A Tale of Two Bribes
Natural-law copyright by Anthony Hargis
(Copyright notice: to lawfully reproduce all or part of this article, the following attribution must be included: “Natural-law copyright by Anthony Hargis, redressone.wordpress.com)
Follow: To follow this website (to receive e-mail with each new post), click “Follow” at bottom/right of page. Thanks for visiting, Anthony
Details of a Swindle
It was the worst of plans; it was the best of plans.
The worst was laid upon the common man; the other was taken by vampires.
This is the story of two retirement systems. One is real; the other, a network of wishful thinking and murderous lies. The first goes by the name, “public retirement system,” and is available only to government employees; the other is known as social security, and is mandatory on private workers – voluntary for government employees.
Both begin almost identically. Both are financed from two sources: a) a percentage is deducted from a worker’s pay and “contributed” to the retirement fund and b) an equal percentage is “contributed” to the fund by the worker’s employer.
There is a difference, however. For government employees, it is common for his employer – that is, taxpayers – to pay part, or all, of the employee’s share. So, instead of a revenue agent, for example, paying eight percent of his pay to his retirement system and his employer (the city, county or state) paying another eight percent to the same, the agent pays nothing, and the city (that is, taxpayers) pays sixteen percent to the retirement system. In the private sector, where companies must earn profits or perish, employers rarely or never pay part of the employee’s share. So, already, one becomes better; the other, worse.
It continues. It is after collection of these “contributions” that differences become significant. Part of the money collected is paid to retirees; the remainder is “invested.” Public retirement systems invest their excess money in real estate, stocks and bonds – in several different states and several different countries (Brazil, Red China, France et cetera). From 2% to 10% may be invested in U. S. Treasury (UST) obligations.
When a California state employee retires, he is entitled, by law, to receive handouts equal to 75% of his final pay, for the remainder of his life. However, they have several ways to inflate their final-year’s pay so they can take booty equal to 100% of their un-inflated final pay. For grunt bureaucrats, this amount can range between 30,000 and 50,000 per year; for judges (or heads of departments), 100,000 to 150,000 per year is common.
This practice dates, at least, from a decision rendered by the California Supreme Court in 1997. In this case, the Court ruled that certain kinds of payments and pay elements should be included in a state employee’s “final compensation” when computing the employee’s retirement benefits. These payments and pay elements include such things as unused sick leave (“earned” at the rate of two to six weeks per year), re-imbursed “educational” expenses, among other things.
Public employees take home an enormous amount of booty. Their pay begins with a so-called “base pay.” As of the year 2000 the base pay of a grunt bureaucrat ranged from 2000 to 5000 per month – for police-type work, 4000 to 6000 per month; in each case, the actual rate depends on classification and length of service.
On top of this base pay are piled numerous benefits: full compensation for vacation time; holidays; sick leave; days for grieving (for a sickness or death in the employee’s family); jury duty; “educational” time at schools or conferences (especially in Las Vegas). All these are calculated according to the employee’s current base pay.
Thus, there is probably not a day in the year when a public employee goes without full pay – whether he is at work or in the casino. Hence, the average public employee may actually appear at work two hundred and twenty days during the year (44 weeks times 5 days) and receive full compensation for three hundred and sixty five.
In addition to these base-pay benefits, Public employees receive travel and per diem expenses for work-related educational classes or conferences, for jury or trial appearances, for work-related trips, taxpayer-paid insurance for life, health and personal injury, among other things.
When the California Supreme Court made its ruling in 1997, the decision was binding only on the county of Ventura. Not to worry: several months later, Orange County adopted the Court’s suggestions and made them retroactive to 1994.
Oh, one more thing. The judges that made the ruling? Their retirement system also adopted the ruling… and no one thought to offer the phrase, ‘conflict of interest’; all involved, you see, had an interest – except those who paid for it all: taxpayers, who never knew what happened.
One of the purposes of a court system is to punish people who fail or refuse to act in a virtuous way. If generosity is a virtue, here we have an example of public employees compelling taxpayers to be virtuous with their money.
