YOU WAIVED YOUR RIGHT TO EARN WAGES
The U.S. Constitution in Article 1, Section 10 prohibits government from impairing the obligation of contracts. If you had a right to contract your labor for wages of equal value, then government would not impair that contract. But you don't have a right to contract, because your labor belongs to your benefactor. It belongs to the same people who own the IRS. Your employer buys your labor from them. They allow you to keep a living allowance. Slaves must be provided for.
The application form for a Social Security Number is a Department of the Treasury form, not a form from the Social Security Administration. They are your Lord.
If you applied for a number, you agreed that the Secretary of the Treasury is your Lord. You cannot question federal jurisdiction once you avail yourself of federal benefits (according to the Supreme Court's Ashwander case). And I again repeat the Black's Law Dictionary definition of "Allegiance:" "Obligation of fidelity and obedience to government in consideration for protection that government gives. U.S. v. Kuhn, D.C.N.Y., 49 F. Supp. 407, 414"
Let's take a closer look at this obligation of obedience.
If government determines your moral values for you then you cannot claim that it is immoral to fund vile abominations. You must render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.
On the other hand, if you have a right to earn wages, then your wages
cannot be taken from you to fund abominations. If you waived your right
to earn wages, then your wages become taxable.
BASIC TAXATION PRINCIPLES
Romans 13:6 requires us to pay taxes to fund legitimate government functions. This makes perfect sense, after all, we masters should pay our servants. On the other hand, Satan has a counterfeit authority for you to obey. This counterfeit authority needs tax revenue to fund their abominations. How then do you distinguish legitimate authority from illegitimate authority? Answer: Legitimate government functions, per Romans 13:3-4, are not a terror to good works, but to evil.
There are two ways to make your earnings taxable: one is to work for the government, the other is to have your labor rights owned by the government.
No one has a right to work for the government. The privilege of working for government is a government granted taxable privilege. It was taxable in 1862, long before the 16th Amendment, and it remains taxable now. The Public Salary Tax Act of 1939 [76th Congress, 1st Session, Chap 59, pages 574-575] has never been repealed. It defines gross income to include only "compensation for personal service as an officer or employee of a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing." That's right! The statute definition is such that only federal government employees have "income."
[Side issue: This allows the IRS to say that wages are income. And the Internal Revenue Code is very misleading. If you study it carefully, you'll find out that the term "employer" only refers to the government.]
And only federal government employees have a right to work in the U.S. "The United States" is both the name of the government and the name of the geographical place. Don't confuse the two.
And NO, the 16th Amendment didn't make all wages taxable. The Supreme Court ruled in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. 240 US 103 that: "The 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation ..." but simply prohibited the income tax from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged.
The other way to make wages taxable is to give away your right to earn wages, thereby making an equitable conversion of your labor. This is usury prohibited by scripture. You have no right to profit from labor that you no longer own. Income, gain, or profit from the use of government owned labor is taxable as an excise tax. Courts have acquired an in rem jurisdiction of this government owned labor. Any indigent socialist who deposits all his future labor into the socialist trough in order to receive a future bowl of stew is, of course, receiving taxable profit if he tries to sell the labor owned by his benefactor. The Social Security Act, Title VIII, Section 801 requires him to pay Social Security AND OTHER TAXES.
Pay attention to the courts' use of the terms "income" "gain" and "profit."
Note that the Internal Revenue Code:
Edwards v. Keith, 231 Fed 1:
"One does not derive income by rendering services and charging for them."
Conner v. U.S., 303 F.Supp. 1187 (1969) on page 1191:
"If there is no gain there is no income ... Congress has taxed income not compensation."
Wilby v. Mississippi, 47 S 465:
"It certainly was not the intention of the legislature to levy a tax upon honest toil and labor."
Staples v. U.S., 21 F.Supp. 737, 739 (1937):
"Income is not a wage or compensation for any type of labor."
U.S. v. Ballard, 400 F2d 404 (1976):
"The general term 'income' is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code."
Spring Valley Water Works v. Barber, 33 P 735:
"A right common in every citizen such as the right to own property or to engage in business of a character not requiring regulation CANNOT, however, be taxed as a special franchise by first prohibiting its exercise and then permitting its enjoyment upon the payment of a certain sum of money."
Tennessee Supreme Court in Jack Cole v. Commissioner MacFarland, 337 SW2d 453 (1960):
"The right to receive income or earnings is a right belonging to every person, and realization and receipt of income is therefore not a "privilege that can be taxed." [from:Taxation West Key 933]
In this 1960 case, the Tennessee Supreme Court also quoted prior decisions that defined the term `privilege' in contradistinction to right:
"Legislature ... cannot name something to be a taxable privilege unless it is first a privilege." "Privileges are special rights, belonging to the individual or class, and not to the mass; properly, an exemption from some general burden, obligation or duty; a right peculiar to some individual or body"
US Supreme Court in McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316:
"If it could be said that the state had the power to tax a right, this would enable the state to destroy rights guaranteed by the constitutions through the use of oppressive taxation. ... The power to tax involves the power to destroy."
U.S. Supreme Court in Butcher's Union v. Crescent City, 111 US 746:
"The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. ... to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property."
Here are some cases to demonstrate that you do not have a right to sell labor that you no longer own. It is a taxable government granted privilege to sell their labor. The amount of your profit determines the tax.
Oliver v. Halstead, 86 SE2d 859 (1955):
"There is a clear distinction between 'profit' and 'wages' or compensation for labor. Compensation for labor cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law."
Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 US 309 (1913):
"Income ... may be defined as the gain derived from capital or from labor or from both combined."
The Supreme Court in Eisner v. Macomber, 40 SCt 192 and 252 US 189 (1920) and subsequently reaffirmed in Goodrich v. Edwards, 255 US 527 (1921):
"The rule of Eisner v. Macomber has been reaffirmed on so many occasions that citation of the cases to this effect would be unnecessarily burdensome. To depart from the rule at this late date would ignore the sound principles upon which that case was decided and would throw into confusion the fundamental income tax structure and law as it has developed in the almost half century which has elapsed since adoption of the 16th amendment. That there cannot be 'income' without a 'gain' accords with the common understanding of the term, a test of construction which is particularly appropriate in our system of self-assessed Federal income tax ... Moreover, that which is not income in fact manifestly cannot be made such by the legislative expedient of calling it income ...."
So. Pacific v. Lowe, 238 F. Supp. 736, 247 US 330:
"'income' as used in the statute should be given a meaning so as not to include everything that comes in. The true function of the words 'gains' and 'profits' is to limit the meaning of the word 'income'.
Laureldale Cemetery Assoc. v. Matthews, 345 A 239, and 47 A.2d 277 (1946):
"Reasonable compensation for labor or services rendered is not profit."
U.S. Supreme Court in Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105, at 113 (1943):
"A state may not ... impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution."
U.S. Supreme Court in Magnano Co. v. Hamilton, 292 US 40:
"The power to tax the exercise of a [right] ... is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment."
President Jefferson, concluding his first inaugural address, March 4, 1801:
"... a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government … "
Spreckels Sugar Ref. Co. v. Mclain, 24 SCt 382 (1904):
"the citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language."
Oregon Supreme Court in Redfield v. Fisher, 292 P 813, pg 819 (1930):
"The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state: but the individuals' right to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed."
Long v. Ramussen, 281 F 236, 238 (1922):
"The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to non-taxpayers. The later are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for non-taxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue law." Reaffirmed in Gerth v. US, 132 F. Supp. 894 (1955) and in Economy Heating Co. v. U.S., 470 F2d 585 (1972)
Regal Drug Co v. Wardell, 260 US 386:
"Congress may not, under the taxing power, assert a power not delegated to it by the Constitution."
U.S. Supreme Court in Hurtado v. California, 110 US 516:
"The state cannot diminish the rights of the people."
Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F2d 946(1973)
"... there can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights."
Miller v. U.S., 230 F 489
"The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime."
There are only two types of taxes authorized by your Constitution, indirect (such as imposts, duties and excises) and direct. Essentially: Direct taxes are taxes on people not things. Indirect taxes are a tax on things, but not people. Indirect tax, being a tax on things, must meet careful criteria so that it doesn't tax people.
Congress has always had the authority to collect an indirect tax on profits (of those within federal jurisdiction) without apportionment and without regard to any census. This power has always existed, it was not added by the 16th Amendment.
Direct taxes (according to Article 1, Sect. 2) must be apportioned among the states, not among the people, and must be paid by the states, not by people. STATES PAY DIRECT TAXES, NOT PEOPLE! The Governor then sends the tax bills to citizens who remit payment to the state treasury who then pays your federal government.
Your federal government can, however, directly tax federal employees. Federal employees can be taxed directly, just as they have been ever since the 1862 Tax Act of 12 Stat 432, Chapter 119, Section 86 imposed a direct 3% tax on their wages above $600 per year. This was long before the 16th Amendment, even though your U.S. Constitution prohibited direct taxes unless apportioned.
The taxing of people is a direct tax called "capitation" and is prohibited by U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 9. A direct tax on wages "... would be by nature a capitation rather than excise tax." according to the Supreme Court in Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 US 165 (1918)
Indirect taxes need not be apportioned, but must be taxed during import, manufacture or sale. To tax the purchaser for owning a thing would be a direct tax.
The U.S. Supreme Court in Pollock v. Farmers Loan, 158 US 601, found that The Income Tax Act of 1894 "... being a direct tax within the meaning of the Constitution, and, therefore unconstitutional and void because not apportioned according to representation ..."
A direct tax on wages remains unconstitutional. 1975 US Supreme Court case Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Traigle, 421 US 100: "... Income tax statutes apply only to state created Corporations no matter whether state, local or federal."
Eisner v. Macomber, 40 S.Ct. 192 (1920), 252 US 189 (1919):
"The 16th Amendment must be construed in the connection with the taxing clause of the original Constitution" ... "this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects."
Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 US 1 (36 SCt 242 & 243) (1916) made it theoretically possible to have an indirect tax on income (profits), while a direct tax on wages remained unconstitutional unless apportioned. This important case clarifies that a tax on income (profit) is an indirect tax as long as income was "separated from the source":
also see Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 US 107, Peck v Lowe, 247 US 165 (1918), and Evans v. Gore, 40 SCt 555 (1920)
US Supreme Court in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390: "The term [liberty] ... denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, to establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience ... The established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered with, under the guise of protecting public interest, by legislative action which is arbitrary ..."
U.S. Supreme Court in Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105 (1943):
"The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to suppress its enjoyment. ... Those who can tax the exercise of this practice can make its exercise so costly as to deprive it of the resources necessary for its maintenance. Those who can tax the privilege ... can close the doors to all those who do not have a full purse."
US Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491:
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
U.S. Supreme Court in Brady v. U.S., 397 US 742:
"Waivers of Constitutional rights not only must be voluntary, but must be knowing, intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences."