Arkansas Boat Bill Of Sale: Fill & Download for Free

The Top Forms based on popularity for 2019 is:Small Business Legal FormsRelease Of LiabilityReceipt TemplateBill Of LadingEmployee HandbookEmployment ContractEmployment Verification LetterHold Harmless AgreementMemorandum Of UnderstandingNon Compete AgreementFirearm Bill Of SaleLand ContractResumeDurable Power Of AttorneyConstruction ContractCover LetterFax Cover SheetArticles Of IncorporationBoat Bill Of SaleConsignment AgreementCorporate BylawsCorporate MinutesExecutive Summary TemplateIncome StatementIndependent Contractor AgreementLetter Of AgreementLetter Of IntentMechanics LienNon Disclosure AgreementNon Profit BylawsPartnership AgreementPurchase OrderResignation LetterScope Of WorkTerms Of ServiceVehicle Bill Of SalePersonal Financial StatementPower Of AttorneyPurchase AgreementContract For DeedGrant DeedQuit Claim DeedWarranty DeedBalance SheetPay StubSocial Security Card ApplicationFree Certificates Of AppreciationTexas Non Disclosure AgreementOhio Quit Claim DeedLimited Power Of AttorneyFlorida Power Of AttorneyGeorgia Quit Claim DeedModel Release FormBusiness ProposalTexas Power Of AttorneyVirginia Bill Of SaleColorado Quit Claim DeedTexas Quit Claim DeedTennessee Bill Of SaleLien WaiverJob Offer LetterBill Of SaleFlorida Bill Of SaleAlabama bill Of SaleOregon Bill Of SaleCalifornia Bill Of SaleCalifornia Non Disclosure AgreementFlorida Quit Claim DeedMassachusetts Bill Of SaleArizona Bill Of SaleIllinois Bill Of SaleMissouri Bill Of SaleColorado Bill Of SaleNorth Carolina Bill Of SaleSouth Carolina Bill Of SaleWashington Bill Of SaleMichigan Bill Of SaleMichigan Quit Claim DeedArizona Quit Claim DeedFlorida Non Compete AgreementCommission AgreementConsignment ContractEmployee Evaluation FormWaiverJob ApplicationKansas Bill Of SaleArkansas Bill Of SaleProfit And Loss StatementPersonal Legal FormsBank Statement TemplateHospital Discharge PapersInvoiceGuardianship FormsLast Will And TestamentLiving WillMedical ConsentAffidavitLetter Of RecommendationPromissory NoteLast Will And Testament BlankPhoto ReleaseCodicilPrenuptial AgreementAffidavit Of Small EstateCease And Desist Slander And Libel LetterDeath Certificate RequestCrypto Last Will And TestamentOhio Last Will And TestamentPennsylvania Last Will And TestamentVirginia Living WillDo Not Resuscitate OrderDaycare ContractFlorida Living WillOhio Living WillPennsylvania Living WillTexas Last Will And TestamentMedical Power Of AttorneyFlorida Last Will And TestamentCalifornia Living WillNorth Carolina Last Will And TestamentTexas Living WillPennsylvania Last Will And TestamentCalifornia Last Will And TestamentReal Estate FormsEviction NoticeMonth To Month Lease AgreementRental ApplicationRent ReceiptSublease AgreementTriple Net Lease AgreementPennsylvania Lease AgreementLease AgreementRoommate AgreementTexas Eviction NoticeCalifornia Lease AgreementCalifornia Rental ApplicationCommercial Lease AgreementNorth Carolina Lease AgreementNew York Lease AgreementGeorgia Lease AgreementVirginia Lease AgreementNew Jersey Lease AgreementMichigan Lease AgreementTax FormsHCFA-1500DS 11W3DA 31929SF 15W210961099 Int1099 MiscSSA 561 U2DA 4856IRS 4506 TW2COF 306W41040 ESAIA Document A305CBP Form 6059BDA 638DA 705DA 2823DA Form 3433-1DA 4187DD 1172-2DD 1351-2DD 1750DS 82130-UForm 540WH 347DA Form 5513Opm Form 71Form 3949 AVa Form 21 674Va Form 10 2850cHUD 1DS 3053VA Form 26 1880Form 1120 HVA Form 21 686CVA-21-0845VA Form 21 4138W9N 400

Original Question: What are the most clever scams you have come across?The Social Security Trust Fund Retirement System used to brow beat the tax paying public.Totally designed ass-backwards. Generation after generation lives longer and longer. Fewer people paying in. Inflation is constant, so that you get back (after inflation adjusted dollars) less and less. This has been known since its creation in 1935. Article from Saturday Evening Post below.Had you taken the same money, after tax, invested it in the Dow Jones Industrial Average (stock market) you would have done better. Over time, of course and depending on when you got in and got out.Of course our education system teaches us how to cope with our peers, and be able to go to college (this same government run school system that installs in everyone that you must get a college degree). They teach us nothing about what to do with what you make ... That is odd.You are getting inflation adjusted dollars, from a pool of fewer people every year, at a dismal rate of return. The government that sets up a program where the younger generation pays for the older generation is a Ponzi scheme that would put anyone else in jail.Bernie Madoff (currently in prison) used huge payouts from other people's investments to artificially make the new entrants into his scheme look like everyone was getting rich.Social Security is a pyramid scheme. It is illegal. Unless you are in charge of administering and collecting and prosecuting this game. Sounds like the Mafia and their control.Some other people's take on this system:SOCIAL SECURITY CHECKShttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2966827/postsSOCIAL SECURITY NOW CALLED 'FEDERAL BENEFIT PAYMENT', not ENTITLEMENT! 