There is a maxim of law that states, ‘fraud is concealed in the details.’ This maxim is aptly applied to public retirement systems. One of the measurements applied to retirement systems – whether private or public – is the ratio of assets to accrued liability. If a retirement system has two dollars of liability and one dollar of assets, this ratio is 50%. Since most liabilities (50% to 80%) of a retirement system are not payable until five to twenty years in the future, it is a general practice for private retirement systems to maintain a ratio of 20% to 30%. By this practice, money will have to be taken from workers 20 to 30 years in the future to pay retirement benefits to workers of today. It is a process of parents cannibalizing their children.
The only ethical way to setup a retirement system is to assure that benefits received by a retiree are derived only from contributions made by him. In such a system, assets (provided by A) will always equal liabilities (payable to the same A). Anything less constitutes compelling one man, or group of men, to make payments to another; this is a classic example of depriving a man, or group of men, of property without due process of law.
While private retirement systems maintain asset to liability ratios of 20% to 30%, public retirement systems maintain such ratios at 100%. This would seem to be commendable: that it would avoid the necessity of taking money from future government employees to pay to retirees. Yes, it would seem to be commendable, but only if we limit our perspective.
Money provided by “contributions.” Here, details reveal the fraud. First, as noted earlier, it is a common practice for California governments (city, county, special and school districts, and state) to pay part or all of an employee’s share of his “contribution” to the retirement system. So, instead of an employee paying one half and the city (that is, taxpayers) paying one half of the total “contribution,” the employee might pay 25% (or zero) and taxpayers would pay 75% (or all) of the “contribution.”
Money provided by long-term debt. A second method by which public retirement systems established asset/liability ratios of 100% involved long term debt.
Prior to 1994, this ratio for California Retirement Systems (CRS) approximated 85%. In that year, many, or most, California governments borrowed huge amounts of money and transferred the proceeds to the retirement system that covered the particular government’s employees. What makes these transactions noteworthy is that, although bureaucrats received the benefits of these loans, such loans, known as Pension Obligation Bonds (POB), are scheduled to be paid back by imposing taxes on private workers.
A result of this transfer of money is that most California retirement systems now have assets to liabilities ratios ranging between 95% and 110% of their liabilities.
“Contributions” to public employee retirement systems come from three sources: an employee’s wages, his employer (city, county et cetera: that is, taxpayers.) and from POB’s. In all three cases, the money is obtained, directly or indirectly, from taxpayers. And so, every penny “contributed” to public employees’ retirement systems has been swindled from private workers.
It gets worse.
The money taken for these public retirement systems is converted into every kind of real estate, stocks (foreign and domestic) and bonds (foreign and domestic). Being owned by public retirement systems, this property is legally, or practically, exempt from property and income taxes. If such property is taxable by law, the government merely imposes taxes on ordinary taxpayers to raise the money for taxes payable by retirement systems. This process leaves less property in private hands to pay a larger amount of taxes needed to support a growing population of banditti.
From year to year assets of public retirement systems will increase or decrease in value, depending on stock and real estate prices. For the two years from 1998 June 30 to 2000 June 30, net assets of three major California retirement systems (CRS) increased in value some one hundred and twenty billion dollars; such increases being the result of rising stock and real estate values.
As indicated, taxpayers “contributed” more than half, possibly as much as seventy-five percent, of the assets held by CRS. Among reasonable men, this fact would entitle taxpayers to seventy-five percent of CRS’ profit of one hundred and twenty billion dollars. However, by operation of law, taxpayers have been deprived this right; this right (the profit, that is) has been transferred, in its entirety, to government employees.
Accordingly, there was no public discussion whatsoever as to the possibility of sharing this one hundred and twenty billion dollar profit with those who made it possible.
It gets worse.
Since 2000 June 30, the value of CRS’ net assets has declined (as of 2002 June 30). And bureaucrats want taxpayers to make up the loss. Accordingly, there has been much public discussion about the need for new taxes; but none about the possibility of letting bureaucrats absorb the loss of “their” assets.
By law, bureaucrats can’t lose; taxpayers can’t win.
It gets worse, again.
Bribe Number One
Let us look at the ponzi scheme setup for private workers. This is provided by the Social Security Administration (SSAd). It is falsely represented as a retirement system; it is, in fact, a scheme to provide enormous booty to members of the American banditti, and to bribe all other Americans to support the scheme. It is bribe number one.
All SS taxes are collected by the U. S. Treasury. For 2001, UST collected 597 billion in SS taxes; 434 billion of this amount was distributed as benefits. What happened to the un-distributed 163 billion? It was placed in a general Treasury fund and was no longer earmarked for any particular purpose. It was to be drawn out by any random claim on the Treasury.
