NEWS:
- Pushing the National Sales Tax
- Here's Your Number
- Another Libertarian Candidate Confesses to Not Paying Income Taxes

INFORMATION:
- Is A Citizen Required By Law to Have A Social Security Number?

Newsletter Format: Didn't receive this report in HTML, but as plain text? Too bad. Visit our archive page for this issue and past ones in web page format:
http://www.taxfreedom101.com/ezines/tf101_listings.htm

Feedback to the Editor: Dear Subscriber, If you have any comments, suggestions, news stories or ideas for The Tax Freedom 101 Report send your feedback to the editor.

Tax Freedom 101?! Audio presentation - Get the full overview of the educational courses and opportunities available. Live Free, and Be Free!

Subscription and advertising information for this Internet publication is contained at the end of this on-line report.

James Brennen, FSM - Florida
Robert Rodriguez, FSM - New York

If you are a member of the Save-A-Patriot Fellowship you can begin fellowshipping, rendezvousing, and networking with other fellowship members in your home state. For details and benefits of FRNS please login at the 'Members Support' Center at Tax Freedom 101.com

Soliciting Your Input
This specific request goes out to all students who have enrolled in either the Tax Freedom 101 home-study program and/or the Save-A-Patriot Fellowship. We would like to solicit your comments, suggestions, and opinions on the value of the information and education you have received from either this newsletter, the Tax Freedom 101 courses themselves, or your experiences as a participating member in the Save-A-Patriot Fellowship.

Please visit The Feedback Center at Tax Freedom 101 here to leave us your personal testimonials. Thank you.

NEWS:
- Pushing the National Sales Tax
Alternative internal taxation plans such as the NST being pushed to replace the income tax sound good, but are these alternative tax collection proposals the true solution to renew moral authority, promote economic justice, and secure future prosperity? Hardly. The current misapplied enforcement of the collection of the income tax is in no doubt just one symptom in a long chain of ills representing the moral morass indicative of the disease - our money.

The counterfeit currency in use today has completely usurped the role of We The People, and falsely reprimanded their governing Constitution[s]. Use of this now inescapable illegal tender has allowed representatives [politicians] exclusive control to the nations checkbook regardless of revenue, nor their ward for fiscal responsibility. This 'reserve' currency of the world has put the entire U.S. citizenry in grave danger as national 'allies' have reluctantly swallowed the lie, and our mounting enemies have now awaken to judge the foundations of where America has placed its faith.

Why Alan Keyes, an apparent champion of abolition for the common man is unwilling to address this primary issue of lawful money before making a case for the subordinate issue of taxation remains a mystery. Is Mr. Keyes ignorant of the law? Or is it that living off of political campaign donations would not be as lucrative if the real issues surrounding the imposition of lawful taxation were revealed?

Tax Freedom 101 contentions of strong disagreement with Alan Keyes' recent article, The end of income tax, the return of economic liberty are the following:

1. "Real reform requires abolishing the income tax and returning to the system our Founders intended, funding the federal government with tariffs, duties, and excise taxes – sales taxes – not with the privacy-destroying income tax." - A.K.
TF101 Comments: The income tax is an indirect tax [i.e. avoidable] in the form of an excise, limited in its application and to whom it applies. Subtitle A 'income tax' of Title 26 USC is in conformity with the Constitution as currently written into law.

2. "The Founders sought to avoid this path to tyranny. So they made a direct tax on the income of individuals unconstitutional." - A.K.
TF101 Comments: This statement is untrue for the foreigner who's not afforded the protection of the US Constitution whose income can be made subject to direct taxation, and true for the citizen of any of the fifty Union states. A direct tax is laid on the states, to be collected by the states, and paid to the US Treasury by the states. This is the crux of the matter.

3. "Under the income tax, the government takes whatever percentage of the earner's income it wants. The income tax therefore represents national surrender to the government of control over all the money we earn. There are, in principle, no restrictions to the preemptive claim of government upon our income." - A.K.
TF101 Comments: While the income tax appears to be progressive in nature as evident by the tax tables issued by the IRS, these 'percentages' apply solely when determining a tax as under the wage and employment tax for Social Security purposes of subtitle C 26 USC. Participation in Social Security is voluntary, and this tax is not imposed by law. Ergo - preemptive claim is consensual on behalf of the citizen accepting future 'benefits' from government.

