July 14, 2011

Tax, Or Theft? (Repost from 2009)

I received a new comment on this piece today and I thought I would repost the whole thing. Despite never having found conclusive evidence to support the claims I make in the piece, it remains one of my core beliefs. It still makes absolute sense to me (the notion of "birth bonds") because if I was running a government it is exactly what I would do to generate cash. And, being a member of the government means that I could throw my ethics into the nearest cupboard until I was deselected.

If you are a newbie to all this, please let me know what you think.

Here you go:










Let's kick this off with a quote from Benjamin Franklyn:

"It would be a hard government that should tax its people one-tenth part of their income".

Or how about this one from Winston Churchill:

"There is no such thing as a good tax"

In my last post Anon asked the question "Why shouldn't we pay taxes?" and I thought it would be good to explain why not, or at the very least, present a case for paying a lot less.

Now, I could bang on about the waste but there are better places to see that waste, like the Tax Payers Alliance, for instance. Waste is not a new phenomenon in government. They have outstanding qualifications and vast experience in this area. The money isn't theirs, so they don't take as much care in its disbursement as they should. Legal obligations be damned, it's free money to be used for whatever takes their fancy. It was ever thus.

Or, I could tell you that human beings do not have to pay tax. Bizarre, but quite true. When you were born, a corporation was set up in your name. Once your parents registered your birth, you became a company. From that day, to your last day, you are considered to be a money making machine for the government. They don't call you a company, or a corporation, but that is all that you are. They simply took an everyday word, "PERSON", and redefined it in all of their legal dictionaries. They cannot demand payments from a human being, but they can, and do, from our persons. The clue is the first line on any letter you receive from the courts, or the fixed penalty office, the taxman, or any other government agency: it will say MR JOE BLOGGS or MRS JANE SMITH. All in captials. Check it out. As soon as you see your person in all capitals, they are dealing with your company or, as we also term it, your Strawman. If you really need to see evidence that human beings do not have to pay tax I will issue this very simple challenge: show me just one instance where the words "human being" appear in any of our statutes concerning taxation. I can save you some time here. We are referred to as "persons" "companies" or "corporations", but never humans.

I could also tell you that by paying income tax you are breaking international law. One of the judgements, and subsequently, legislation, that arose from the Nuremberg Trials was that anyone sponsoring/financing/supporting an armed force in an illegal war is jointly and severally liable for harm and injury caused to non-combatants. We fought in Iraq illegally, and we continue to do so in Afghanistan. Our taxes pay for servicemen and women, missiles, war machinery and all that goes with supporting a fighting force abroad. We are, by Nuremberg definitions, culpable in the deaths and injuries to innocents. Morally, lawfully and legally, we can withhold our taxes until the offensive is terminated.

My bugbear in all of this is not a desire to "freeload". My desire, my need, is to be taxed fairly. Is that too much to ask? Without pasting a copy of my payslip here I can tell you that I pay 40% tax on a portion of my income. When I am in Africa I receive a "hardship" allowance per day. By the time I get paid this allowance, the government have stolen almost half of it. They are receiving payment for hardships and dangers that I endure. I don't think that is right, reasonable, or fair.

They misappropriate funds regularly. Let me give a couple of examples:

Tobacco Tax-this is one I am very familiar with. A packet of twenty fags costs me £5.85. Of this, £4.45 goes to the government. This is a tax of 76%. Now, when we add up everyone else's purchases, we get a figure of £8.2 billion, when we add VAT it comes to £11.4 billion. That all goes to the government in taxation. Yet they only spend £1.5 billion of that on so-called smoking related diseases. What do they do with the rest? If all they need to treat these mythical maladies is £1.5 billion, then that is what they should take. Not a penny more.

Road Tax-latest figures show that £44 billion is raised annually via this tax yet only £11 billion is spent fixing our roads. What do they do with the rest? If all they need is £11 billion, then reduce the road tax so that is all they take in.

