Click on the Image above
Click on the imahe above
Watermelons are Not Taxable Income
The income tax is a direct and un-apportioned tax and is and always has been, unconstitutional. The compensation that you receive from your labor is not a gain and therefore, not income by definition. In fact, income is the profit one receives from being a government employee or from profits from corporate activity. If a man pays you in watermelons for mowing his lawn, are the watermelons considered taxable income?
The fruits of one's labor are the product of one's time and talent and this is not the same thing as income. Whether your compensation comes in the form of watermelons or dollars, it really doesn't matter. Neither the watermelons nor the dollars that you receive as a result of your labor, are income.
For further evidence to support this I direct you to other articles such as;
Income Taxes are a Direct Unapportioned Tax
The National Debt and The CAFR
Income Taxes are Unconstitutional
Taxation Without Representation
Comments? Questions? Replies? Links?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado on
-
-
-
Okay, enough with the hypnotic spin cycle already...Sheesch...I haven't seen one of those in years...
-
-
Post what you like and we will point our opinions likewise. ;>)
-
-
It is to point out that conspiracy theories are just movement to confuse folks.
-
-
LH,
Good for the two of you. This is not like global warming science you take a vote and then the consensus wins. Find some facts to post and no more conspiracy theories about big Pharma, big medicine, big corporations, CFR, Bilderberg and the raving of Alex Jones and infowars.
-
-
Okay Mangus, when a theory becomes a fact how do you counter point that? Just asking.
-
-
Limited observation does not equal causation. Provide some links to real scientific method peer reviewed papers then the idea has established creds.
-
-
I suggest you call the FDA and just ask them if at any time has the FDA accepted big pharmaceutical companies donations to the FDA, it is a straight up question, and they will tell you yes they do but it's to pay for research they are conducting. That is a well known FACT. It isn't even a deniable question, the FDA openly accepts donations for research, and that's all well and good, up to a point, but when you see the side effects and the money to be made..connect the dots your self the next time you see a Doctor, they are allowed to invest in these companies as stock holders, which seems all good until you figure out they then write prescriptions for the drugs they own stock in the companies they sell the prescriptions for. Even a six grader with a brain can see how that could be more tempting to the practice of medicine as a whole. This isn't illegal, but it is immoral and unethical. I don't know about you, but I'll take a Doctor with morals and ethics anytime over legal issues.
-
-
All companies give money to agencies in the form of matching funds to pay for research at major Universities. That happens with DOH, NSA, DOE, HHS, NASA NOAA and all the rest.
The agencies give grants to the Sierra Club to fund research projects by the E=green clubs. Oil Companies fund the same University research funds.
All drugs and even foods have side effects for some percentage of the population. Allergies to all sorts of things are common.
Every drug will have a disclaimer that is 100 items long so take your choice - risk not taking the treatment fearing side effects or take the treatment and end the medical issue. Hopefully you avoid side issues.
The human is not smart enough to even manage water storage and containment lakes for drought years.
-
-
Half of the funding for the FDA comes from the companies they are suppose to be supervising. No conflict of interest there.
There are a lot of documentaries on UTube about how big companies control the FDA. There have been a number of ex FDA researchers that have come forward and told how they were told to expedite things for the big companies and how the FDA targets small companies on behalf of the big ones - and even lie about their products in Fed court to shut them down.
There was an expose about one company being targeted where the facts proved the FDA was wrong and even the judge got mad at the FDA. After losing the FDA openly threatened the owner with prosecution if he did not shut his company down.
They particularly target companies selling products that cannot be patented.
-
-
You are citing the alphabet soup Government agencies, these are NOT private corporations that you have listed, the last time I checked private corporations must operate at a profit, whereas Government agencies do not.
Your right, just look at California, drought is a major problem in that State. It is getting much worse then when I lived there, and it was bad enough 11 years ago, and it's MUCH worse now...
-
-
Private companies co fund the agencies or the agencies co fund the companies- same thing IMHO.
Correct public business must make profits or die, but as Greece is teaching us so do governments. -
© 2025 Created by Keith Broaders.
Powered by