Thus, one quarter of total SS-tax collections was made available to other federal agencies for the year 2001; this booty was distributed to well-connected Americans and foreigners; such as Dick Cheney (disguised as Halliburton), the Bush family, Ariel Sharon, Paul Wolfowitz, and a thousand others. In this manner, some 160 billion dollars was raked-off, from SS collections, for the year 2001 to support people and projects Congress could not openly discuss, much less approve by a vote subject to scrutiny.
These are large numbers: let me reduce them to something more comprehensible. If the number of banditti taking money from SS taxes amounted to 16,000 individuals, each one would be taking booty equal to 10,000,000.
The 434 billion distributed as benefits to 38 million retirees divides out to about 11,000. Here, we ignore the cost of administration. Some economic studies claim that 40% of the money sent to Washington is absorbed by paperwork. In such a case, of the 11,000 indicated for each of thirty-eight million private retirees, 4,400 goes to bureaucrats and 6,600 eventually gets to a retiree
Question. If a bandit is taking 10 million in booty each year, would he complain over an 11,000 bribe?
Let’s phrase that question differently, ‘Would a bandit risk losing 10,000,000 in booty by complaining about an 11,000 bribe?
And so, for every $100 in SS taxes collected by the UST, the latest figures show that $75 is given to the SSAd and the remainder ($25) is taken by any random claim on the Treasury.
How can this happen? From a hundred different sources, we acquire the understanding that SS taxes are paid so that the SSAd will have money to pay for welfare programs administered by it. Altho 25% of SS taxes fund expenses of government that are unrelated to SSAd functions, the fiction that all such taxes are earmarked for SS functions is maintained by the UST giving a piece of paper to the SSAd titled, “U. S. Treasury obligation.” This piece of paper pretends to promise to pay $25 to the SSAd sometime in the future.
In other words, the SS Act is merely a scheme that allows a few thousand banditos to rake off 160 billion dollars each year from the Treasury by distributing 430 billion, as bribes, to some thirty-eight million retired Americans. An additional bribe is offered to 150 million working Americans in the form of a promise to pay them $5,000 to $10,000 per year after they retire.
The numbers just don’t add right. For the purpose of supporting a few thousand American and foreign banditos, 200 million Americans are persuaded to pay an average of $4,000 a year for forty years so they can receive an average of $13,000 per year for five to ten years. In other words, the average working American will pay $160,000 in SS taxes – during the best forty years of his life – so he can receive $50,000 to $100,000 during the worst ten years of his life. If we factored in accumulated interest at 4%, his share would amount to something like $430,000 after forty years (or $630,000 at 6%).
Taxes imposed by the SS Act add to 22.5% of a worker’s pay; half is imposed on the worker and the other half is imposed on his employer. It doesn’t matter who the tax is directly laid upon; it is all ultimately taken from someone’s pay – whether taken directly or indirectly. One half, obviously, is taken directly from the worker. The money taken from the employer would otherwise be distributed by him in five or twenty different directions. It could be used to pay higher wages, to purchase inventory, or to pay for any of a dozen expenses; in every case the money would ultimately go to the pay of several workers.
Therefore, in demonstrating consequences of SS taxes, we simplify our demonstration by regarding such taxes as imposed on one worker – rather than one half on one worker and the other half imposed in increments of 1/24 on twelve other workers.
If the SS were a true retirement system, a private worker’s accumulated principal would be earning over $12,000 in its thirtieth year. Why is he still working?
Let’s see: I forgo $430,000 during the best years of my life so I can recover $100,000 of it during the worst years of my life. Is this a bargain – or what?
All the money that built-up public retirement systems and the SS “retirement system” was forcibly taken from the man who pays taxes. The conditions of this swindle allow retired bureaucrats to take from 30,000 to 150,000 in booty each year – while retired private workers might be allowed to receive an average of 13,000 each year.
This pittance allows the retired private worker to bring home a sack full of dog food, maybe once a week. This contributes to his ill health and early death. And, coincidently, the retired worker’s death reduces the drain on the money wanted by bureaucrats, and other banditti.