4. "The sales tax requires no surrender of privacy, no confession to the government of our entire economic life." - A.K.
TF101 Comments: This may be true if one pays in cash, but how many people are afforded this luxury today, or will be in the future? Considering the rampant identity fraud brought about by the advent of what has become the defacto National Identifier it is highly unlikely that privacy will ever be maintained. Further the business owner will have to report sales taxes collected to the newly created National Sales Tax Bureau or something of similar name - formally known as the IRS.

5. "The liberating power of a national sales tax system is that it would end the control of these few elites. Under a sales tax system, individual citizens would again be sovereign in deciding how much of their money will be subject to the tax at any given moment, according to their particular financial circumstances. Such a system will give us back a control over our money that we have not had in generations, since the income tax was imposed." - A.K.
TF101 Comments: Politicians, bureaucrats, lawyers, and accountants are Alan's idea of 'elites'. They may continue the myths, but eventually they will be proven false. And how pray tell would a 'sales tax system' - which is just an across the board indirect tax on everything in the form of an excise, as the income tax is an excise, really change anything? Will a sales tax give us back true control over the peoples money? No. It may give the illusion of doing so, but as long as the people crave more socialism you can bet your bottom FRN the sales tax won't be the better bargain for those exercising their liberty as the law allows now.

- Here's Your Number
Imagine opening up an envelope someday soon delivered from the Office of Homeland Security demanding that you head to your local post office to be assigned your new National ID number - for security purposes of course. How many citizens would run right over? Now what if you lived in Japan and essentially the same thing happened?

WHICH IS THE NATION OF SLAVES, NUMBERED LIKE CATTLE?
by Vin Suprynowicz, available here.

- Another Libertarian Candidate Confesses to Not Paying Income Taxes
Libertarian Congressional Candidate for the 6th district in Kentucky was misquoted by an intern journalist in last Friday's edition of the Lexington Herald-Leader regarding his position on federal income taxes. The Libertarian Mark Gailey says there were four technical points to be clarified in the news article with respect to the issues he brought up surrounding the income tax, and he has requested the staff to make the necessary corrections for a future edition.

Mark Gailey no longer pays the federal income tax, and his staff has sent us this brief statement regarding the news article:

Congressional Candidate [Mark Gailey] confuses Lexington Herald-Leader intern with information overload. Four technical points to be clarified to News editing staff with request for corrections.

Sensationalism of article effective, but patriotism challenged by inferred misfacts. Media forum is ripe for discussion and opposition ripe for inclusive challenge. One is an incumbent spender of tax revenues and the other a licensed practicing attorney, who should know the law.

BEREA NATIVE SAYS HE DOESN'T PAY U.S. TAXES
By Scott Sloan - HERALD-LEADER STAFF WRITER here.

INFORMATION:
- Is A Citizen Required By Law to Have A Social Security Number?
Who must have an SSN? The answer may shock you! The following article comes from a past issue of Reasonable Action. The members only newsletter of The Save-A-Patriot Fellowship.

Is A Citizen Required By Law to Have A Social Security Number?

Examples of Supreme Court cases which place some real limits upon the powers of Congress are manifold.