12/8/2012Have you noticed, your Social Security check is now referred to as a "Federal Benefit Payment"?The government is now referring to our Social Security checks as a “Federal Benefit Payment.”This isn’t a benefit – its earned income!Not only did we all contribute to Social Security but our employers did too.It totaled 15% of our income before taxes. If you averaged $30K per year over your working life, that's close to $180,000 invested in Social Security.If you calculate the future value of your monthly investment in social security ($375/month, including both your and your employer’s contributions) at a meager 1% interest rate compounded monthly, after 40 years of working you'd have more than $1.3+ million dollars saved! This is your personal investment.Upon retirement, if you took out only 3% per year, you'd receive $39,318 per year, or $3,277 per month.That’s almost three times more than today’s average Social Security benefit of $1,230 per month, according to the Social Security Administration (Google it - it’s a fact).And your retirement fund would last more than 33 years (until you're 98 if you retire at age 65)! I can only imagine how much better most average-income people could live in retirement if our government had just invested our money in low-risk interest-earning accounts.Instead, the folks in Washington pulled off a bigger Ponzi scheme than Bernie Madoff ever did. They took our money and used it elsewhere. They “forgot” that it was OUR money they were taking. They didn’t have a referendum to ask us if we wanted to lend the money to them.And they didn’t pay interest on the debt they assumed. And recently, they’ve told us that the money won’t support us for very much longer. But is it our fault they misused our investments?And now, to add insult to injury, they’re calling it a “benefit,” as if we never worked to earn every penny of it. Just because they “borrowed” the money, doesn't mean that our investments were a charity! Let’s take a stand.We have earned our right to Social Security and Medicare. Demand that our legislators bring some sense into our government –Find a way to keep Social Security and Medicare going, for the sake of that 92% of our population who need it.Then call it what it is: Our Earned Retirement Income.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••March 7, 1936 - Article - Social Security, Or De Levee Done Bust (part 1), by Frank Parker StockbridgeOn August 14, 1935, President Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act. He used a series of pens for his signature. He gave each pen, after it had done its share, to one or another of the men and women who had taking part in shaping the new law and easing its way through Congress.It was quite an impressive ceremony. After the measure had been made law by the President's signature, Mr. Roosevelt made a little speech to the assembled group. He said, in effect, that they were to be congratulated upon the successful outcome of their efforts. They had, he assured them, made history.Mr. Roosevelt was perfectly correct. The passage and signing of the Social Security Act was a historic event; for it undertakes to establish, as a continuing policy of this country, fundamentally new concepts - new in our system of government, at least - of the relations between the Federal Government and the states, between the states and their citizens, and between all citizens of the Federal Government itself.The Act sets up, for example, such innovations as these:A Federal income tax that goes all the way down to the bottom of the economic scale, taking toll from every man and woman, boy or girl, who works for wages, no matter how low. Is that new in our national scheme of things or not?The Social Security Act is not an "emergency" measure, but a permanent fixture. It will remain on the statute books of the United States in principle, though probably in amended form, from now on.The Supreme Court may declare it unconstitutional. That is at least possible. Or the present or some succeeding Congress may repeal it. That is unlikely. No Congress elected by popular emotion will repeal the vital provisions of the Social Security Act - not if its members want to be re-elected. No political party or individual politician is likely to try and tamper with the Social Security Act, unless by way of expanding its scope and enlarging its benefits, for its principle is rooted in the widespread and growing belief that Uncle Sam is Santa Claus. (pg. 10)This brings us down to the final item, a new kind of tax which reaches more citizens and cuts across lower levels of economic status than any direct tax ever levied in America. It is:An income tax on all wage earners, levied directly on their pay envelopes, for old-age benefits. It is to be deducted by employers from all regular wage or salary payments every payday, and turned over to the federal Treasury. This tax runs at the same rates as the old-age benefit tax levied on employers; beginning on January 1, 1937, the rate is 1%. It applies, however, only to wages and salaries below $3000 a year. If your earn more than $250 a month, you don't have to pay this tax on the excess above that income. Every third year thereafter the rate goes up by ½%, until in 1949 it is running at 3% of every worker's pay.Senators and representatives took few chances of laying themselves open to the charge of being unconcerned with the welfare of the indigent aged, the mothers and babies, the blind and the crippled and all the rest. Forced to choose between a blanket endorsement of the entire program, or risking being pilloried by the hustings - that is to say, the elections of 1936 - as enemies of the workers and the deaf to the appeal of motherhood and the prattle of innocent children, what did the gentlemen on Capitol Hill do?What would you have done in their place?Right; they voted for the bill, regardless of partisan affiliations. It passed the Senate by 76 votes to 6, and the House by 373 to 33. And, to paraphrase President Roosevelt's remarks when he signed the Social Security Act, they made history by their votes. (pg. 70)Comments: This is the way the labor Cannibals operate to appeal to masses of people, but it needs to be kept in mind that there was no income tax on labor when the Social Security Act of 1935 was signed. The labor Cannibals use the same tactics today. They may also be described as the "invective," which means "vehement denunciation." If you dare buck the system and somehow manage to get to keep your wages free from taxation - even though the Constitution still guarantees the right to free labor - you will be branded as a "tax protestor." In a criminal tax trial, for example, the jury will tend to close their minds once the prosecution slaps this label on you. This is just applying human nature to the case. The jurors have been mentally conditioned since childhood to think that they have a legal obligation to file and pay income tax on their labor. In the minds of the jurors, they are thinking: I've filed and paid income tax all my life, what right do you have not to? Thus, the accused is found guilty in the minds of the jury in the very beginning of the trial. Even though child support, when combined with taxation, takes 65% or more of a worker's labor in some cases, the odious label of "deadbeat" will be slapped on the person who resists this yoke. For example, if you dare to shun the obligation to support your own children after a divorce so that you can afford to survive yourself, you will be branded with infamy. Of course, nobody is told that taking 65% of a worker's labor brings the worker down into the same levels of slavery that the Nazis imposed upon the Jews in World War II; nobody's told that the status of slavery bastardizes marriages because all children are the fruit of the master - that is, the Government; nobody's told that it is the duty of masters to support the offspring of slaves. This gives you an idea of where labor Cannibalism has led. The Social Security Act of 1935 laid the foundation for it. It would be far more humane to sell many fathers into bondage than order them to pay child support. It is cruel to exploit someone's labor to the point where they can't even afford to live and to drive thousands to suicide every year. Adjusting for inflation since pre Civil War times, I would estimate that slaves today would sell for between $50,000 and $100,000 each. This should more than cover most child support orders, and the slave would be under the care of a physical master who would be obligated by law to care for the him in exchange for the use of his labor. If we're going to have slavery, then let's have it! The labor Cannibals, however, must maintain a righteous appearance in the public eye, so this remedy will never be applied. In addition, every thief knows that it's far cheaper to steal something than to buy it. This principle applies to property in the form of labor as well as other kinds of property. It should be noted that the Supreme Court, in the case of Eisner v. Macomber (1920), ruled that the income tax "did not extend the taxing power to new subjects." The Constitution granted no power to the Federal Government to extend the income taxing powers to include the labor of working people. This is the truth that the invective will never admit. To see how Frankfurter logic works in Supreme Court decisions, let's look at the case of U.S. v. Lee (1982). Here is where the Federal Government forced Social Security on the Amish people. The court stated: "Not all burdens on religion are unconstitutional and state may justify limitation on religious liberty by showing that it is essential to accomplish overriding government interest." Frankfurter was dead by this time, but his spirit still lives in the courts - the spirit of labor Cannibalism. Basically, this case simply says that if the Government wants something bad enough, the courts will let them have it. After all, isn't that what FDR and his associates wanted? These types of rulings make perfect sense when the people are slaves, for slavery reduces human labor to a mere article of commerce. If something is commerce, then it can be taxed and regulated at the pleasure of Government.March 14, 1936 - Article - Social Security, Or De Levee Done Bust (part 2), by Frank Parker StockbridgeOn the face of it, the old-age benefit project is an insurance system, designed to provide retirement annuities for all workers when they reached the age of 65 years. If carried out on the lines laid down in the Social Security Act, it will, in time, accomplish that end."The only certain thing about it," said Professor Witte, when I asked him what had been in the mind of the President's Committee on this point, "is that, once established, nothing is harder to kill than a Government-administered old-age retirement system. The oldest of them all, in Germany, was established by Bismark in 1889. It survived through the Great War, it was maintained by the republic that succeeded the Kaiser's regime, its beneficiaries suffered, like all others, in the great inflation of 1920-21, but the system was maintained, and under the Nazi regime it is almost the only established institution in Germany surviving from the old days which has not been seriously interfered with or altered. The rates of premium payments have changed, the value of the retirement annuities has varied, but the principle is imbedded so deeply in the popular ‘mores' that even a dictator would not dare to abolish it."The present fact is the old-age benefit tax. Anyone's guess is about as valid as another's as to what this will come to a generation hence, but beginning January 1, 1937, we've all got to pay it, employer and employee alike. From each will be taken 1% of pay rolls in each of the years 1937, ‘38, and ‘39; 1½% in 1940, ‘41 and ‘42; 