A problem with public retirement systems and the SS “retirement system” is that they enrich a small criminal class and oppress the industrious many. History contains many examples of the oppressed rising up and slaughtering their oppressors, with no regard for age or condition. They have been very horrible – but justified – scenes. The enormous booty and the fear of a slave revolt explain why the American criminal class are almost rabid in their attempt to compel everyone to “volunteer” to obtain an SS card.
Let’s look at it from another perspective. For American and foreign banditti to receive their booty and pay their bribes, taxes have to be imposed on 150 million working Americans. Since those who receive are retired and those who pay are younger, this process amounts to nothing less than one generation of Americans cannibalizing their children and grandchildren.
But wait, the SSAd holds some 1.3 trillion in UST obligations as of year end 2001. Can we avoid this cannibalization process by liquidating UST obligations? They were purchased under the pretext that they could be liquidated in the future to pay benefits to retirees. This representation is a morbid fantasy. If benefits are to be paid from this fund, the SSAd will have to sell its Treasury obligations.
Who will buy them? Will Dick Cheney return the money the Treasury borrowed to provide him with cash? What a silly question. Will the Bush family? Wolfowitz? Sharon? It is not possible. Public borrowing is a process that allows the inept, indolent and insolent to convert borrowed money to revenue, and to compel someone else to pay interest and retire the principal.
It’s like Ariel borrowing money and requiring a neighbor to pay it back; to Ariel, the money is all profit, to the neighbor the debt is all loss.
Of course, no man, with a fair rational capacity, would knowingly or voluntarily consent to such a debt; except your neighbor, possibly.
If Treasury obligations held by the SSAd are to be liquidated, it will require the imposition of unconstitutional taxes. For taxes to be constitutional, those who pay taxes must have an interest in the purpose of taxes. A man is required to pay taxes if they are to be used to build a road in his community: if they were used to build a road in a different county, or state, such taxes would be unconstitutional.
When taxes are imposed to pay a government debt incurred twenty or fifty years previously, taxpayers have no interest in – they will receive no benefits from – the purpose of such taxes. Money borrowed fifty years ago provided benefits to tax consumers at that time; what’s more, many of these tax consumers used their booty in ways detrimental to American interests. Operation Keelhaul, Operation Phoenix and CIA complicity in peddling mind-destroying drugs come to mind.
People today, as noted, can have no interest in what was done with the proceeds of debt fifty years ago, and received by complete strangers – and, in many cases, by inveterate enemies of America.
The only way this debt can be constitutionally paid would be to impose taxes on those who received the proceeds of the debt, or on those who received benefits from the proceeds – and no one else.
No Second Chance
Taxes and child abuse: cause and effect
Men have protested against their condition for thousands of years, and practically none have focused on the most insidious effect: the incidence of child abuse occasioned by taxes.
Man’s journey begins when he is conceived. The genes that come together at that time contain the complete and final instructions as to the potential for his physical growth and development. The key word here is ‘potential.’ To fulfill these instructions, nature requires proper nutrients and proper conditions (such as non-threatening situations), at proper times. Every organ of the human body grows according to a time schedule implanted in its genetic instructions. When the appointed time arrives for a limb to bud – or for brain cells to grow – and proper nutrients or conditions are absent, the organ grows crookedly, with non-functional tissue, or not at all. When women give birth to children with deformities, it is not a failure of genetics – it is a failure of nutrition, or the absence of a benevolent condition. There is a reason why mothers addicted to cocaine – or who eat little more than potato chips and soda pop – give birth to sickly and deformed babies. And, there is a reason why pregnant women spontaneously abort under unusual stress.
Here, if these nutrients or conditions are not present at proper times, it is too late; the child will have no second chance; the child will pay a lifetime penalty for the failure of nutrition or condition.
Birth is only an early milestone in man’s journey; he still has some fifteen years of physical growth to negotiate. This growth, also, is controlled by the genetic instructions and time schedule established at his conception. This growth, also, is dependent on proper nutrients being available at proper times. If such nutrients are not present at appointed times, genetic instructions cannot be fulfilled. In this regard, also, a child does not get a second chance.