In the License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462 (1866), the Supreme Court held that Congress could not authorize the conduct of business within the states in order to tax that business. In United States v. DeWitt, 76 US.S. 41 (1870), the Court held that a penal regulation in a tax act could not be enforced in a state. In United States v. Fox, 94 U.S. 315 (1877), the Court held that the United States could not receive property via a testamentary devise contrary to state law. In United States v. Fox, 94 U.S 670 (1878), a penal statute remotely related to bankruptcy laws was held inapplicable in the States. In Patterson v. Kentucky, 97 US. 501 (1879), the Court held that U.S. patent laws conferred no superior rights within the States. In United States v. Steffens, 100 U.S. 82 (1879), federal trademark legislation unconnected with "interstate commerce" was held inapplicable inside the States. In Baldwin v. Franks, 120 U.S. 678, 7 S.Ct. 656 (1887), certain penal, federal civil rights legislation was held unenforceable "within a state". In Ex parte Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 10S.Ct. 850 (1890), and De La Rama v. De La Rama, 201 U.S. 303, 26 S.Ct. 485 (1906), the Court held that domestic relations matters were solely state concerns. In Reagan v. Mercantile Trust Co., 154 U.S. 413, 14 S.Ct. 1060 (1894), it was held that federally created corporations engaged in business in the States were subject to state laws. In Keller v. United States, 213 U.S. 138, 29 S.Ct. 470 (1909), it was held that Congress could not exercise police powers within the States. In Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S. 559, 31 S.Ct. 688 (1911), it was held Congress could not dictate to a state, Oklahoma, where to locate its state capitol. In Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251, 38 S.Ct. 529 (1918), and Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U.S. 20, 42 S.Ct. 449 (1922), the Court held that congressional attempts to regulate and control manufacturing activities in the States were unconstitutional; see also Hill v. Wlalace, 259 U.S. 44, 42 S.Ct. 453 (1922). In United Mine Workers of America v. Coronado Coal Co., 259 U.S. 344, 42 S.Ct. 570 (1922), the Court held that Congress could not regulate coal mining in the States. In Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5, 45 S.Ct. 446 (1925), it was held that congress could not regulate the practice of medicine in the States. In Industrial Ass'n. of San Francisco v. United States, 268 U.S. 64, 45 S.Ct. 403 (1925), the construction industry was deemed to be inherently of local concern and beyond Congressional powers. In Indian Motorcycle Co. v. United States, 283 U.S. 570, 51 S.Ct. 601 (1931), the Court held that congress could not impose a sales tax on items sold to state and local governments. Before the advent of Social Security, a statutorily mandated retirement system applicable to interstate carriers was held unconstitutional in Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton R. Co., 295 U.S. 330, 55 S.Ct. 758 (1935). The case of Hopkins Fed. S. & L. Ass'n. v. Cleary, 296 U.S. 315, 56 S.Ct. 235 (1935), stands for the proposition that congress cannot "federalize" state financial institutions over objections from the States. The cases of A.L.A. Schecter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495, 55 S.Ct. 837 (1935), Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan 293 U.S. 388, 55 S.Ct. 241 (1935), and Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 US. 238, 56 S.Ct. 855 (1936), emasculated most of the National Industrial Recovery Acts in part on the grounds of invasion of reserved powers of the States. In United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 56 S.Ct. 312 (1936), the Court held that Congress had no direct power to regulate agricultural production within the States. Finally, in Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 91 S.Ct. 260 (1970), it was held that congress could not dictate voter qualifications to the States. The above decision as well as others, do place severe restraints upon the powers of Congress.

In the Social Security Act, Congress imposed excise taxes upon employers and those tax receipts were to be deposited with the Treasury. The act further provided schemes whereby participants could enjoy unemployment and retirement benefits. When the act was adopted, parties opposed thereto made challenges to the act, relying upon some, if not all, of the various cases cited above. The major arguments mounted against the act were premised upon invasion of state rights. In Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 57 S.Ct. 883 (1937), an employer challenged the unemployment tax imposed upon it and the Court held that such tax was an excise which Congress could impose. In reference to the contention that the subject matter of the act was properly within the historical field reserved to the states, the Court held that Congress could enact legislation to aid the states in an area of great concern. The Court placed considerable emphasis upon the fact that the states were reluctant to adopt unemployment acts because such taxes created differentials between states which had such legislation and those which did not. By creating a national unemployment act, this difference was eliminated and a great benefit to the American people resulted. The Court, therefore, found nothing constitutionally objectionable to the act. In Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619, 57 S.Ct. 904 (1937), the same rationale was used to uphold the retirement features of the act. The importance of these two cases upholding the Social Security Act concerns the issues which these cases raised: neither of them addressed the issue of whether there was a requirement for any American to join Social Security. The reason that this issue was not raised is because there is no such requirement, unless of course one works for a state government which has contracted into Social Security; see Public Agencies Opposed to Social Security Entrapment (POSSE) v. Heckler, 613 F.Supp. 558 (E.D. Cal., 1985), rev., 477 U.S. 41, 106 S.Ct. 2390 (1986)

The above review should readily demonstrate that there is indeed a real question concerning the point of whether one must submit an application to join Social Security. The cases which challenged the constitutionality of Social Security simply did not address this issue, and it appears that no cases have as yet dealt with it. The reason for this absence of a challenge to such alleged requirement can only be explained by analyzing the act itself to determine if there is such a requirement. Because congress lacks the constitutional authority to compel membership in Social Security, the act simply imposes no such requirement.