Council Tax-when the banks failed I was disgusted to learn that almost all local councils had huge sums of money invested in stocks and shares. Some of them lost over £200 million when the Icelandic banks went tits up. These very same councils were crying poverty when we asked them for improved services. "There is no money for that", they said. No, we can see now why there was "no money". It was all in a bank in fucking Iceland. Why weren't they using our money to pay for services? Their pensions have to be considered of course, but are they the highest priority they have? It would appear so. If they have enough to invest in stocks and shares they are patently demanding far too much from us.

Anon rightly asks why we would wish to avoid paying for services, and I guess that if he/she had elaborated, he/she would want to know if Freemen, (or indeed anyone, as I will show), should pay for the NHS, for policing, for the fire service, for local doctors, for housing and education, and the never-ending list of other stuff we need for a society to function well.

One answer is that I have paid for all of these services already. In fact, by the time I first stepped into long pants in 1969 everything I could ever need had already been paid for. I'll say that again. By the time I was 7 years old I had paid for my housing, health care, education, training and security. Within 7 years I had paid for my entire lifetime needs as a citizen of the United Kingdom. In earlier posts I talked about our Redemption Accounts or Birth Bonds. As a reminder, it works like this. Once we have been registered after we are born (usually within six weeks of exiting the womb) up to ten bonds are created in our Strawman name. These bonds earn money on the stock market until the day our deaths are registered. The value of your bonds depend entirely on your background and your projected lifetime earnings. Every quarter the government receives a dividend from these bonds, which, if you could gain control of, would come directly to your bank account. The money is yours, and the value of your bonds is a fantastically huge sum. All of which the government keeps and manages for you because in law, you are defined as a child. A child cannot be allowed to manage such huge funds and cannot be trusted with it. The government very kindly removes that responsibility from us. In Canada, and in the USA, some Freemen have managed to gain control over these funds. It is not an easy thing to accomplish. The secret has been hidden from us for many, many years. I am no economist, but, I know that my projected earnings were around £1 million. If any "moneymen" read this post, perhaps you can tell me what a trust valued at £1M in 1962, if carefully invested, would be worth today?

Assuming I have it all right, and that this is all true, why in the name of all the gods should I now pay the government 53% of my earnings every year? They have my money. Millions and millions of pounds that belong to me. I am incredibly wealthy yet I am prohibited from getting access to funds that grew and matured as I grew and matured.

And since they have all my money does it not seem greedy on their part to want to rob me every month? Does it seem to you unreasonable that I want to stop paying these excessive and unfair taxes? Does it seem wrong if I want to cease making payments for services that I have paid for time and time and time again?

Here's the bottom line, and you need to forgive its crudity: we have been fucked. We continue to get fucked every single day of our lives because successive governments, who are ALL aware of the scam, (at least, the top dogs are aware, they have to be), simply cannot tell us the truth. If they did they would lose control. They control us with punitive taxes, and once we are harnessed to the tax machine there is no escape. We are enslaved forever.

I am one of a tiny, tiny number of people who have studied, read, and understood the depth of this deception, and I want so very badly to correct this abomination that it keeps me awake nights.

You may well ask "But what if everyone felt this way, and took the action you are taking?"

My answer?

Look at the facts. I have 700 to 1,000 daily visitors to my little blog. Of those, I would say that less than 10% believe anything I say although they may find the blog interesting, or it may be a diversion for them. (This is not meant as an insult by the way.  I welcome anyone who reads this stuff. I just wish it was 50 or 60 million). And of that 10% how many do you think will act on any information they find here? 10 readers, 20, maybe? And who can blame people for disbelieving? This information flies in the face of everything we have been taught: be a good citizen, work hard, pay your taxes, stop complaining, others are worse off, etc etc. Its all bullshit. Clever bullshit, I grant you. It is designed so that our enslavement passes by unremarked. We were never meant to know some of the things we have uncovered in the last year or so.

