“The Free World,” notably the EU, U.S., and Canada, have passed “bail-in” legislation; that is, legislation that allows banks to confiscate deposits, should the banks decide that an “emergency” exists. The depositor would have no rights, no recourse. The bank right now can simply rob you of your deposits, with the full approval of the government.

To this is added a bank policy that’s been popping up all over the world – restrictions on the size of transactions that you’re allowed to make with your own money. The higher the transaction amount, the more “suspect” you are of being involved in criminal and/or terrorist acts, which is to be reported to the authorities.

https://internationalman.com/articles/the-future-of-direct-taxation/

by Jeff Thomas

The image above may be considered by some as unfair, as it suggests that taxation is a form of robbery. Well, let’s check the dictionary for a definition:

“Robbery is defined as taking away of goods or property by force or intimidation.”

Well, that certainly fits the bill. Of course, Inland Revenue (or the IRS, CRA, etc., depending upon where you’re from) would say that it’s not robbery if it’s lawful. As I see it, the fact that a law has been passed to allow robbery does not change it from being robbery. It’s merely institutionalised robbery.

Academics might say that we elect representatives to run the central government and those representatives are then entrusted to pass the laws, which we must then meekly follow. Again, this argument doesn’t hold water for me, as these individuals may have been elected, but they most certainly do not “represent” me if they pass a law that says it’s okay to rob me. No government has ever asked me for permission to take my money simply because they want it, and I have never given it.

If there’s any question as to whether the above definition is correct, I’d be happy to see it put to the test: The internet makes possible individualised referendum. If we were to all be questioned as to whether we wish to be taxed, we could easily decide on an individual basis. I’m guessing that I wouldn’t be alone if I were to say, “No, thank you.”

But, to be fair, I do approve of taxation, but only indirect taxation – taxation based on consumption. (This is lawful in my own country, the Cayman Islands, and I receive good value for money.)

Many would say that it would be impossible to operate any government without direct taxation, yet this is not so. In the U.K., income tax was initiated in 1799 to pay for the Napoleonic Wars, and the tax never went away. In Canada, income tax was initiated in 1917 to pay for World War One, and the tax never went away. In the U.S., income tax was initiated in 1913 as a means to compensate for lost revenue due to recently decreased tariffs (clever), and the tax never went away.

In most of the world, taxation is regarded as an imposition and it’s considered understandable that no one really wants to pay tax. The U.S. government promotes a rather different view – that the payment of tax is a patriotic duty. In the U.S., a tax amount can be demanded and the onus of proof is on the citizen as to whether the IRS demand is correct. (In other words, guilty until proven innocent.)

But in almost all countries, payment of tax is described by governments as voluntary, as citizens file their tax forms, pay their income tax, and then hope for the best. The governments don’t actually break down your door and take what they have decided is the “right amount.” (In the U.S. today, through civil forfeiture, billions of dollars in money and goods have been taken from citizens without even necessarily charging the citizen with a crime, but, still, at present, tax collection is handled, “voluntarily”).

But is income tax essential to keep a government alive? Or is it possibly only essential for those countries that conduct wars? Well, a part of the answer comes in the fact that income tax is so commonly justified as repayment of war debt. Presumably, if the political leaders had not engaged in war, they never would have had to introduce income tax to pay for the war. Certainly, Canada and the U.S. went through their greatest historical expansion periods (the last half of the 19^th century) and the industrial revolution, without direct taxation.

By contrast, my own country, in its 500-year history, has never declared war on another country. And it has never had direct taxation of any kind.

Let’s repeat that. It has never had income tax, corporate tax, capital gains tax, inheritance tax, or even VAT, property tax, or sales tax in all of its history. Most of our tax revenue comes from company fees and consumption tax. Of course, this means that our government is limited in how big and powerful it can become, but this is something we look upon as a highly positive by-product. Indeed, the lack of direct taxation is regarded as an insurance policy against the creation of an overly powerful government.

So, it’s entirely possible for a country to have no direct taxation. In fact, few of the world’s existing countries began their life with direct taxation (although in recent times, new countries have often regarded direct taxation as a given.)

See the rest here

Be seeing you