2% in 1943, ‘44 and ‘45; 2½% in 1946, ‘47 and ‘48; and 3% in 1949 and every year thereafter, making the total draw-down from wages and salaries 6%.Like the milk that the grocer's boy spilled on the cash register, that is going to run into money fast.Take the employer's excise tax on pay rolls as a starting point. How many employers there are, and what their pay rolls come to, are questions which lie, so far, in the misty mid-region between statistics and guesswork. The latest available statistics are those of the U.S. Department of Commerce, which computes at $29,300,000,000 the total of wages and salaries paid out and received by everybody in 1933. Right here, however, the guesswork begins, for the old-age benefit tax does not apply to the wages of farm workers - some 2,000,000 of them - nor to the salaries of the 2,000,000 employees of Federal, state and local governmental units. Nor does it apply to wages paid to sailors, domestic servants and person employed by charitable or other nonprofit institutions, nor to salaries above $3,000 a year. But pay rolls are higher now that in 1933. The estimate of the President's Committee is $37,165,000,000 pay rolls for 1937. On that the initial old-age-benefit tax will run up to above $2,000,000,000 a year, and continue to yield that much or more from then on. Or so the President's Committee calculates.What happens then? What becomes of the huge fund created by these new taxes? Only a small fraction of it is to be disbursed for old-age benefits before 1942. For five years the proceeds of these taxes are to lie in the Treasury, earning interest at a rate, specified in the Act, of not less than 3%. By the end of 1940, the President's committee estimates, this reserve will have reached, with accrued interest, a total of $2,960,200,000.; five years later, it is predicted, it will be $9,338,800,000. By 1960 it will come to $36,381,700,000, or more than the total of the present national debt.All the life-insurance companies in America combined have not taken in as much as $60,000,000,000 in premiums since the first of them started business, a century ago. Uncle Sam, starting from scratch, expects to take in more insurance cash in 35 years what the insurance companies did in a hundred. And by 1980, the President's Committee estimates, the reserve, after the payment of more than $4,000,000,000 in benefits in that one year alone, will amount to $50,000,000,000. (pp. 27, 37)The size of that estimated reserve has worried many students of the Social Security Act. They shudder when they contemplate the temptation to extravagance held forth to politicians in high office by a lump sum of $50,000,000,000, or half of it. But there isn't going to be any such amount of loose change lying around in the old-age-benefit reserve fund. The Federal Government is going to use every dollar of it to pay its other debts with.The largest retirement pension, however, that anyone can collect under the Act is $85 a month. (pg. 40)The unemployment tax on the wages of a $20 a week worker will come to $31.50 a year by 1938. That is about the average wage of today, taking all business and industry, by and large. When the old-age tax is in full effect, the tax paid by the employer on the wages of the average employee will be above $62 a year.Certainly, the whole Social Security Act introduces a new note in American life, a foreign note in every sense of the word. We are an adaptable people; moreover, we have a way of disregarding or changing laws that don't work. But the first effect of reading the Act upon an average American, rooted in the American tradition of individual responsibility and unschooled in the social-service mysticism which sees dreams as realities and creates Utopia by waving a magic wand, has been well expressed by one of the members of the Social Security Board, Judge Miles, of Arkansas.An Arkansas Delta Negro, Judge Miles reported, was drafted in the World War. He was placed in a labor battalion, trained for a short period, loaded on the train, and shipped to the coast for transportation overseas. He was kept back from the ocean until time to load the boat; he was marched down to the sea at night and placed in the hold. About ten o'clock the next morning, when the boat was well out on the ocean, he was permitted to come up on deck, and he stuck his head over the rail. He threw up his hands and yelled, "Good Lawd! De levee done bust!" (pg. 48)Comments: In took only until 1939 for the Federal Government to begin spending the money brought in from social security taxes. The social security system has been and always will be a system that enslaves class A for the benefit of class B. A represents the working class and B the recipients of the labor taken from the working class. In 1980, when the old-age pension fun was supposed to have a $50,000,000,000 reserve, it took one of the biggest tax increases in history to bail the system out. The old-age pension fund was only supposed to be used to pay out old-age benefits, and the original social security card said on them that they were not for identification purposes. Things sure have changed, haven't they? This shouldn't surprise anyone, since the system was started and then administered by people who used lies and deceit to establish their power. The enormous sums of money gathered in from taxing labor is important. Abraham Lincoln, in a speech he gave at New Haven on March 6, 1860, stated:Look at the magnitude of this subject. One sixth of our population, in round numbers - not quite one sixth, and yet more than a seventh - about one sixth of the population of these United States, are slaves. The owner of these slaves consider them