Getting the genie back in the bottle will be impossible in another year or two, as our successes continue to mount up.

If I were in government today I would be terrified. This is world changing stuff.

And I don't say that lightly.

I may have missed some things as I am an awful meanderer. Please chip in with comments if you have time.

CR.

NOTE-for the pedants who may trawl back for the original post. I have altered my readership figures above. Back in 2009 I was lucky to have 50-60 daily stalwarts, today that figure varies from 700-1200 unique visitors a day, depending on the article, and linkage from my good pals in the blogosphere.

19 comments:

NewsboyCap said...

captain

I admit to not having studied to the extent you have (shameful I know), but,I have been trying to find out what is the valuable commodity of Government Bonds.
Now say the UK mined Unobtanium and produced Widgets that the world needed in vast quantities, the Widgets could be used like Gold and offered as Bonds on the International stock markets.
We know that the country has no Gold and Unobtanium is only found on Pandora.So what have Governments used ? It seems that as you say it can only be future Tax revenues of the Plebs. As you know Tax revenues are the Guarantee the US Government uses for the FED, I haven't been able to find if this is the case in the UK

The Quizzical Observer said...

Cap'n

I'm right behind you on wanting the Government to spend less money, take less tax, and generally be there less.

However, this stuff about the person/corporation/human being... I do think there's a misunderstanding here. Most legislatures have had to come up with a 'legal fiction' person, so that a company or corporation can be dealt with in law as if they were an individual person. We can all see where that would be necessary, as otherwise you'd have to take individual actions against each and every shareholder. The term 'legal fiction' just acknowledges that companies or corporations aren't living, breathing persons, but for the purposes of law they can be treated as such. But that's all, it doesn't work the other way round. Human beings are 'persons' too as far as the UK law is concerned. A 'person' is just someone with whom the law interacts on a one-to-one basis. I don't know about other legislatures but strongly suspect other common law legislatures (ex Empire, mostly) will be the same.

I've been looking through my correspondence. HMRC don't always address me in block caps, nor do my local council, nor does my local court.

But as I say, you're entirely right about the State spending way too much of our money.

Captain Ranty said...

NBC,

We have known for a while that they sell our future labour, our sweat equity, and this bond thing makes sense and would please the bank(s) that were lending the govt the money up front.

CR.

Captain Ranty said...

TQO,

Thanks for your observations.

I understand the distinction you are making as far as corporations and humans go, but our (Freeman) attempts to separate ourselves from the fiction have been quite successful. Recently a judge agreed that Roger Hayes could represent his fiction. This was the first time (to our knowledge) that a court had even admitted that a fiction existed.

I looked again at my letters from HMRC, the council, the DVLA etc. All are addressed to me in capital letters. Apart from the very last letter they sent me which is addressed to Captain: of the Ranty family. (That made I larf, that did).

Incidentally, in Rome (back in the day), the more capital letters you had in your name, the more of a slave you were.

The boss (for instance), Julius Caesar, would never ever have capitalised his first and last name.

This remains the case today. Venetian Law (pre-Vatican law) still says the same thing. More, it defines a human being variously as a "monster", an "imbecile", and/or a "child".

Surprisingly, these definitions are still as written. Succeeding popes never bothered to re-write the definitions.

You are right about ex Empire countries. The same crap was used for us all.

A lot of stuff we imagine to be true, actually isn't, and it doesn't take much scratching to locate it all.

CR.

Anonymous said...

I was just reading about capitis deminutio, CR… :-D There’s also the instances of judges fucking off once the legal fiction is “presented” to the court… (Even though they probably come back later; standing in court is supposedly a three stage process, after all.)

A great place to start, that post; and while the deeper theories may still be debated I think some are now nearly, if not fully, established beyond reasonable doubt; as you mentioned with the Hayes case.

As to where it all goes: The Debt That Is Never Paid

Blackstone's Commentaries (after having outlined the taxes and duties that make up the "king's revenue"):

"How these immense sums are appropriated is next to be considered. And this is, first and principally, to the payment of the interest of the national debts.