From conception to birth, every individual must struggle to fulfill as completely as possible all that which he has in common with all other warm-blooded animals – growth of his eyes and ears, his legs and arms, and scores of other body parts. From birth and beyond, he must begin a new, and most difficult, development: that of his humanity… some people call this his character, or personality. For its proper growth, he must develop his reason – a uniquely human activity – and learn those numberless activities that contribute to the well-being of mankind… otherwise known as virtues. These, also, must be learned according to a particular time schedule. While his physical growth is automatic and is dependent on proper nutrients and conditions at proper times, the growth of his humanity requires an endless need of proper decisions, and supportive companionship. Each decision requires a proper understanding of all related facts – the purpose of his reason; where this search for facts is not performed – or fails, the decision also fails, and leads invariably to disaster. His character grows crookedly, with un-necessary restraints, or not at all.
When a man makes a bad decision in his private capacity, it may ruin one man, or one family; when he makes a bad decision in a public capacity (that is, as a teacher, or judge), it may ruin thousands, or an entire nation. In this regard, the fate of mankind depends on an unprejudiced search for facts. As a man without reason will drift from one disaster to another, so a ship, without a rudder, will soon drift into the rocks. No path to ruin lies more certain than when men fail at reason.
Facts, in the form of knowledge and experience, are the nutrients of humanity; and, for a child, will first be derived from parents; then from parents and playmates; then from parents and teachers. At least this is how it ought to be. For a child to acquire this knowledge and experience, companionship is required with parents, playmates and teachers. If this companionship is not available or not properly given, proper knowledge and habits cannot be learned, or will grow crookedly, or not at all. If the deprivation is sufficiently long, the damage will be permanent; a child will never be able to guide his actions so as to avoid tragedy.
Here, a child may have two, three or four chances to learn properly; if companionship fails a third, fourth or fifth time, it would have been better had he never been born. It is a verdict of history that for every injury done to a child, he will take revenge against the society that administered it a hundred, or a thousand, times – depending on his intelligence.
From the time of conception, at least, to a child’s teen years, the responsibility lies on parents to provide a child with proper nutrients, conditions and companionship. To provide such requirements, parents must learn what are such nutrients and conditions and develop an ability (that is, an earning power) to provide them. Child rearing is the first industry of every species; for, without healthy and functional offspring, a species (or society) is doomed to extinction – a family, or a society, will have no means to carry forward its achievements.
Where parents fail in their duty to acquire proper knowledge, or to develop an adequate earning power, the result is a life-time penalty laid upon their children in the form of misshaped bodies, or deformed characters.
It naturally follows that the highest duty of any society is to encourage its young to acquire proper knowledge and to develop an adequate earning power. Where a government fails in this duty, or acts to impair obligations of parents, the government acts unconstitutionally; and such failure or impairment ought to be a capital offense, and forfeiture of all property.
If the American experiment in liberty is to succeed, every force and mechanism of American society should be directed so as to encourage the industry of child rearing. If we test the internal tax structure of this country against that principle, we see that such taxes fail on every count. An internal tax is any tax imposed within the borders of a country, such as the ‘income tax’, the ‘Social Security tax’, property taxes, among many others; for now, I will focus on the absurdity of Social Security taxes.
They are absurd because of the nature of such taxes and because of their numbers.
Nature. Thru the art of propaganda, people are made to believe that these taxes are not taxes, but “contributions” instead; and that such “contributions” will be recovered after a worker retires. Furthermore, such “contributions” are not mandatory. They are obligatory only on people who have obtained a Social Security card; and there is no law that requires anyone to obtain such a card. It is thru the incessant drumbeat of propaganda that people are led to believe that they are required to obtain such a card; but, as I said, there is no such legal requirement.
I have researched these issues quite extensively, and the results of my research are collected in my book, Plantation America.
Numbers. When we examine the numbers related to Social Security taxes, we wonder if Americans have any brains. The average American will work forty years before he retires, during his working life he will pay and forgo about four thousand dollars because of Social Security taxes every year. Thus, during his working years, he will pay about one hundred and sixty thousand dollars in such taxes. If we factor in the interest that he could have earned if he had put this money into a savings account, the total adds to about four hundred thousand – with an assumed interest rate of four percent.
When a man retires, he might live another ten or fifteen years; and might collect twelve or thirteen thousand in Social Security checks for each of those years – if he is an American citizen; if he is a foreigner, he will collect about twenty-three thousand each year. Thus, he might collect a total of one hundred and fifty thousand during his retirement years, compared to the four hundred thousand he lost during his working years.