property. The effect upon the minds of the owners is that of property, and nothing else; it induces them to insist upon all that will favorably affect its value as property, to demand laws and institutions and a public policy that shall increase and secure its value, and make it durable, lasting, and universal. The effect on the minds of the owners is to persuade them that there is no wrong in it. The slaveholder does not like to be considered a mean fellow for holding that species of property, and hence has to struggle within himself, and sets about arguing himself into the belief that slavery is right. The property influences his mind. The dissenting minister who argued some theological point with one of the established church was always met by the reply, "I can't see it so." He opened his Bible and pointed him to a passage, but the orthodox minister replied, "I can't see it so." He showed him a single word - "Can you see that?" "Yes, I see it," was the reply. The dissenter laid a guinea [gold coin] over the word, and asked, "Do you see it now?" So here. Whether the owners of this species of property do really see it as it is, it is not for me to say; but if they do, they see it through two billions of dollars, and that is a pretty thick coating. Certain it is that they do not see it as we see it. Certain it is that this two thousand million of dollars invested in this species of property is all so concentrated that the mind can grasp it at once. This immense pecuniary interest has its influence upon their minds.The power to tax the labor of every worker in a vast country such as the United States, is a taxing power that has no limitations, since labor is the foundation of all other property. For example, let's say you have 100,000,000 workers who average $30,000 a year in wages, to make things simple. If the government can tax that labor at the rate of 1/3 of your wages, then that means that each worker would pay an average tax of $10,000 a year. So, let's do the math. 100,000,000 workers multiplied by $10,000 would equal $1,000,000,000,000 [$1 trillion] a year. Do you think that political parties that have this much money coming in every year are going to want to give it up? Do you not think that these political parties will naturally enact laws that will secure their rights to the labor of the multitudes of working people? Does not this enormous pecuniary interest in the labor of the people have an influence on the minds of those in power? Lincoln, back in his day, referred to the approximate sale price if the rights to the labor of all the slaves of the South were sold. In other words, if one buyer back then had $2,000,000,000, then they could have bought all the slaves and this would have given the new master the command of the labor of one sixth of the population at that time. Frederick Douglass, while still a slave in 1838 under the ownership of Master Hugh, was able to get his master to agree to let him go out and live on his own as long as Douglass paid him $3 per week for the privilege. Douglass said on page 215 of his book The Life And Times of Frederick Douglass (1882) that: "This was a hard bargain. The wear and tear of clothing, the losing and breaking of tools, and the expense of board made it necessary for me to earn $6 per week to keep even with the world." The important thing to remember is that whether Douglass lived directly under his master's care or was given the privilege to live apart from his master, his labor was not his own property - Douglass' labor belonged to his Master Hugh. His allowance from labor was always at the command of his master.

It was met with great skepticism. I used to have an issue of the Saturday Evening Post (Why Save Anything December 28, 1935 Vol. 208, issue 26, p.22) that was discussed there.In the same year it passed, 1935, this was another very insightful article I have included with similar criticism from the same year.March 7, 1936 - Article - Social Security, Or De Levee Done Bust (part 1), by Frank Parker StockbridgeOn August 14, 1935, President Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act. He used a series of pens for his signature. He gave each pen, after it had done its share, to one or another of the men and women who had taking part in shaping the new law and easing its way through Congress.It was quite an impressive ceremony. After the measure had been made law by the President's signature, Mr. Roosevelt made a little speech to the assembled group. He said, in effect, that they were to be congratulated upon the successful outcome of their efforts. They had, he assured them, made history.Mr. Roosevelt was perfectly correct. The passage and signing of the Social Security Act was a historic event; for it undertakes to establish, as a continuing policy of this country, fundamentally new concepts - new in our system of government, at least - of the relations between the Federal Government and the states, between the states and their citizens, and between all citizens of the Federal Government itself.The Act sets up, for example, such innovations as these:A Federal income tax that goes all the way down to the bottom of the economic scale, taking toll from every man and woman, boy or girl, who works for wages, no matter how low. Is that new in our national scheme of things or not?The Social Security Act is not an "emergency" measure, but a permanent fixture. It will remain on the statute books of the United States in principle, though probably in amended form, from now on.The Supreme Court may declare it unconstitutional. That is at least possible. Or the present or some succeeding Congress may repeal it. That is unlikely. No Congress elected