"In order to take a clear and comprehensive view of the nature of this national debt, it must first be premised, that after the revolution...the expenses of the nation...increased to an unusual degree: insomuch that it was not thought advisable to raise all the expenses of any one year by taxes to be levied within that year, lest the unaccustomed weight of them should create murmurs among the people. It was therefore the policy of the times to anticipate the revenues of their posterity, by borrowing immense sums for the current service of the state, and to lay no more taxes upon the subject than would suffice to pay the annual interest of the sums so borrowed: by this means converting the principal debt into a new species of property, transferable from one man to another at any time and in any quantity...

“By this means the quantity of property in the kingdom is greatly increased in idea, compared with former times; yet, if we coolly consider it, not at all increased in reality. We may boast of large fortunes, and quantities of money in the funds. But where does this money exist? It exists only in name, in paper, in public faith, in parliamentary security; and that is undoubtedly sufficient for the creditors of the public to rely on. But then what is the pledge which the public faith has pawned for the security of these debts? The land, the trade, and the personal industry of the subject; from which the money must arise that supplies the several taxes. In these, therefore, and these only, the property of the public creditors does really and intrinsically exist; and of course the land, the trade, and the personal industry of individuals, are diminished in their true value just so much as they are pledged to answer."

The whole section is, pardon the pun, gold on the matter of money and the national debt. We learn that a) it never gets paid off, b) it's owed to foreigners, c) it diminishes the nation beyond any prospect of commercial benefit, d) it represents, in essence, property consumed from the nation's capital that can never be regained and, most importantly, e) money is essentially illusory anyway (many many years before BoE admitted the same).

Of course debt is one way for governments to control their people.

On "unclaimed" life annuities being pooled in govt funds:

"...a sinking fund, of one million, payable at the exchequer quarterly in every year, was created in the year 1786; to which certain annuities were directed to be added, upon the expiration of the terms for which they were respectively granted...these sums afterwards were directed to be paid out of the consolidated fund; and such annuities for lives as should remain unclaimed for three years, were added to the same sinking fund..." (Tomlin's Law Dictionary)

Concept’s up for debate, but if you’re a CQV kinda person, we're all unclaimed…

Regards

TSL

Anonymous said...

I'm the one that commented :-), glad it inspired you to repost it... I'm disheartened slightly to hear that you found no proof of the claims... But hey they aren't going to make things easy are they... I was reading a thread the other day, it was about someone who has refused to pay tax for 5 years i think it is, anyway he posted letters off to hmrc, asking for proof of liability to pay tax, proof not a penny was spent on war and a whole bunch of other stuff... I'll try to find it again, it makes for interesting reading, it seems they just keep passing the buck around... At the end of the day if you are forced to pay for services you won't need or want, then you're being robbed, it's as simple as that... Besides it goes against capitalism and the free market! If you bought insurance with a hospital and they made you wait months for an operation, you could just change the hospital or the insurer!... Also shouldn't you be offered a contract to pay tax? That way you can agree terms! And get accountability! Also you would be able to opt out!... Well i opt out anyway! Let them lock me up, i'll gladly cost them some more money! to repost it... I'm disheartened slightly to hear that you found no proof of the claims... But hey they aren't going to make things easy are they... I was reading a thread the other day, it was about someone who has refused to pay tax for 5 years i think it is, anyway he posted letters off to hmrc, asking for proof of liability to pay tax, proof not a penny was spent on war and a whole bunch of other stuff... I'll try to find it again, it makes for interesting reading, it seems they just keep passing the buck around... At the end of the day if you are forced to pay for services you won't need or want, then you're being robbed, it's as simple as that... Besides it goes against capitalism and the free market! If you bought insurance with a hospital and they made you wait months for an operation, you could just change the hospital or the insurer!... Also shouldn't you be offered a contract to pay tax? That way you can agree terms! And get accountability! Also you would be able to opt out!... Well i opt out anyway! Let them lock me up, i'll gladly cost them some more money!

