YOU WAIVED YOUR RIGHT TO EARN WAGES
We are endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights.
One of those rights is a right to sell your own labor.
According to your Declaration of Independence, governments are
instituted among men to secure the rights endowed by the Creator.
A right cannot be regulated. A
right cannot be taxed. If you
had a right to your wages, it would be a Government duty to secure your
right to wages. What contract
did you sign to waive your right to earn wages?
The US Constitution in Article 1, section 10 prohibits government from impairing the obligation of
contracts. If you had a right
to contract your labor for wages of equal value, then government would not
impair that contract. But you
don’t have a right to contract, because your labor belongs to your
benefactor. It belongs to the
same people who own the IRS. Your
employer buys your labor from them. They
allow you to keep a living allowance. Slaves
must be provided for.
The application form for a Social Security Number is a
Department of the Treasury form, not a form from the Social Security
Administration. They are your
If you applied for a number, you agreed that the
Secretary of the Treasury is your Lord.
You cannot question federal jurisdiction once you avail yourself of
federal benefits (according to the Supreme Court's Ashwander case).
And I again repeat the Black's Law Dictionary definition of Allegiance:
of fidelity and obedience to government in consideration for protection that
government gives. U.S. v. Kuhn, D.C.N.Y., 49 F. Supp. 407, 414"
Let’s take a closer look at this obligation of
If government determines your moral values for you then
you cannot claim that it is immoral to fund vile abominations.
You must render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.
On the other hand, if you have a right to earn wages,
then your wages cannot be taken from you to fund abominations.
If you waived your right to earn wages, then your wages become
BASIC TAXATION PRINCIPLES
Romans 13:6 requires us to pay taxes to fund legitimate
government functions. This
makes perfect sense, after all, we masters should pay our servants.
On the other hand, Satan has a counterfeit authority for you to obey.
This counterfeit authority needs tax revenue to fund their
abominations. How then do you
distinguish legitimate authority from illegitimate authority?
Answer: Legitimate government functions, per Romans 13:3-4, are not a
terror to good works, but to evil.
There are two ways to make your earnings taxable: one
is to work for the government, the other is to have your labor rights owned
by the government.
No one has a right to work for the government.
The privilege of working for government is a government granted
taxable privilege. It was
taxable in 1862, long before the 16th Amendment, and it remains taxable now.
The Public Salary Tax Act of 1939 [76th Congress, 1st Session, Chap 59, pages
574-575] has never been repealed. It
defines gross income to include only "compensation for personal service
as an officer or employee of a State, or any political subdivision thereof,
or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing."
That's right! The statute definition is such that only federal government
employees have "income".
[Side issue: This allows the IRS to say that wages are
income. And the Internal
Revenue Code is very misleading. If
you study it carefully, you’ll find out that the term “employer” only
refers to the government.]
And only federal government employees have a right to
work in the US. “The United
States” is both the name of the government and the name of the
geographical place. Don’t
confuse the two.
And NO, the 16th Amendment didn't make all wages taxable.
The Supreme Court ruled in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 US 103 that:
Amendment conferred no new power of taxation...” but simply prohibited
the income tax from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to
which it inherently belonged.
The other way to make wages taxable is to give away
your right to earn wages, thereby making an equitable conversion of your
labor. This is usury prohibited
by scripture. You have no right
to profit from labor that you no longer own.
Income, gain, or profit from the use of government owned labor is
taxable as an excise tax. Courts
have acquired an in rem jurisdiction of this government owned labor.
Any indigent socialist who deposits all his future labor into the
socialist trough in order to receive a future bowl of stew is, of course,
receiving taxable profit if he tries to sell the labor owned by his
Pay attention to the courts’ use of the terms
“income” “gain” and “profit”.
Note that the Internal Revenue Code:
section 61 lists 15 types of income subject to taxation but
does not mention wages or salary,
section 71 lists 19 types of income but does not mention wages
section 101 lists 36 types of income but does not mention
wages or salary.
wages ARE mentioned in the FICA section 3101(a), “IN
ADDITION TO OTHER TAXES, there is hereby imposed on the income of every
individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages...”
The word “income” has never included wages, except
for government employees. The
exchange of labor for pay of equal value has never been income.
Edwards v. Keith, 231 Fed 1:
not derive income by rendering services and charging for them."