by popular emotion will repeal the vital provisions of the Social Security Act - not if its members want to be re-elected. No political party or individual politician is likely to try and tamper with the Social Security Act, unless by way of expanding its scope and enlarging its benefits, for its principle is rooted in the widespread and growing belief that Uncle Sam is Santa Claus. (pg. 10)This brings us down to the final item, a new kind of tax which reaches more citizens and cuts across lower levels of economic status than any direct tax ever levied in America. It is:An income tax on all wage earners, levied directly on their pay envelopes, for old-age benefits. It is to be deducted by employers from all regular wage or salary payments every payday, and turned over to the federal Treasury. This tax runs at the same rates as the old-age benefit tax levied on employers; beginning on January 1, 1937, the rate is 1%. It applies, however, only to wages and salaries below $3000 a year. If your earn more than $250 a month, you don't have to pay this tax on the excess above that income. Every third year thereafter the rate goes up by ½%, until in 1949 it is running at 3% of every worker's pay.Senators and representatives took few chances of laying themselves open to the charge of being unconcerned with the welfare of the indigent aged, the mothers and babies, the blind and the crippled and all the rest. Forced to choose between a blanket endorsement of the entire program, or risking being pilloried by the hustings - that is to say, the elections of 1936 - as enemies of the workers and the deaf to the appeal of motherhood and the prattle of innocent children, what did the gentlemen on Capitol Hill do?What would you have done in their place?Right; they voted for the bill, regardless of partisan affiliations. It passed the Senate by 76 votes to 6, and the House by 373 to 33. And, to paraphrase President Roosevelt's remarks when he signed the Social Security Act, they made history by their votes. (pg. 70)Comments: This is the way the labor Cannibals operate to appeal to masses of people, but it needs to be kept in mind that there was no income tax on labor when the Social Security Act of 1935 was signed. The labor Cannibals use the same tactics today. They may also be described as the "invective," which means "vehement denunciation." If you dare buck the system and somehow manage to get to keep your wages free from taxation - even though the Constitution still guarantees the right to free labor - you will be branded as a "tax protestor." In a criminal tax trial, for example, the jury will tend to close their minds once the prosecution slaps this label on you. This is just applying human nature to the case. The jurors have been mentally conditioned since childhood to think that they have a legal obligation to file and pay income tax on their labor. In the minds of the jurors, they are thinking: I've filed and paid income tax all my life, what right do you have not to? Thus, the accused is found guilty in the minds of the jury in the very beginning of the trial. Even though child support, when combined with taxation, takes 65% or more of a worker's labor in some cases, the odious label of "deadbeat" will be slapped on the person who resists this yoke. For example, if you dare to shun the obligation to support your own children after a divorce so that you can afford to survive yourself, you will be branded with infamy. Of course, nobody is told that taking 65% of a worker's labor brings the worker down into the same levels of slavery that the Nazis imposed upon the Jews in World War II; nobody's told that the status of slavery bastardizes marriages because all children are the fruit of the master - that is, the Government; nobody's told that it is the duty of masters to support the offspring of slaves. This gives you an idea of where labor Cannibalism has led. The Social Security Act of 1935 laid the foundation for it. It would be far more humane to sell many fathers into bondage than order them to pay child support. It is cruel to exploit someone's labor to the point where they can't even afford to live and to drive thousands to suicide every year. Adjusting for inflation since pre Civil War times, I would estimate that slaves today would sell for between $50,000 and $100,000 each. This should more than cover most child support orders, and the slave would be under the care of a physical master who would be obligated by law to care for the him in exchange for the use of his labor. If we're going to have slavery, then let's have it! The labor Cannibals, however, must maintain a righteous appearance in the public eye, so this remedy will never be applied. In addition, every thief knows that it's far cheaper to steal something than to buy it. This principle applies to property in the form of labor as well as other kinds of property. It should be noted that the Supreme Court, in the case of Eisner v. Macomber (1920), ruled that the income tax "did not extend the taxing power to new subjects." The Constitution granted no power to the Federal Government to extend the income taxing powers to include the labor of working people. This is the truth that the invective will never admit. To see how Frankfurter logic works in Supreme Court decisions, let's look at the case of U.S. v. Lee (1982). Here is where the Federal Government forced Social Security on the Amish people. The court stated: "Not all burdens on religion are unconstitutional and state may justify limitation on religious liberty by showing that it is essential to accomplish overriding government interest." Frankfurter was dead by this time, but his spirit still lives in the courts - the spirit of labor Cannibalism. Basically, this case simply says that if the Government wants something bad enough, the courts will let them have it. After all, isn't that what FDR and his associates wanted? These types of rulings make perfect sense when the people are slaves, for slavery reduces human labor to a mere article of commerce. If something is commerce, then it can be taxed and regulated at the pleasure of Government.March 14, 1936 - Article - Social Security, Or De Levee Done Bust (part 2), by Frank Parker StockbridgeOn the face of it, the old-age benefit project is an insurance system, designed to provide retirement annuities for all workers when they reached the age of 65 years. If carried out on the lines laid down in the Social Security Act, it will, in time, accomplish that end."The only certain thing about it," said Professor Witte, when I asked him what had been in the mind of the President's Committee on this point, "is that, once established, nothing is harder to kill than a Government-administered old-age retirement system. The oldest of them all, in Germany, was established by Bismark in 1889. It survived through the Great War, it was maintained by the republic that succeeded the Kaiser's regime, its beneficiaries suffered, like all others, in the great inflation of 1920-21, but the system was maintained, and under the Nazi regime it is almost the only established institution in Germany surviving from the old days which has not been seriously interfered with or altered. The rates of premium payments have changed, the value of the retirement annuities has varied, but the principle is imbedded so deeply in the popular ‘mores' that even a dictator would not dare to abolish it."The present fact is the old-age benefit tax. Anyone's guess is about as valid as another's as to what this will come to a generation hence, but beginning January 1, 1937, we've all got to pay it, employer and employee alike. From each will be taken 1% of pay rolls in each of the years 1937, ‘38, and ‘39; 1½% in 1940, ‘41 and ‘42; 2% in 1943, ‘44 and ‘45; 2½% in 1946, ‘47 and ‘48; and 3% in 1949 and every year thereafter, making the total draw-down from wages and salaries 6%.Like the milk that the grocer's boy spilled on the cash register, that is going to run into money fast.Take the employer's excise tax on pay rolls as a starting point. How many employers there are, and what their pay rolls come to, are questions which lie, so far, in the misty mid-region between statistics and guesswork. The latest available statistics are those of the U.S. Department of Commerce, which computes at $29,300,000,000 the total of wages and salaries paid out and received by everybody in 1933. Right here, however, the guesswork begins, for the old-age benefit tax does not apply to the wages of farm workers - some 2,000,000 of them - nor to the salaries of the 2,000,000 employees of Federal, state and local governmental units. Nor does it apply to wages paid to sailors, domestic servants and person employed by charitable or other nonprofit institutions, nor to salaries above $3,000 a year. But pay rolls are higher now that in 1933. The estimate of the President's Committee is $37,165,000,000 pay rolls for 1937. On that the initial old-age-benefit tax will run up to above $2,000,000,000 a year, and continue to yield that much or more from then on. Or so the President's Committee calculates.What happens then? What becomes of the huge fund created by these new taxes? Only a small fraction of it is to be disbursed for old-age benefits before 1942. For five years the proceeds of these taxes are to lie in the Treasury, earning interest at a rate, specified in the Act, of not less than 3%. By the end of 1940, the President's committee estimates, this reserve will have reached, with accrued interest, a total of $2,960,200,000.; five years later, it is predicted, it will be $9,338,800,000. By 1960 it will come to $36,381,700,000, or more than the total of the present national debt.All the life-insurance companies in America combined have not taken in as much as $60,000,000,000 in premiums since the first of them started business, a century ago. Uncle Sam, starting from scratch, expects to take in more insurance cash in 35 years what the insurance companies did in a hundred. And by 1980, the President's Committee estimates, the reserve, after the payment of more than $4,000,000,000 in benefits in that one year alone, will amount to $50,000,000,000. (pp. 27, 37)The size of that estimated reserve has worried many students of the Social Security Act. They shudder when they contemplate the temptation to extravagance held forth to politicians in high office by a lump sum of $50,000,000,000, or half of it. But there isn't going to be any such amount of loose change lying around in the old-age-benefit reserve fund. The Federal Government is going to use every dollar of it to pay its other debts with.The largest retirement pension, however, that anyone can collect under the Act is $85 a month. (pg. 40)The unemployment tax on the wages of a $20 a week worker will come to $31.50 a year by 1938. That is about the average wage of today, taking all business and industry, by and large. When the old-age tax is in full effect, the tax paid by the employer on the wages of the average employee will be above $62 a year.Certainly, the whole Social Security Act introduces a new note in American life, a foreign note in every sense of the word. We are an adaptable people; moreover, we have a way of disregarding or changing laws that don't work. But the first effect of reading the Act upon an average American, rooted in the American tradition of