Exactly what does the IRS agent think?

[Brian]

I'm still having trouble though. I notice that citizens were paying income taxes well before 1933.

"In order to help pay for its war effort in the American Civil War, the United States government imposed its first personal income tax, on August 5, 1861, as part of the Revenue Act of 1861 (3% of all incomes over US $800)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax#United_States

I'm trying to figure out the logic behind the redemption as per 12 USC 411 and the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution:


Although I think the Amendment was made in 1913 (first 20 year charter?)

Pages 12-17 might yield some historical context to your questions. Good book...but incomplete.
http://losthorizons.com/CtCforFree.pdf

Note the time frame where the overall trend turns up. Hmmm
http://www.taxhistory.com/graphs/14a.html

Here is my understanding of this. Pollock was about the direct taxation of "income" from government sponsored bonds, notes, funds, etc that were personally owned "real property" by the people involved in the suit. The SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional. The 16th amendment was designed to overturn this ruling and allow the Gov to direct tax "income" aka gain or profit from Gov sponsored entities/privileged activities. It was also sold as an amendment to tax the rich. Brushaber essentially confirmed this saying the 16th conferred no NEW taxing power but returned the Pollock issue back to an excise, or a tax on an activity or privilege.

So now turning to Title12/411. Congress gave the FED an enormous privilege to create private credit with CONgresses blessing. A massive coup occurred that no one realized. Most people's revenue back then was way less then the exemptions aka no filing. There were also many other alternative flavors of money in competition with the FRN. The Fed managed to drive the competing forms of money out of existence and inflate the common person's revenue up into the taxing range (greater then the exemption level). Add the depression and WW2 into the mix (victory tax/withholding) and we are left where we are today.

However that one section 411 leaves a choice. It has too or this whole system WOULD be unconstitutional. They had to leave one very narrow path with a cliff on one side and an abyss on the other. The statutory language regarding issuance USN's is still in effect. The treasury says that a FRN can perform as either. It all boils down to the nature of the money. Private or Public?

One more thing: Ron Paul's new bill has this section in it.
(2) no State may assess any tax or fee on any currency, or any other monetary instrument, which is used in the transaction of interstate commerce or commerce with a foreign country, and which is subject to the enjoyment of legal tender status under article I, section 10 of the United States Constitution.

Why put that there if there is not already something to that effect in action now?