Conner v. US, 303 F.Supp 1187 (1969) on page 1191:
is no gain there is no income... Congress has taxed income not
Wilby v. Mississippi, 47 S 465:
certainly was not the intention of the legislature to levy a tax upon honest
toil and labor."
Staples v. US, 21 F.Supp 737, 739(1937):
is not a wage or compensation for any type of labor."
U.S. v. Ballard, 400 F.2d 404 (1976):
term ‘income’ is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code.”
Spring Valley Water Works v. Barber, 33 P 735:
common in every citizen such as the right to own property or to engage in
business of a character not requiring regulation CANNOT, however, be taxed
as a special franchise by first prohibiting its exercise and then permitting
its enjoyment upon the payment of a certain sum of money.”
Tennessee Supreme Court in Jack Cole v. Commissioner
MacFarland, 337 SW2d 453 (1960):
right to receive income or earnings is a right belonging to every person,
and realization and receipt of income is therefore not a "privilege
that can be taxed." [from:Taxation West Key 933]
In this 1960 case, the Tennessee Supreme Court also
quoted prior decisions that defined the term `privilege' in
contradistinction to right:
... cannot name something to be a taxable privilege unless it is first a
privilege." "Privileges are special rights, belonging to the
individual or class, and not to the mass; properly, an exemption from some
general burden, obligation or duty; a right peculiar to some individual or
US Supreme Court in McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316:
could be said that the state had the power to tax a right, this would enable
the state to destroy rights guaranteed by the constitutions through the use
of oppressive taxation. ... The power to tax involves the power to
U.S. Supreme Court in Butcher's Union v. Crescent City
Co., 111 US 746:
property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original
foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable.
... to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he
thinks proper without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this
most sacred property."
Here are some cases to demonstrate that you do not have
a right to sell labor that you no longer own.
It is a taxable government granted privilege to sell their labor.
The amount of your profit determines the tax.
Oliver v. Halstead 86 SE 2d 859 (1955):
“There is a
clear distinction between ‘profit’ and ‘wages’ or compensation for
labor. Compensation for labor
cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law.”
Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 US 309, 45
may be defined as the gain derived from capital or from labor or from both
The Supreme Court in Eisner v. Macomber, 40 S.Ct 192 and 252 US 189 (1920) and subsequently reaffirmed
in Goodrich v. Edwards, 255 US 527 (1921):
becomes essential to distinguish between what is, and what is not
“Congress may not, by any definition it may adopt,
conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution,
from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose
limitations alone, that power can be lawfully exercised....”
be defined as gain derived from capital, from labor or from both combined,
provided it be understood to include profits gained through sale or
conversion of capital assets.”
In the 1959 Tax Court case Penn Mutual Indemnity Co. v.
Commissioner, 32 Tax Court page 681:
“The rule of
Eisner v. Macomber has been reaffirmed on so many occasions that citation of the
cases to this effect would be unnecessarily burdensome.
To depart from the rule at this late date would ignore the sound
principles upon which that case was decided and would throw into confusion
the fundamental income tax structure and law as it has developed in the
almost half century which has elapsed since adoption of the 16th
amendment. That there cannot be ‘income’ without a ‘gain’
accords with the common understanding of the term, a test of construction
which is particularly appropriate in our system of self-assessed Federal
income tax... Moreover, that which is not income in fact manifestly cannot
be made such by the legislative expedient of calling it income....”
So. Pacific v. Lowe, 238 F. Supp 736, 247 US 330:
as used in the statute should be given a meaning so as not to include
everything that comes in. The
true function of the words ‘gains’ and ‘profits’ is to limit the
meaning of the word ‘income’.
Laureldale Cemetery Assoc. v. Matthews, 345 A 239, and
47 A.2d 277 (1946):
compensation for labor or services rendered is not profit.”
US Supreme Court in Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US
105, at 113 (1943):
may not... impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the
U.S. Supreme Court in Magnano Co. v. Hamilton, 292 US
power to tax the exercise of a [right] ... is the power to control or
suppress its enjoyment."
President Jefferson, concluding his first inaugural
address, March 4, 1801:
wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one
another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own
pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of
labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government… "
Spreckels Sugar Ref. Co. v. Mclain, 24 S.Ct 382 (1904):
citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed by clear and
Oregon Supreme Court in redfield v. Fisher, 292 P 813,
pg 819 (1930):
individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege
of existing. The corporation is
an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the
state: but the individuals' right to live and own property are natural
rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed."