Anonymous said...

argh! Sorry, i'm on my phone, and for some reason it keeps double posting! It's doing my head in lol... Anyway apologies.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Taxation is theft, land ownership is theft. Make the punishment fit the crime.

georgesilver said...

There is absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever with tax.

As long as it's voluntary.

If it's not voluntary then it's plain and simple robbery.

Anonymous said...

@Anon 05.34

Possibly are you referring to this?
http://youtu.be/Mw1Q5w2As3w

Common sense would tell us to refuse any such lopsided contracts, which is why we're not offered them in the first place. ;-)

"Opting out" has to be possible, especially as we're dealing with contracts. Contracts can be rescinded, consent can be revoked. There is not one set method. Some argue paperwork is needed - as CR said in a recent post about consent, our adversaries thrive on bits of paper - whilst others are of a "bah, just do it" state of mind.

Page 40-ish of "Standing Under Freedom" is very good on taxation, citizenship, and an possible way out.

Regards

TSL

Anonymous said...

"...of that 10% how many do you think will act on any information they find here?"

Bloody brilliant post Captain, you've become my first port of call at the start of the day now.

Some of us are saying no so don't despair. I didn't do the census (didn't do the last one either - can't EVER remember doing one actually), and when I move house I won't be registering to vote. When I buy my next car it will be from outside UK jurisdication and I won't be registering it with the DVLA. I also fully intend to set up my own business so they don't get any tax out of me, as I won't be registering it with the Inland Revenue.

It takes time and knowledge to extricate yourself from the matrix, but we can all do it slowly and incrementally.

Don't buy things that incur VAT (thank goodness books don't!); if you have to buy stuff go secondhand; grow some of your own food (or ALL of your own food if you have the space); set up a bartering system with your neighbours - a tin of beans for a head of lettuce, that kind of thing.

Starve the beast!

David

Anonymous said...

Quizzical Observer

Person does work the other way round. I'm studying law. Did you know you have multiple Legal Personalities? Did you know that if you are Mr A Jones on your credit card and Mr Andrew Jones on your driving license then that is two legal personalities that have been created for you for separate organisations?

David

James Higham said...

One of the most iniquitous is the Non-Dom double taxation.

georgesilver said...

@ Mark Wadsworth

"Tax is theft" I can go with that.

"Land ownership is theft" .... How does that work?

Can you explain?

Anonymous said...

anon 11:44... Yeah that's the one mate! Thanks for the youtube link... And yeah i know, i'm of the train of thought of fuck their paperwork! I feel that the more you converse with them, the more credence you give them... I've got education welfare trying to contract with me at the moment! They will be told on monday, but a one time phonecall... I'll put nothing in writing for them... Anyway thanks for the reply, sorry for the long delay.

Anonymous said...

georgesilver... He's right, but it does take some getting your head round lol... Basically who says you can own a piece of land? Who gave the land away originally? How did they get that right? We are all created equal, so noone has that power! The earth belongs to noone! Border control is wrong too, because who says you can't just travel to another part of the world, in which we all live, but we've been had and made to believe we only live where we're born... Everything is a lie my friend lol. round lol... Basically who says you can own a piece of land? Who gave the land away originally? How did they get that right? We are all created equal, so noone has that power! The earth belongs to noone! Border control is wrong too, because who says you can't just travel to another part of the world, in which we all live, but we've been had and made to believe we only live where we're born... Everything is a lie my friend lol.

Anonymous said...

i apologise again for my damn phone! I'll be getting a pc friday, thank god! Please bare with me.

suedenimon said...

Nice to see this one Cap'n, it has given me some heart to see the you tube linked video above...

Shaunantijihad said...

You might also add that paying taxes to an entity that is committing High Treason by transference of our Sovereignty to a foreign power (EU) is aiding and abetting treason and is thus a criminal offence.