Taxes imposed by the SS Act deprive a man of property at a time when he needs that property to raise his children. As a compensation for this loss, he must work longer hours, economize on his expenses or a combination of both. If he works longer hours, he is deprived of the companionship of his child. If he economizes on his expenses, he provides lower-quality shelter, clothing and nutrition for his child. With one, the child is deprived of the nutrients needed for the development of his humanity; with the other, he is deprived of nutrients for his physical development. We should not construe this as a civilized choice.
This problem is compounded by the fact that SS taxes are imposed on everyone, and cause a general slump in economic activity. Companies receive less demand for their products; they have to lay-off workers, or close their doors. So, SS taxes (and all other internal taxes) operate to squeeze American workers between a need to work longer hours and the forces of a declining availability of jobs.
Consequences of internal taxes are well understood by the American criminal class. In the years prior to enactment of the Social Security Act, the problem of dealing with unemployed workers was left to each individual state. To meet the crisis of the 1930’s, several states proposed to impose taxes on employed workers in order to support unemployed workers. Such taxes were only proposed because state legislators knew that if they levied such taxes within their states, these companies would be placed at a competitive disadvantage relative to similar companies in other states; and the unemployment they sought to alleviate would only become worse. They solved this dilemma with the Social Security Act – which suppressed all American industry… and made it less competitive with industry in the rest of the world.
In other words, these bureaucratic bandits knew that, if only one state imposed Social Security taxes, men in that state would be driven to vagrancy or banditry; such bureaucrats saw that the solution was to drive all Americans to conditions of vagrancy or banditry.
Such conditions are not conducive to proper child rearing. A man with no productive outlet for his energy is dangerous to live with: he neglects or abuses his children, or wife. If he is a good man within, he withdraws into shame; neither he nor his children will recover.
He and his family must survive on scraps and handouts; but these eat away at the strength of their bodies, their self-esteem – and the bonds of family.
Along with driving men to banditry and vagrancy, the imposition of taxes also causes declining tax receipts. These declining tax receipts come at precisely the time when government expenses increase: the banditry and vagrancy created by taxes create needs for a larger police force, and more soup kitchens. With lower receipts and greater expenses, what’s the solution? To you and I, the answer is quite simple: ‘reduce or eliminate taxes.’ But bureaucrats do not see it the way we see the situation: if we determine the purpose of an action by its results, these bureaucrats’ object is the destruction of American society.
If men will not pay for their own destruction, government will borrow money to finance their destruction; and then make their children and grandchildren pay the debt. Thus, governmental debt is the process by which one generation cannibalizes those that follow.
Men who do not work are not able to support their family. And, it makes no matter whether this failure of support is owing to indolence or to an absence of jobs, the result, in either case, is neglect and abuse of children. Since taxes are mandated by American legislatures, the natural consequences of taxes – that is, the neglect and abuse of children – is also mandated by American legislatures.
Men who survive by banditry or vagrancy are incapable of raising a healthy, well-adjusted child; one engenders shame and the other pity. Neither is proper currency between parent and child.
When men leave the home of their children – it matters not whether the absence is caused by irresponsibility or by long hours at work, the result, in either case, is the destruction of companionship.
When men know they have no legal recourse against bandits (disguised as tax collectors), they become either servile slaves or smoldering volcanoes of rage; either frame of mind poisons every minute of companionship with a child.
All of this is mandated by Congress, and state legislatures. The government will have all men abandon their children; where men refuse to voluntarily do so – that is, where they continue to work in a feeble attempt to provide sustenance and companionship for their children, despite the obstacles of taxes and regulations, the government will penalize them with taxes ranging between forty percent to sixty percent of their earnings, and use these taxes to reward those men who have become irresponsible or indolent, either by conscious choice, or lack of marketable skills.
When children leave the homes of their fathers, the destruction continues. The printing presses that conceal this destruction occasion a mountain range of government debt; and will be laid on the shoulders of those children who were made orphans by it, when they enter the work force.
This is not a theory that I discuss; in a sense, I have seen too much, and heard too much: I had the misfortune to listen to a man’s story. He was born to parents who struggled to put food on his table, clothes on his body, and shelter over his head. For his first four or five years, he would go months without seeing his parents; they lived, worked and went to school in different parts of the state. He was mainly under the care of grandparents and an aunt. He hardly had any companionship with adults; they were aliens, who were to be tolerated while he went about learning the crucial skills of throwing rocks, climbing trees, riding tricycles, jumping rope, and a few other activities.
