There was a second, undeclared war between the bankers and the nation, around the establishment of a central bank. But despite for example many a Founding Father warned against the swindle of debt money plus central bank, and the clear and indefensible consequences from its inception, the bankers with their money and partners in crime eventually made it and the Federal Reserve was born.

And back to the income tax, the moral of the story? Guess how much time went by between the establishment of the central bank and the establishment of the income tax? Hours. Do I need to say more?
Yes: to this day the very legitimacy of the income tax is brought into question against not only the existing laws but even against the Constitution itself.

In the beginning was income tax? Well, in a way, actually… we all grew up educated in the idea that taxes are the righteous contribution we all owe to ourselves as a community, then we discover that we live surrounded by Trojan horses, and truth demands from us un unlimited courage to take a hard look and face deception. One thing is thinking that a minor quota of our contribution is going to veer towards dishonest hands, one thing is thinking that quota is not so minor, quite another thing is discovering that, far from contributing, taxes were devised to betray and screw all of us in the first place.

Because the naked truth is that a country whose money were sane, that is not maliciously restricted by debt, oligo−monopoly and issue out of ratio to the existing goods, would not need any taxes.

Worth repeating it, just in case: taxes were contrived as part of a mass destruction weapon in the first place, thus their very existence is not at all assumed nor needed, not indeed to the extent we’ve been accustomed to: 3%? Maybe. 50%? Forget it.

On the outgo side of the government, the crime syndicate headed by the banker accounts for the bigger share of it, totally unfounded and sheer robbery; on its income side, instead of collecting taxes, the government ought to issue debt free “fiat” money itself, to pay for, and in ratio to, the valuable products it purchases from the community in order to produce the valuable products it delivers to the community.
Or – better still – earn allocations of money for its functions from the legitimate owners of monetary sovereignty – the citizens – depending on the actual and honest delivery of these valuable products, case by case, day by day.
When someone asks you to extend him credit, you evaluate whether he will use that credit ethically, whether he is able to do that, and whether he shall give it back to you. So if the citizens own monetary sovereignty, everytime the government wants to do something, it asks them to extend it credit, and each citizen is free to evaluate and to extend it or not.

I mean, it’s not just ideas, it’s facts: it’s been done in history, and it proved successful. In fact, there exists such a case in point in history that all its social disrepute is needed to divert our attention from its incontrovertible, conclusive economic evidence: Germany between the two world wars. After causing a first bloody mess with World War I, Germany were enduring its consequences and thus in ruins; how come that in a few decades it recovered to a point of having the power to cause a second bloody mess with World War II? Government did exactly just that: printing debt−free fiat money at no cost, and using it to pay for the products purchased from the society it then used to produce its own products delivered to the society. The resulting statistic of recovery is there to see in history. Provided one can lift the blanket of horror and demonization that conceals it and separate the wheat from the chaff.

And that was just a case of monetary sovereignty brought back from its second usurper, the banksters, merely to its first usurper, the state and its rulers. Guess what can bring about giving it back to its legitimate owner: you.
And on this basis even better ideas for money are in the offing, enabling freedom and prosperity to an even greater extent. It’s a mere matter of intention as usual: either ethics or suppression.

When it comes to ethics vs suppression, let’s briefly mention the fundamental underlying reason why taxes are a mass destruction weapon devised to betray and screw all of us in the first place.

A fundamental common denominator has been isolated that what you reward you get, and what you penalise you don’t get.
Survival is based on honest production and honest exchange of genuine survival factors, hence ethics is based on rewarding their honest production and honest exchange, called “merit”, and on penalising the dishonest, fake or lacking ones, called “demerit”.
Much to our shame, this is the typical case of an obvious foundation that not only gets systematically neglected, but even systematically reversed as well by humanoid PTS irrationality.
In fact, I invite you to personally observe and verify how, curiously enough, a common denominator of humanoid organisations is their commitment to the exact opposite: rewarding dishonest, fake or lacking production and exchange, and penalising honest ones.
The very concept of tax is a major case of that reversal, as well as a by the book case of Trojan horse.

As a Trojan horse, taxes infiltrate the sacrosanct ethical value of mutual aid and solidarity, in order to transform it into extortion and a weapon in the hands of bureaucrats and rulers. Proof of this is found by investigating how reversing the burden of proof, that is, reversing one of the founding principles of the rule of law and of civilisation, is commonplace in tax matters: even if the citizen were innocent until proven guilty, the taxpayer is most certainly guilty well beyond proven innocent. And as an example of investigating the legal basis of that, too, United States taxpayers ignore how their tax burden even violates the very principles laid out by their Founding Fathers – and still fully in force to this day.

