Showing posts with label Islam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Islam. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 5, 2017

Why Amish do not Pay Social Security Taxes │ Martin Armstrong

Martin Armstrong (Apr 5, 2017) -  In 1935, Roosevelt introduced “The Social Security Act” which passed Congress. However, the act was described “Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance.” At first, the Act covered only industry and commerce. It was later extended to include farm operators in 1955. The SS tax was to be at the rate of 3% of income up to an established limit.

The Amish pay taxes because the Bible said: “paying unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.” It was in 1956 that the IRS went to tell the Amish they were now under Social Security and they would have to pay. One Amishman was quoted in a November 1962 Reader’s Digest article: “Allowing our members to shift their interdependence on each other to dependence upon any outside source would inevitably lead to the breakup of our order.” The constitutional question that has never been decided, what happens when the taxing power of government violates the First Amendment and Freedom of Religion? It clearly states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …” 

Then Jefferson wrote in 1802 to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, that there should be “a wall of separation between church and state.” They feared that a minority religion could be subjugated by the Federal Government acknowledging a national religion. The Johnson Amendment, named for Lyndon Johnson, is a provision in the U.S. tax code that prohibits all 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations from endorsing or opposing political candidates. If churches involve themselves in politics, then indeed that creates a reverse problem where the state can be taken over by one religion and oppress all others; so it can go both ways. Historically, religions have often seized governments and outlawed all other religions.In this instance concerning taxation in direct conflict with religion, a group of Amish presented a petition to Congress, with 14,000 signatures. Naturally, Congress ignored them. The Amish reasonably questioned what possible harm they could do by not paying into Social Security. “We do not want to be burdensome, but we do not want to lose our birthright to everlasting glory, therefore we must do all we can to live our faith!” 

The IRS moved to go after the Amish and seize their bank accounts. The problem was – they had none! The IRS then sought to go after anyone buying milk from the Amish and attach their payments to divert them to the IRS. Most simply refused for such a scheme would happen just once and end the business. The IRS, refusing to consider any religious principle, moved in to seize property. In this case of the Amish, that meant cows and horses. They would rather have the Amish die than respect anyone’s rights to religion. Valentine Byler of the Amish community in Pennsylvania, owed four years of IRS taxes. The IRS, of course, tacked on interest and penalties to raise it up to $308.96. Byler argued his religion forbid paying insurance. The IRS said that was a “technicality” and that it was really just a tax. Vyler has no bank account to seize so they issued a summons to appear in court for a charge of contempt. The judge in Federal District Court in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, according to a Reader’s Digest article, “angrily demanded of the IRS agents, ‘Don’t you have anything better to do than to take a peaceful man off his farm and drag him into court?’” The Judge then dismissed the case. The IRS never gives up. The IRS had to issue a statement on April 18, 1961 in which they said: Since Mr. Byler had no bank account against which to levy for the tax due, it was decided as a last desperate measure to resort to seizure and sale of personal property. The IRS seized three of Byler’s six horses while he was actually plowing the ground for the spring planting. The IRS then sold the three horses at auction on May 1, 1961 getting $460. They then used this to satisfy the $308.96 and then charged him $113.15 in expenses and graciously returned $37.89. The incident made national news and was being used by the Communists to show how capitalism was ruthless. The New York Herald Tribune, reported the story with the bold headline: “Welfarism Gone Mad.”

The IRS Chief of Collections was forced to respond claiming he was unaware of the plowing situation. “Plowing never occurred to me. I live in an apartment.” To show the mentality of those who are bureaucrats, he then said: “We don’t ask people their race or religion when we administer the tax laws. People have no right to use their religion as an excuse not to pay taxes.” The IRS was then compelled to issue a press release in 1961, stating the Amish stance that “Social Security payments, in their opinion, are insurance premiums and not taxes. They, therefore, will not pay the ‘premium’ nor accept any of the benefits.” The Amish met with the IRS Commissioner in September, 1961 in Washington, DC, They cited several Bible passages, including I Timothy 5:8, which says, “But if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith and is worse than an infidel.” 