individual responsibility and unschooled in the social-service mysticism which sees dreams as realities and creates Utopia by waving a magic wand, has been well expressed by one of the members of the Social Security Board, Judge Miles, of Arkansas.An Arkansas Delta Negro, Judge Miles reported, was drafted in the World War. He was placed in a labor battalion, trained for a short period, loaded on the train, and shipped to the coast for transportation overseas. He was kept back from the ocean until time to load the boat; he was marched down to the sea at night and placed in the hold. About ten o'clock the next morning, when the boat was well out on the ocean, he was permitted to come up on deck, and he stuck his head over the rail. He threw up his hands and yelled, "Good Lawd! De levee done bust!" (pg. 48)Comments: In took only until 1939 for the Federal Government to begin spending the money brought in from social security taxes. The social security system has been and always will be a system that enslaves class A for the benefit of class B. A represents the working class and B the recipients of the labor taken from the working class. In 1980, when the old-age pension fun was supposed to have a $50,000,000,000 reserve, it took one of the biggest tax increases in history to bail the system out. The old-age pension fund was only supposed to be used to pay out old-age benefits, and the original social security card said on them that they were not for identification purposes. Things sure have changed, haven't they? This shouldn't surprise anyone, since the system was started and then administered by people who used lies and deceit to establish their power. The enormous sums of money gathered in from taxing labor is important. Abraham Lincoln, in a speech he gave at New Haven on March 6, 1860, stated:Look at the magnitude of this subject. One sixth of our population, in round numbers - not quite one sixth, and yet more than a seventh - about one sixth of the population of these United States, are slaves. The owner of these slaves consider them property. The effect upon the minds of the owners is that of property, and nothing else; it induces them to insist upon all that will favorably affect its value as property, to demand laws and institutions and a public policy that shall increase and secure its value, and make it durable, lasting, and universal. The effect on the minds of the owners is to persuade them that there is no wrong in it. The slaveholder does not like to be considered a mean fellow for holding that species of property, and hence has to struggle within himself, and sets about arguing himself into the belief that slavery is right. The property influences his mind. The dissenting minister who argued some theological point with one of the established church was always met by the reply, "I can't see it so." He opened his Bible and pointed him to a passage, but the orthodox minister replied, "I can't see it so." He showed him a single word - "Can you see that?" "Yes, I see it," was the reply. The dissenter laid a guinea [gold coin] over the word, and asked, "Do you see it now?" So here. Whether the owners of this species of property do really see it as it is, it is not for me to say; but if they do, they see it through two billions of dollars, and that is a pretty thick coating. Certain it is that they do not see it as we see it. Certain it is that this two thousand million of dollars invested in this species of property is all so concentrated that the mind can grasp it at once. This immense pecuniary interest has its influence upon their minds.The power to tax the labor of every worker in a vast country such as the United States, is a taxing power that has no limitations, since labor is the foundation of all other property. For example, let's say you have 100,000,000 workers who average $30,000 a year in wages, to make things simple. If the government can tax that labor at the rate of 1/3 of your wages, then that means that each worker would pay an average tax of $10,000 a year. So, let's do the math. 100,000,000 workers multiplied by $10,000 would equal $1,000,000,000,000 [$1 trillion] a year. Do you think that political parties that have this much money coming in every year are going to want to give it up? Do you not think that these political parties will naturally enact laws that will secure their rights to the labor of the multitudes of working people? Does not this enormous pecuniary interest in the labor of the people have an influence on the minds of those in power? Lincoln, back in his day, referred to the approximate sale price if the rights to the labor of all the slaves of the South were sold. In other words, if one buyer back then had $2,000,000,000, then they could have bought all the slaves and this would have given the new master the command of the labor of one sixth of the population at that time. Frederick Douglass, while still a slave in 1838 under the ownership of Master Hugh, was able to get his master to agree to let him go out and live on his own as long as Douglass paid him $3 per week for the privilege. Douglass said on page 215 of his book The Life And Times of Frederick Douglass (1882) that: "This was a hard bargain. The wear and tear of clothing, the losing and breaking of tools, and the expense of board made it necessary for me to earn $6 per week to keep even with the world." The important thing to remember is that whether Douglass lived directly under his master's care or was given the privilege to live apart from his master, his labor was not his own property - Douglass' labor belonged to his Master Hugh. His allowance from labor was always at the command of his master.