Nevertheless, by the time he was four, he had learned that adults were to be feared: they were big, and could hit very hard; and, sometimes, they would hit unexpectedly, and for no apparent reason. He had learned to keep his mouth shut.
It was also around the age of four that he was sexually molested. He had no experience of companionship with adults, who had instructed him to keep his mouth shut. The idea of complaining did not occur to him… until fifty years too late.
As a consequence, he endured this outrage for five or six years… until his tormentor committed suicide.
If life is a race that we all must run, here is one who never made it to the starting line.
The destruction of jobs; driving men to banditry and vagrancy, the neglect and abuse of children; the destruction of a man’s self-esteem; the destruction of his family; the annihilation of future generations: this is no way to preserve a society.
These are natural consequences of internal taxes; contemplate these consequences, and consider what penalty you would design for any who propose or levy an internal tax. To you and I, a major correction is needed here. But redress is very comprehensive. What shall we do first?
With regard to the SS tax: it would seem that the only ethical thing to do would be to totally abolish this scheme. But millions of Americans have organized their lives with the expectation of recovering 150,000 of the 400,000 that was extorted from them. You see, they, apparently, don’t mind losing the 250,000; it’s the loss of that 150,000 that gets them worked up. Just talking about abolishing the SS would start riots on every street corner.
What’s the alternative?
Bribe Number Two
Very simple. Trade places with public employees. Their retirement systems, along with numerous benefits given to them, constitute bribe number two; its purpose is to reward government employees for compelling private workers into a “retirement system” that requires them to cannibalize their children if they are to receive “retirement” checks.
Some cities and counties promise raises to their employees… but only if collections of taxes have increased from year to year. Some make these promises openly; most do not.
Public retirement systems are invested almost entirely in private investments such as real estate, stocks and bonds. The total net assets of all cities, counties and states and federal governments add to somewhere between three and ten trillion dollars. (Net assets of California public retirement systems approached half a trillion dollars – as of 2002.) These investments can be liquidated without imposing taxes on anyone; the money could be raised by selling shares in Microsoft, or the several Funds that invest in Red Chinese companies, or a shopping center, for example.
(However, federal retirement systems appear to be “primarily” invested in UST obligations.)
A major portion – and possibly all – of this money was unconstitutionally taken from American taxpayers: it factually and ethically – but not legally – belongs to private workers. We cannot change facts, but we can change law.
By trading places, we will take possession of the non-cannibalistic retirement system setup for government employees – and let them have the cannibalistic one setup for us.
If we do to them what they have done to us, we would require them to cannibalize only their children and grandchildren if these retired bureaucrats want a retirement check – our children would be exempt from such taxes. However, since a child cannot be held accountable for crimes of the parent, we should allow such children to save themselves from the jaws of their parents; an option unlawful for our children.
Here, I have dealt briefly with two questions relative to internal taxes; namely, why they are unconstitutional, and a suggestion as to one action that may be done as an alternative. It remains now to discuss ‘how’ this problem may be redressed; I have treated this topic extensively elsewhere; and would recommend this page as an introduction.
Timely, and related, pages,
Turn Back the Clock. I’m 69 (in two months) but I have the health, vitality and body of a near-professional athlete, aged 25 to 35. I routinely have former pro and college baseball players tell me I would “do well” (a modest remark) if I played “men’s senior league”, a level of play equal to a major college. In other words, I’m living proof that people do not have to grow old; they can retain or recover the health and vitality of youth; they don’t have to suffer from arthritis, diabetes, kidney failure or any of hundreds of other ailments. Look what you’ll gain: more strength and a longer life to enjoy the adventures we all know are coming. You might even want to take part in them.
 Table 455, U. S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of U. S.: 2002.
 The excess of money collected by SSAd is mandated to be invested only in US Treasury obligations, 42 USC 401 (d) & 1104 (b).
 Table 517, Id.
 Table 518, Id.
 Citizens’ v. Topeka, supra, 20 Wall. 655, 87 U.S. 455 @ 460, 461.
 See American Inquisition, for a discussion of the unconstitutionality of all internal taxes.
 Steward v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548.
 Memorandum of Understanding, Garden Grove Employees League Chapter, 1999-2001, page 9.
 Table 455, id.