The public outrage at the conduct of the IRS was international. The Amish argued they were entitled to an exemption based on the First Amendment. The IRS agreed it would stop further seizures until the case was settled. Now, senators promised to try to pass a bill in Congress and everything stopped. The Amish hired a lawyer to challenge this conflict between the taxing power and the First Amendment. However, as the court date approached, they realized if they lost in court, it was over. They then looked to Congress to pursue a legislative exemption. Finally, in 1965, the Medicare bill was passed by Congress. Congress realized that if the Amish went to court and won, then others could challenge the right to tax conflicting with the First Amendment. Congress quietly put in on page 138 a clause exempting the Old Order Amish, and any other religious sect who conscientiously objected to insurance, from paying Social Security payments, providing that sect had been in existence since December 31, 1950. The Senate approved in July, and President Lyndon B. Johnson signed it into law on August 13, 1965.

The open question remains simply this; the first explicit references to the tithe appear in Genesis 14, where Abraham tithes to Melchizedek, and in Genesis 28, where Jacob promises to give God “a full tenth.” But where did the idea to tithe come from? Many argue Abraham and Jacob were simply following the customs of the surrounding nations. But Scripture points in a different direction. In Genesis26:5, God says, “Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” In the New Testament, Jesus upholds the tithe in Matthew 23:23 (cf. Luke11:42). He condemns the Pharisees for their tedious commitment to one part of God’s law, the tithe, while neglecting “the weightier matters of justice, mercy, and faithfulness.” Then he states, “These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.

One of the Five Pillars of Islam, zakat is a religious obligation for all Muslims who meet the necessary criteria of wealth. This too is not a charitable contribution, but is considered to be an obligatory tax or  alms. The payment and disputes on zakat have also been controversial in the history of Islam. The zakat is based on income and the value of all of one’s possessions or property. It has been traditionally set at 2.5% above a minimum amount known as nisab, which has also been greatly debated.

In Judaeo-Christianity, the “tithe” was a one tenth of annual produce or earnings, formerly taken as a tax for the support of the church and clergy in Christianity. The question is, does exceeding the level prescribed as a “tithe” violate the First Amendment? If true, then any income tax imposed beyond 10% would violate the First Amendment. Since the Ten Commandments also prohibits coveting anything that belonged to a neighbor including his wife or property, it would appear that Socialism championed by Karl Marx violates the First Amendment and any tax should not exceed 10%. Hence, progressive taxation would be unconstitutional if not a flat tax. Some argue it also violates Equal Protection of the laws. The Tax at the time of Jesus’s statement of give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, was less than 5%. Historically during the Roman Republic, the tax imposed was 1%. During time of war, the taxes would rise to 3%. Ever since Karl Marx, who said religion is the opium of the masses, politicians have loved Marxism and used it to exploit the people to the point governments are averaging now 40% of the entire economy. They have outpaced all other businesses beating the bankers and multinational corporations. They have become the 800 pound gorilla in the corner of the room nobody notices is even there. Politicians always preach against the “rich” which increases the wealth of government [...]

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

Trading with Nothing for Something | Islamic Perspectives on Fiat Money

Money must have intrinsic value ... Fiat currency and
banking are acts of crime ...
(HERE)
 
Asatizah of Al-Munawwar (2013) - The Dazzling Proof for the Return of Our Pure Money. The Judgment on Fiat Currency:

"... Money must have intrinsic value due to it being the measure and store of the value of things. A form of 'money' that is open to total artificial manipulation and subjective valuation will not be able to perform these two functions of money.

... Fiat currency and banking are acts of crime, in fact, among the worst crimes in human history. Banking institutions must be held accountable for the continuous campaigns of wars and colonialism – today, corporate colonialism – which are undeniably their biggest and lucrative money-making opportunities. They have left behind clear fingerprints and traces for the world to see. They are also directly responsible for the impoverishment of countries shackled by unpayable debts owed to internationally recognized bloodsucking money lenders and financiers.  


... The monetary system based on fiat currency ensures that the amount of debts created will always be far more than the actual money supply, which means that many will never be able to repay the original sum, what more the interest. Many will be forced to default, declare bankruptcy and watch as their possessions are confiscated before their eyes. This does not happen to individuals only, but also to countries and nations which are forced to sell their resources for a measly price due to their inability to repay their international debts.

