Are you willing to pay more taxes to pay down the national debt?

[TheGer]

You go from this(from OP)

OP - "If anyone is concerned about the debt and wishes they could be taxed more to pay it down, here's your chance to put your money where your mouth is"

to this

You - "That's an obvious yes as I do not put up a fight when taxes are already taken from me on a regular basis."

to this

You - "So you think anyone in history who has dedicated their life to a country, regardless of the leaders and policies of that country, in an effort to make it better for the next generation was a slave?  Wow. That's universally fubar."





Sorry but your train of thought reeks of delusions.

[1713926972]

1713926972

[1713926972]

1713926972

[1713926972]

1713926972

[1713926972]

1713926972

[1713926972]

1713926972

[The Script]

So you think anyone in history who has dedicated their life to a country, regardless of the leaders and policies of that country, in an effort to make it better for the next generation was a slave? Wow. That's universally fubar.

I don't think I said that.  Don't react against me because you're frustrated with other posters.  What is the definition of a slave?  Someone who works for someone else their entire life and does not get to keep any of their income would be pretty damn close to the definition, I'm thinking.  If you sacrifice 100% of your income you'd essentially be a slave, right?  Do you disagree?

I have this complex you see, when I see a opportunity to do some good I just HAVE to take it...I don't know what's wrong with me. Must be because I'm a good person or something. Someone give me some medication please so I can be greedy, selfish, defeatist, unimaginative meatbags like the rest of you guys please!   haha. No but seriously, I don't think it's my responsibility. But it would be pretty cool to have a chance to be able to have an effect on something that big, wouldn't it?

Socially responsibility is great, I'm not against that.  I fail to see how paying off the government debt is going to be good for the next generation though.  The government will just spend itself into oblivion again.  If somehow the people of the US rallied together and paid off the national debt we would simply be rewarding the government for their bad behavior.  If they know we will bail them out, why would they change their spending habits?  This is why I say it's not our fault or responsibility.  If you disagree with that, fine, make a logical argument in your favor. 

Also, saying you would give 100% of your income is just ridiculous.  Are you not going to eat or drink?  Where will you live?

Of course it was ridiculous, it was an exaggeration. It's not impossible though, so long as you live with my parents like everyone else in the Bitcoin community *rimshot*

If you want people to take your arguments seriously be careful with the exaggeration, just my friendly suggestion.    Also, try not to stereotype people in the community.  I, for one, do not appreciate it, as I don't live in my parents basement, I do have a job and pay bills, I have worked manual labor jobs, etc. etc.  You don't live in your parent's basement, right?  So why would you assume everyone else does?

[indio007]

Wanna eliminate the national debt and simultaneously eliminate your income tax? Endorse your cash when you accept it and cancel the US Secretay of the Treasury's signature. Then it becomes a liability to you and releases the US.

[indio007]

It's not a theory it's the uniform commercial code.
UCC 3
§ 3-401.  SIGNATURE.

(a)  A person is not liable on an instrument unless (i) the person signed the instrument,


§ 3-604.  DISCHARGE BY CANCELLATION OR RENUNCIATION.
(a)  A person entitled to enforce an instrument, with or without consideration, may discharge the obligation of   a party to pay the instrument (i) by an intentional voluntary act, such as surrender of the instrument to the party, destruction, mutilation, or cancellation of the instrument, cancellation or striking out of the party's signature, or the addition of words to the instrument indicating discharge, or (ii) by agreeing not to sue or otherwise renouncing rights against the party   by a signed record.

This makes the cash a liability to you not an asset. Down the road someone could demand you redeem it for lawful money. Considering no one does it to the FED as prescribed by USC Title 12 section 411 I doubt anyone is going to show up at your house demanding specie coin.

[d3wo]

Trully US Soldier ! 

[indio007]

Oh ya , just in case you claim the UCC is not binding on the US gov't. http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/payments/billsnotes/X_12_e.pdf is the relevant law which is exactly the same. In fact, the law has been the same for bills and notes since the 1600's

[indio007]

It's not a theory it's the uniform commercial code.
UCC 3
§ 3-401.  SIGNATURE.

(a)  A person is not liable on an instrument unless (i) the person signed the instrument,


§ 3-604.  DISCHARGE BY CANCELLATION OR RENUNCIATION.
(a)  A person entitled to enforce an instrument, with or without consideration, may discharge the obligation of   a party to pay the instrument (i) by an intentional voluntary act, such as surrender of the instrument to the party, destruction, mutilation, or cancellation of the instrument, cancellation or striking out of the party's signature, or the addition of words to the instrument indicating discharge, or (ii) by agreeing not to sue or otherwise renouncing rights against the party   by a signed record.

This makes the cash a liability to you not an asset. Down the road someone could demand you redeem it for lawful money. Considering no one does it to the FED as prescribed by USC Title 12 section 411 I doubt anyone is going to show up at your house demanding specie coin.

You cannot make federal reserve issued, government owned and regulated dollar bills 'yours' just by signing them.

It's not making them "yours" it's accepting the liability to pay it.  Your under the delusion that a promise to pay is the same as payment. It's not.
USC 12:411

Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized.