As a reversal of the ethics of survival, taxes expropriate, extort the fruit of the work from its producer to bestow it to the discretion of those who did not produce it, which in turn will use it to fuel their own arbitrary power and questionable agendas, not to mention bluntly lining their pockets.
The first form of penalising merit is dispossessing it of its rightful results, and the first form of rewarding demerit is gifting it with what the merit did produce.
This is unfair. And as human beings resent injustice it tends to have consequences on the levels of production and social cohesion.
But another form of penalising merit is exploiting parasitically its very will to help and make things go right: as what one penalises one does not get, penalising merit by dispossession and injustice ought to discourage it and thus curtail production; but it so happens that merit is much willing to help and contribute, hence as a result it will continue to produce above the level the penalisation would reduce it to, despite the parasitic pressure.
This further increases the penalisation of merit and the rewarding of demerit, particularly by subjecting it to the blackmail that the wellbeing of all depends on its willingness to bend to the blackmail itself.
Indeed we may keep on investigating many such facets, but let’s now move instead to another basic implementation where the Trojan horse and the systematic reversal merge beautifully.

Politicians and their puppeteers favour progressive income taxes so much that they not only take taxes for granted, but they also and above all take progressive taxes for granted.
Just to make it clear, indeed progressive taxation means that the more you earn, the more taxes you pay, but not simply because bigger earnings subject to the same rate result in higher taxes, but always in proportion. Oh no; it’s much more than that, because the more you earn, the higher the rate, so on a hypotetical graph the curve of taxes paid rises much more, much faster than the curve of the taxed earnings.

Sounds equitable, isn’t it? But that’s exactly where our sacrosanct natural drive to help gets hijacked and exploited by suppressive individuals through carefully rigged Trojan horse ideas: crimes are not only covered up but also blamed on the innocent in order to hijack the resentment of the victims away from the real offenders, and in the end against anyone else. How?

The secretly pretended and cultivated motive of progressive taxes is the instinctual idea of punishing top earners. This is in itself a PTS idea, infiltrated by suppressives, because it lumps all top earners together, honest as well as dishonest. The resentment against top earners is caused by top earnings achieved dishonestly, by out exchange, by stealing them from others, by preventing others to achieve similar earnings, etc. Consequently, the correct ethical action would be to discipline dishonesty and out exchange, not top earning as such, discouraging productivity by making earnings undesirable; the correct ethical action would be to discipline the correct cause, not an effect which may be caused by other innocent causes – the real targets – as much as by the correct one.

The legitimacy of progressive taxation comes from the Marxist−communist principle, “from everyone according to their ability, to everyone according to their need”, which is an interesting case of how “the devil is in the details”, that is, of how carefully one must observe to detect how easily and imperceptibly good things are turned into Trojan horses and ethics is reversed. When you take a close look at this principle, you notice that it opens the door to “professional” givers, “professional” receivers, “professional” handlers, and to the permissibility of dispossessing, handling and dispensing without the consent of those who produced what is being dispossessed, handled and dispensed.
Hence the foundations are laid, legitimising the basic principle of the ethics of survival, only, EXACTLY REVERSED: what you reward you get and what you penalise you don’t get, and someone is eager to commit to implementing that principle and penalising merit and rewarding merit. And within this framework someone is eager to legitimise and implement as well “professional” givers, receivers, handlers, dispossessing, handling and dispensing without the consent of the dispossessed.

So now guess, who is that someone? Which “someone” is going to assume that role of “handler” – together with the power associated to it? Exactly: politicians. Politicians, and their puppeteers, have an obvious vested interest in supporting the reversal of ethics and its Trojan horses.
But while politicians foment and exploit the baser instincts parading the pretended purpose of punishing top earners about, in their customary duplicity they conceal their real reasons, which are: to account for their very existence as “handlers”, and to maximise the order of magnitude of what they dispossess and “handle”.
And here is where progressive taxation plays its strategic function… for them: as time goes by, inflation increases earnings just formally, in that money figures increase but their real purchasing power remains the same if it doesn’t even decrease; progressive taxes ensure that this formal increase, on equal real purchasing power, subjects taxpayers to progressively higher tax rates, dispossessing them of an increasingly greater part of their real purchasing power. And all this pretending that nothing changed, that nothing happened. In other words, the secret mission of progressive taxation is partially occulting the long term, automatic and continuous increase of dispossession.

In conclusion, and in a nutshell, to understand the goal of taxes, cherchez l’argent: follow the money. As to this, the picture is clear when it is complete: from the citizens to governments through taxes, and from the governments to the moneypulators through moneypulation, debt money, and the infinite debt trap. And each and every piece of the aforementioned legitimisation of “professional” givers, receivers and handlers, of dispossession, handling and dispensing without the consent of the dispossessed, plays its specific role: the givers are the target, the receivers are the pretext, the handlers are the tools (to whom some minor part of the loot remains stuck, just to grease the wheels), and the moneypulators pull the strings. And seize and enslave everything and everyone in the long run.