Muhammad Mahathir - Malaysian Prime Minister (2008):
"Quantitative Easing is a privilege for the rich nations only. When Greece lost money, it could not print currency notes or issue cheques to pay debts.Greece needs to borrow money from European countries to repay loans. Again no currency notes would be involved. The amount lent would be credited to the Central Bank of Greece which then would issue cheques to the commercial banks... Rightly both the United States and United Kingdom should be bankrupt. To recover they should be selling all their banks, industries and other assets at fire-sale prices. That was what the Asian countries were forced to do after the currency traders forced many of them almost into bankruptcy. But the bankrupt powerful countries of the West don’t have to do that. They carry out Quantitative Easing, print money and refinance their banks and bankrupt industries. And they talk about transparency in business practice."
 
... One-third of the world's population now lives in a state of poverty. This is not due to the lack of natural resources or intellectuals, but due to the mischief of the robbers, i.e., the international bankers who went around the world selling their loans while hiding behind the pretext of offering technological progress and modernity to the 'backward' countries.

... The criminal act of banking (lending other people’s money on interest without their consent and earning through that without any risk of loss or without any labor involved) cannot be separated from fiat currency. Without fiat currency, banks today will not be able to function as how they are functioning. From the very beginning, it was the introduction of promissory notes (which have now devolved to fiat currency) that allowed the banks to engage in this misuse of the money that was entrusted to their safe-keeping by the unsuspecting masses. Both the practice of banking and the use of fiat currency are based strongly on Riba [usury].

... Fiat currency today cannot be a measure of value or a store of value as it constantly loses its illusory 'value' due to it not having natural or intrinsic value. In reality, it is nothing presented as something. This is why fiat money and chronic inflation are not separable; both are the results of each other. Nothingness will only return to nothingness and history is a witness to this.

Imran N. Hosein  (2013) - The International Monetary System:
"When the poor are permanently poor, and the rich permanently rich, that is oppression! All around the world today that oppression exists, and is constantly increasing - the poor grow poorer and the rich richer. Riba [usury] is the cause! A predatory global elite, centered in the West, but also around the world, is constantly sucking the wealth of mankind and impoverishing the masses through riba. Their ultimate objective is to utterly enslave all of mankind in a new sophisticated slavery.Political, legislative, judicial and legal systems, the media etc.,  are all created by the oppressor, and all function to preserve the system of economic oppression. Television is used to transport the masses to fantasy-land so that they remain unaware while riba is used to enslave them."
 
[...] When inflation occurs, the purchasing power of the money we hold (fiat currency) falls, that is to say, the money that we use today buys lesser and lesser constantly. As time passes, the purchasing power of money only falls, hence people can only buy lesser with the money they have.

 [...] This fall in its purchasing power does not happen based on real situations where the money supply circulating in the nation naturally exceeds the goods and services available in the same nation. The resultant increase in the price of goods and services is due to the artificial creation of money out of nothing. This artificial creation of money out of thin air - one of it - is due to what bankers call Fractional Reserve Banking. This has never ceased to happen since banking took control of the money supply of a country and as a result, the price of goods and services are deliberately forced to be raised and as an inevitable result, the value of the money in our possession (purchasing power) keeps falling. This is intended rip off [Al-Bakh].

Riba-nomics
 
[...] Therefore, trading with fiat as a means of exchange, in reality, is trading with nothing for something. There is no equality; it is zulm [oppression], a clear act of injustice especially from the part of the issuer of the money.

[...] We do not need to bring down, attack or destroy the banking industry. The usurers will themselves bring the banks down since usury is baatil [falsehood], and baatil is bound to perish. What we have to do is to bring the haq [truth] and haq does not need the majority to give it any extra strength.

[...] Many shops and traders around the world have started to accept the Dinar [gold] and Dirham [silver] as payment. Some have also started using it as their mahar and some have went a step further by signing business contracts with the Dinar and Dirham being the capital as well as the profit.

Tarek El Diwany, 2014: "An economically educated person should ask why a man would go to prison for creating money at home, while the bankers do it for a living. Still the question goes unanswered. Why does the crime of counterfeiting become a respectable profession through the act of incorporation as a limited company? Can you give me one example in Shari’ah where something that is haram [forbidden] becomes halal [legal] by the granting of a commercial license?