The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.

The fed is the "Maker" The US treasury is the "acceptor" as with any bill or note you can redeem it with any party that is liable on the instrument.

[JeffK]

Wanna eliminate the national debt and simultaneously eliminate your income tax? Endorse your cash when you accept it and cancel the US Secretay of the Treasury's signature. Then it becomes a liability to you and releases the US.

Yeah, I've investigated this one on my own before. It doesn't change the laws around the bill. Interesting theory though-- drove me crazy for a while.

I personally like the theory that if you find your original birth certificate in the hospital records and destroy it, you lose your citizenship and therefor become stateless.

You would still have an SSN. Becoming stateless is much easier, just go to your local embassy and renounce your citizenship while having no other citizenship. Of course, you are still subject to local laws, but whatever.

[Distribution]

With all of this arguing, I barely noticed that nobody has gone with public with how much they voluntarily taxed themselves.

[JeffK]

With all of this arguing, I barely noticed that nobody has gone with public with how much they voluntarily taxed themselves.

Voluntary taxing is worthless, it has to be mandatory and institutional to be useful. Society needs structure.

[Distribution]

With all of this arguing, I barely noticed that nobody has gone with public with how much they voluntarily taxed themselves.

Voluntary taxing is worthless, it has to be mandatory and institutional to be useful. Society needs structure.

Money is never worthless. Otherwise, the Treasury wouldn't be asking for it.

[SgtSpike]

With all of this arguing, I barely noticed that nobody has gone with public with how much they voluntarily taxed themselves.

Voluntary taxing is worthless, it has to be mandatory and institutional to be useful. Society needs structure.

Money is never worthless. Otherwise, the Treasury wouldn't be asking for it.

I believe he said that voluntary taxing is worthless.

[Distribution]

With all of this arguing, I barely noticed that nobody has gone with public with how much they voluntarily taxed themselves.

Voluntary taxing is worthless, it has to be mandatory and institutional to be useful. Society needs structure.

Money is never worthless. Otherwise, the Treasury wouldn't be asking for it.

I believe he said that voluntary taxing is worthless.

Oh, you mean people don't want to give their money to government? It has to be a life or death decision. But I was just saying that what the link is offering is not worthless for those who do it. I'd just like to see someone who has claimed they wouldn't mind paying more taxes to pony up and prove it. Although I guess this explains the inadequacy of the ATR's Tax Me More Funds.

[indio007]

There are no citizens in the US. You can only be a citizen by oath. Not many people have taken an oath of allegiance to the US. Even if they had there can be no allegiance to a body politic. Allegiances are only between men.
The US has tricked nearly the entire populace.

There is also the fact that the US has no duty to protect. That is the primary obligation of the sovereign to the subject. If there is no duty to protect there can be no duty of allegiance.
There is no reason to renounce anything.

If anyone desires it I can back all this up with court cases. it's not my opinion . It's there opinion.


I will cite a couple cases in regards to allegiance and citizenship . Calvin's Case aka Case of the Postnati decided by Lord Coke. It is still binding and cited in over 400 federal cases.
No one can force the political choice of citizenship on anyone. It is impressed upon people first via the silence of there father when they make out their child's birth certificate and then failing to disclaim it upon reaching the age of majority (14)

SUBMITTING REPORT ON THE SUBJECT OF CITIZENSHIP, EXPATRIATION, AND PROTECTION ABROAD. December 20, 1906

This is the universal maxim of the common law with regard to freemen,
as old as the common law, or even as the Roman civil law, and as well settled
as the rule partus sequitur ventrem. the one being a rule fixing the status of
freemen, the other being a rule defining the ownership of property ; the one
applicable to different political communities or states, whose citizens are in
the enjoyment of the civil rights possessed by people in a state of freedom,
the other defining the condition of the offspring which had been tainted by the
bondage of the mother.

No other rules than the ones above enumerated ever did prevail in this or
any other civilized country. In the case of Ludlam v. Ludlam (31 Barb.. 486)
the court says: "The universal maxim of the common law being partus
sequitur patrem, it is suflicient for the application of this doctrine that the
father should be a subject lawfully, and without breach of his allegiance
beyond sea, no matter what may be the condition of the mother."

The law of nations, which becomes, when applicable to an existing condition of affairs in a country, a part of the common law of that country, declares the same rule. Vattel, in his Law of Nations (p. 101), says: "As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, these children naturally follow the condition of their fathers and succeed to their rights. * * * The country of the father is, therefore, that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent." Again, on page 102, Vattel says : " By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers and enter into all their rights.'' This law of nature, as far as it has become a part of the common law, in the absence of any postive enactment on the subject, must be the rule in this case.

Now Calvin's Case and allegiance to a legal fiction body politic.... Keep in mind the courts have held citizen is synonymous with subject and can be used interchangeably.

1. Ligeance is a true and faithful obedience of the subject due to his Sovereign. This ligeance and obedience is an incident inseparable to every subject; for as soon as he is born he oweth by birth right ligeance and obedience to his Sovereign...

