it's patently circular - a Federal corporation is chartered by the Federal government, so who wrote the charter that created the Federal corporation called "the US government"???

This is on a par with the "your birth-certificate is traded on the stock exchange" crap.

Clayton -

Re: Inflation is NOT theft?

Clayton — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 18:55:47 GMT

Time Dollar, Ithaca Hours, Bitcoins, etc. are play-monies, they are not serious alternatives to FRNs... they retain all the bad attributes of FRNs (fiat, unbacked, inflationary, etc.) without the brand-value. I was not trying to say there is nothing at all whatsoever which can be exchanged without inducing a tax burden. My point is that none of the recognized alternatives to fiat money (gold, silver, etc.) can be used as money without incurring additional tax burden vis-a-vis FRNs due to barter tax and capital gains tax on inflationary valuation.

That's leaving aside the fact that the US government will simply act extra-legally or retroactively change the rules once it realizes an oversight. There is no meaningful alternative to FRNs in the territorial US. To say otherwise is either stupid, ignorant or evil. Inflationary policy would be impossible without the money monopoly. This inflationary policy hurts the would-be saver by forcing him to incur risks beyond those associated with secure storage of money in order to protect the value of his assets.

Clayton -

Re: Inflation is NOT theft?

gotlucky — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:27:30 GMT

@Live_Free_Or_Die

Time dollars are duty free because the US government does not feel it is worth pursuing. One of the links I provided earlier stated:

The IRS has issued three local rulings that Time Dollars are tax exempt. They have given three reasons for this status.

1. An hour is always an hour, regardless of what is offered
2. They are backed only by a moral obligation and are not legally binding
3. Their purpose is charitable.

The state has determined that Time Dollars are not worth taxing. The decision was made because Time Dollars are used by relatively few people for the purpose of charity, and they do not create legally binding contracts. If Time Dollars ever caught on and were used by a significant portion of the population, then the state would revoke this status.

Here is an analogy:

Technically, the Catholic Church is a business. It provides a service, collects revenue, pays its employees, etc. However, the State declares that for the purposes of taxation, the Catholic Church is not a business, and it will not be taxed.

Technically, Time Dollars are a medium of exchange. People can trade them for services. However, the State declares that for the purpose of taxation, Time Dollars are not money because they are used for charity. In order for the State to enforce this, they have declared that Time Dollars are not legally binding and that no one can sue because someone didn't honor the contract when using them. In other words, if you pay me in Time Dollars, and I don't provide a service, you cannot sue me.

If Time Dollars were to ever be used by enough people outside of charity, the State would revoke this status. Furthermore, I do not see how you citing Time Dollars contradicts Clayton's point. His point was:

Clayton:

No, it's not just a matter of convenience... Federal Reserve Notes are the only duty-free medium of exchange. If I buy your car for $5,000, that $5,000 is income for you but the car is not income for me and does not have to be reported as income for tax purposes. But if I buy your car for 5 gold pieces, the transaction is a barter transaction and both parties must report the items in the exchange as income to the IRS at the "fair market value." Suddenly, the car becomes taxed.

While it is true that you may claim his first sentence to be false, that does not disprove the rest of the paragraph at all. I do not see how the fact that Time Dollars exist (for the purpose of charity!) disproves that barter exchanges are in fact taxable. All it shows is that there are some barter exchanges that are not taxable. And I have demonstrated (with sources no less!) that if Time Dollars were used to evade taxes on a large enough scale, the State would revoke this status. But, again, Time Dollars do not contradict Clayton.

Live_Free_Or_Die:

What does what the IRS deems money have ANYTHING AT ALL to do with whether something is a medium of exchange? As you POINTED out the IRS is in the TAX COLLECTING business not the business of deeming what IS or IS NOT a "medium of exchange".

Time Dollars are 1) a "medium of exchange" and 2) duty free.

What is the argument? Federal Reserve Notes are not the only duty free medium of exchange.

That response that you have quoted was a direct response to:

Live_Free_Or_Die:

So let me get this straight... If the FED, ahem IRS, deems something to be money or non-money regardless of whether or not it is used by human beings for trade that automatically makes something money or not money? Is that the Austrian position on say.... Ben Bernake regarding gold?

Talk about a non-argument....

As I stated, when it comes to the IRS, it does not matter what Austrian theory states. What matters is what the IRS states. If the IRS were to state that coupons are money, and that coupons will now be taxable, then the IRS will tax coupons. It doesn't matter what they are meant to do, if the IRS says that for its purposes, A is money and B isn't money, then for the purposes of the IRS, A is money and B isn't.

Live_Free_Or_Die:

Next, regarding:

SEC. 31 1. RETURNS OF BROKERS.

That is a citation from the USA, Inc. Code. In your reply you cited specifially a Wiki entry and highlight this excerpt:

However the IRS now requires barter exchanges to be reported as per the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982.

I provided a link to that Congressional Act and asked for the specific section you were referring to. Instead of citing something from the specific Act of Congress you come back and cite U.S. Code.

There is a problem here. If this conversation is going to make an appeal to authority then we are going to have to get into the nitty gritty of this alleged authority. You just don't get to cite Acts of Congress and then only refer to U.S. Code in the fine details. You are going to have to link the U.S. Code to a specific Act of Congress and to justify how an Act of Congress becomes codified.

I'm a little confused here. The quote I provided was from the source you provided me. If you did not feel that the link you provided was a proper source, then I'm not sure why you provided it.

Live_Free_Or_Die:

Getting back to my original question...

Would you be so kind to indicate the exact section of legislation you refer to in order to substantiate the reporting requirement you assert on this hypothetical apple and orange trade?

http://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/PL97-248.pd

Well, as I said, I quoted from the above source that you provided. I found my quote by hitting "control + F", which is the "search document" function in most web browsers. Then I typed "barter" into the search box. I was provided with only 2 results, though I actually saw that the word barter did appear at least 3 times, which suggests the search function for that document is not perfect. However, I'm sure you can repeat these steps to find the quote I provided in my previous post.

Live_Free_Or_Die:

Allow me to make a citation from the U.S. Code...

28 USC § 3002 - Definitions

(15) “United States” means—

(A) a Federal corporation;

You tell me dude, WTF?

This may not have been directed at me, but I will respond anyway. This seems to be hypocritical. Earlier, you stated that it doesn't matter what the State/IRS says. Just because they claim something isn't money doesn't make it so, you claimed. But now you are claiming that the State can call itself a corporation? Well, just because the State calls itself a corporation doesn't make it so...