Long v. Ramussen, 281 F 236, 238 (1922):
revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and
collection. They relate to
taxpayers, and not to non-taxpayers. The
later are without their scope. No
procedure is prescribed for non-taxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul
any of their rights and remedies in due course of law.
With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of
the subject nor of the object of the revenue law."
Reaffirmed in Gerth v. US, 132 F Supp 894 (1955) and in Economy
Heating Co. v. US, 470 F.2d 585 (1972).
Regal Drug Co v. Wardell, 260 US 386:
may not, under the taxing power, assert a power not delegated to it by the
US Supreme Court in Hurtado v. California, 110 US 516:
state cannot diminish the rights of the people."
Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F.2d 946(1973):
there can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise
of constitutional rights"
Miller v. US, 230 F 489:
claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a
Also see www.taxableincome.net
FOR THE ADVANCED STUDENT
There are only two types of taxes authorized by your
Constitution, indirect (such as imposts, duties and excises) and direct.
Essentially: Direct taxes are taxes on people not things.
Indirect taxes are a tax on things, but not people.
Indirect tax, being a tax on things, must meet careful criteria so
that it doesn't tax people.
Congress has always had the authority to collect an
indirect tax on profits (of those within federal jurisdiction) without
apportionment and without regard to any census.
This power has always existed, it was not added by the 16th
Direct taxes (according to Article 1, sect 2) must be
apportioned among the states, not among the people, and must be paid by the
states, not by people. STATES
PAY DIRECT TAXES NOT PEOPLE! The
Governor then sends the tax bills to citizens who remit payment to the state
treasury who then pays your federal government.
Your federal government can however directly tax
federal employees. Federal
employees can be taxed directly, just as they have been ever since the 1862
tax act of 12 Stat 432, chapter 119, section 86 imposed
a direct 3% tax on their wages above $600 per year.
This was long before the 16th amendment, even though your
constitution prohibited direct taxes unless apportioned.
The taxing of people is a direct tax, called
capitation, and is prohibited by Article 1, section 9.
A direct tax on wages "... would be by nature a capitation
rather than excise tax." according to the Supreme Court in Peck &
Co. v. Lowe, 247 US 165 (1918).
Indirect taxes need not be apportioned, but must be
taxed during import, manufacture or sale.
To tax the purchaser for owning a thing would be a direct tax.
The US Supreme Court in Pollock v. Farmers Loan, 158 US
601, found that The income tax act of 1894:
being a direct tax within the meaning of the Constitution, and, therefore
unconstitutional and void because not apportioned according to
Eisner v. Macomber, 40SCt192 (1920), 252 US 189 (1919):
Amendment must be construed in the connection with the taxing clause of
the original Constitution" ... "this did not extend the taxing
power to new subjects"
Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR Co., 240 US 1, 36 S.Ct 242
& 243 (1916) made it theoretically possible to have an indirect tax on
income (profits), while a direct tax on wages remained unconstitutional
unless apportioned. This
important case clarifies that a tax on income (profit) is an indirect tax as
long as income was "separated from the source":
"The Amendment ... was drawn with the object of
maintaining the limitations of the Constitution" ...
"a direct tax on the income, [would] be a direct tax
on the source itself, and thereby take an income tax out of the class of
excises, duties, and imposts and place it in the class of [unconstitutional
unless apportioned] direct
also see Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 US 107
, Peck v Lowe, 247 US 165
, and Evans v. Gore, 40 S.Ct 555 (1920).
US Supreme Court in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390:
[liberty]... denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the
right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common
occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, to establish a
home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his
own conscience... The established doctrine is that this liberty may not be
interfered with, under the guise of protecting public interest, by
legislative action which is arbitrary..."
U.S. Supreme Court in Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US
power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to suppress its
enjoyment. ... Those who can tax the exercise of this practice can make its
exercise so costly as to deprive it of the resources necessary for its
maintenance. Those who can tax
the privilege ... can close the doors to all those who do not have a full
US Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436,491:
rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making
or legislation which would abrogate them."
U.S. Supreme Court in Brady v. US, 397 US 742:
"Waivers of Constitutional rights not only must be voluntary, but must
be knowing, intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant
circumstances and likely consequences."
"... the slothful shall be under
tribute." Proverbs 12:24