But between the Sovereign and the subject there is without comparison a higher and greater connexion: for as the subject oweth to the King his true and faithful ligeance and obedience, so the Sovereign is to govern and protect his Subjects...

It is true, that the King hath two capacities in him: one a natural body, being descended of the blood royal of the Realm; and this body is of the creation of Almighty God, and is subject to death, infirmity, and such like; the other is a politic, body or capacity, so called, because it is framed by the policy of man...

... First, every subject (as it hath been affirmed by those that argued against the Plaintiff) is presumed by Law to be sworn to the King, which is to his natural person; and likewise the King is sworn to his subjects which oath he taketh in his natural person: for the politique capacity is invisible and immortal; nay, the politique body hath no soul, for it is framed by the policy of man...

4. A body politique (being invisible) can as a body politique neither make nor take homage: Vide 33 Hen. 8. tit. Fealty, Brook. 5. In fide, in faith or ligeance nothing ought to be feigned, but ought to be ex fide non ficta.

Read the last sentence again and again and again. You can not owe allegiance to a body politic.

[The Script]

What is the definition of a slave?  Someone who works for someone else their entire life and does not get to keep any of their income would be pretty damn close to the definition, I'm thinking.  If you sacrifice 100% of your income you'd essentially be a slave, right?  Do you disagree?

I think to qualify as a slave, you'd need to be forced into it, wouldn't you? Otherwise it's being a 'servant', which does not carry the same negative, fight-starting connotation if you ask me. 

Fair enough.  Slavery can definitely be a loaded term, so I should probably not have chucked that out there.  To my subjective perspective it's still slavery, but I won't quibble if it's voluntary. 

Socially responsibility is great, I'm not against that.  I fail to see how paying off the government debt is going to be good for the next generation though.  The government will just spend itself into oblivion again.  If somehow the people of the US rallied together and paid off the national debt we would simply be rewarding the government for their bad behavior.  If they know we will bail them out, why would they change their spending habits?  This is why I say it's not our fault or responsibility.  If you disagree with that, fine, make a logical argument in your favor. 

I obviously mispoke as both you and the other poster seem to think I am for rewarding mismanagement. If so, I apologize. To clarify: If the United States government issued an apology letter from previous officials admitting that they had mismanaged funds and driven the country into ridiculous debt, but the sake of the US and potentially the world depended on the repayment of the debt by US citizens for a term basis (possibly the lifetime of a whole generation) on the grounds that no further mismanagement would ever be allowed again, I would have a hard time with people carrying US passports, healthcare, social security cards or even living on US soil and NOT paying.

Ah.  Well, I can understand this position.  You and I both know that it's never going to happen, but given this situation I can understand your point of view.

If you want people to take your arguments seriously be careful with the exaggeration, just my friendly suggestion.    Also, try not to stereotype people in the community.  I, for one, do not appreciate it, as I don't live in my parents basement, I do have a job and pay bills, I have worked manual labor jobs, etc. etc.  You don't live in your parent's basement, right?  So why would you assume everyone else does?

I'm a comedian in the same way you and I joke when I feel like it, but most of my comments are taken seriously by the wrong people, and some of my serious comments are taken as jokes. This is probably due to me not having paid attention to the sign on the door ("Politics & Society") and tracking in through a link. Apologies.

No worries.  Everyone in this forum, myself included, need to lighten up a little.  There's no reason we can't be polite to one another.  Or....is there? 

I like your manners and your ability to talk through a situation. I wish more people here were like you, as it helps bring out my more intelligent side. Dealing with animals all day makes me start to act like one. MYBITCOINSCAM SPREADSHEETZZZNOW 1bTCONLEY WHAER IS 5850sdfa7ghf87sfh9as sorry hand spasm.

You're a vet? 

[GideonGono]

Well, well, well, if it isn't Dr. Gono. I have a note signed by you promising to pay me on demand 100 trillion dollars. So I'm ready for it, where's my money?

What's your BTC address? I'll send 0.01BTC, but I expect my change back.

[Babylon]

I'd much rather see more money printed to pay down the national debt than to pay it down myself.

me too.  That would cause inflation and make my own debt less significant.

Fire up those printing presses.

[The Script]

I'd much rather see more money printed to pay down the national debt than to pay it down myself.

me too.  That would cause inflation and make my own debt less significant.

Fire up those printing presses.

Doesn't that depend on what type of debt you have?  Aren't some variable interest rates which means they can increase your interest rate to take into account inflation?

[SgtSpike]

I'd much rather see more money printed to pay down the national debt than to pay it down myself.

me too.  That would cause inflation and make my own debt less significant.

Fire up those printing presses.

Doesn't that depend on what type of debt you have?  Aren't some variable interest rates which means they can increase your interest rate to take into account inflation?

The biggest and most important ones (my home mortgage and student loans) are not variable interest.

[Mageant]

Dissolve the Fed.
Order the US Treasury to create $14 trillion.
Pay off debt.
Eliminate income tax.

You see, it's really quite simple. The only thing is, the controllers *want* to have debt to keep people under their control.