The modern day act is codified at 42 U.S.C., sections 301-433. If there were a requirement that every American join the Social Security scheme, one would expect to find language in the act similar to the following: "Every American of the age of 18 years or older shall submit an application with the Social Security Administration and shall provide thereon the information required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Every member of Social Security shall pay the taxes imposed herein and records of such payments shall be kept by the Secretary for determining the amount of benefits to which such member is entitled hereunder." Amazingly, no such or similar language appears within the act, and particularly there is no section thereof which could remotely be considered as a mandate that anyone join Social Security. The closest section of the act which might relate to this point is the requirement of one seeking benefits under the act must apply for the same. But, this relates to an entirely different point than a requirement that one join.

Since the statutory scheme fails to impose such requirement, the next question to be asked is whether perhaps the Social Security regulations themselves might impose such duty. But here, the regulations are no broader than the act itself, and the duty to apply for and obtain a Social Security card or number boils down to the following found at 20 C.F.R., section 422.103:

"(b) applying for a number. (1) Form SS-5. An individual needing a social security number may apply for one by filing a signed Form SS-5, 'Application for a Social Security Card,' at any social security office and submitting the required evidence...

"(2) Birth Registration Document. The Social Security Administration (SSA) may enter into an agreement with officials of a State...to establish, as part of the official birth registration process, a procedure to assist SSA in assigning social security numbers to newborn children. Where an agreement is in effect, a parent, as part of the official birth registration process, need not complete a Form SS-5 and may request that SSA assign a social security number to the newborn child.

"(C) How numbers are assigned. (1) Request on Form SS-5. If the applicant has completed a Form SS-5, the social security office...that receives the completed Form SS-5 will require the applicant to furnish documentary evidence...After review of the documentary evidence, the completed Form SS-5 is forwarded...to SSA's central office...If the electronic screening or other investigation does not disclose a previously assigned number, SSA's central office assigns a number and issues a social security number card...

"(2) Request on birth registration document. Where a parent has requested a social security number for a newborn child as part of an official birth registration process described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the State vital statistics office will electronically transmit the request to SSA's central office...Using this information, SSA will assign a number to the child and send the social security number to the child at the mother's address."

With the act of applying for and obtaining a SSN being entirely voluntary, the next question to be asked is whether any State can force you to use this number which is voluntary in the first place. This appears to have been addressed by section 7 of the Privacy Act of 1974, 88 Stat. 1896, which reads as follows:

"Sec. 7. (a)(1) It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny to any individual any right, benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such individual's refusal to disclose his social security account number.
"(2) the provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply with respect to --
(A) any disclosure which is required by Federal statute, or
(B) the disclosure of a social security number to any Federal, state or local agency maintaining a system of records in existence and operating before January 1, 1975, if such disclosure was required under statute or regulation adopted prior to such date to verify the identity of an individual.

(b) Any Federal, State, or local government agency which requests an individual to disclose his social security account number shall inform that individual whether that disclosure is mandatory or voluntary by what statutory or other authority such number is solicited, and what uses will be made of it."

What should the American people do who are opposed to Social Security for whatever reason, be it the contention that is the prelude to the "Beast's number" or any other? They should constantly inform those requesting the number that there is no obligation to have one.

The Accelerated Adult Home-Study Program
How thousands of Americans have quit Social Security,
and now collect and keep 100% of their earnings!

Home - Audio/Visual Center - The Questions - Plunder Protection - 10,000 Reward
Radio Free America - Curriculum and Enrollment Info - Student Testimonials
Program FAQ's - Members Support Center - The e-Newsletter
Topical Library - Helpful Links - New Visitor Center - Contact Us

Subscription info for: "The Tax Freedom 101 Report"

Subscribe to The-Tax-Freedom-101-Report
enter email address
Powered by groups.yahoo.com

Feedback to the Editor