The Phaserl


Corporate Fascism 101: Stealing Via Taxation

by Jeff Nielson, Bullion Bulls Canada:

Alone among all commentators in the precious metals sector; I spend a considerable amount of time covering two subjects which are (virtually) entirely ignored by other commentators in the sector: banking and taxation. Why invest a considerable amount of time/effort covering subjects which (at first glance) have no direct relevance to precious metals, or precious metals investing? I’ve answered this (un-asked) question on many occasions.

Banking and taxation are the two PRIMARY VEHICLES through which the One Bank (which controls 40% of the global economy) does its stealing. And the reason why the One Bank does most of its stealing in these two realms is because these are the two areas which bore/confuse the Average Person more than any others — and thus they don’t pay attention.

Read More @

Help us spread the ANTIDOTE to corporate propaganda.

Please follow SGT Report on Twitter & help share the message.

1 comment to Corporate Fascism 101: Stealing Via Taxation

  • jeff

    The income tax is not what you think. It didn’t begin in 1913. The 16th amendment didn’t change the taxing powers of the government nor repeal the apportionment requirement. Here’s the FIRST line of IRS form 1065 for partnership returns (after name info):

    Caution. Include only trade or business income and expenses on lines 1a through 22 below. The words “Caution” and “only” are BOLDED on the form.

    Here is the definition of trade or business from Internal Revenue Code (26 USC) AKA Title 26:

    (26) Trade or business
    The term “trade or business” includes the performance of the functions of a public office.

    Here’s a definition of Definition:a statement of the exact meaning of a word, esp. in a dictionary.
    • an exact statement or description of the nature, scope, or meaning of something

    Here’s the entry in Black’s Law Dictionary for INCLUSIO UNIUS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS:
    The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another. The certain designation of one person is an ab- solute exclusion of all others. n Coke, 58b; Bur- gin v. Forbes, 293 Ky. 456, 169 S.W.2d 321, 325.

    Ignorance of what the law really says cost people a lot of money. Learn the truth about the tax code. It probably doesn’t apply to you (unless you are a government troll here to prop up the lie).

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>