Reisman says “the only really proper reform of Social Security is the gradual abolition of the whole system” Gradual? Why Gradual? The only proper reform is gradual? Would not the immediate abolition of the system be preferable? If the system is not moral what justification is there for continuing for any length of time?

Some State’s scam: Canada, the “TAX ACY fraud”

New Westminster, B.C., April 10, 2005. Plaintiffs Lovey Cridge, a retired forensic accountant and John Ruiz Dempsey, a criminologist and forensic litigation specialist, both residents of Surrey, British Columbia, Canada, filed their amended Statement of Claim on August 2, 2005. The original class action suit filed on behalf of the people of Canada was filed on April 22, 2005.

The suit alleges that the government of Canada has engaged in a deliberate scheme to defraud the people of Canada through its illegal use of an invalid or non-existent statute, namely, the Income Tax Act of 1948 which has never been properly enacted according to law. The statement of claim alleges that the Plaintiffs which includes all of the People of Canada as the purported “taxpayers” have been defrauded and continues to be defrauded by the Canadian government, its collection agents, the now privatized Canada Revenue Agency (the former Revenue Canada), and robbed of their wealth and fruits of their labour through an elaborate scheme of coloured, illegal and unlawful seizure of property and money through the use of various coercive schemes, threats of fines and incarceration using the bogus and non-existent tax law, and the unlawful revisions thereof namely the Income Tax Act as contained within the Revised Statutes of Canada.

The class action suit is a result of more than five years of research and study of de facto Canadian federal statutes. The Plaintiffs says that there is no such thing as a lawful Income Tax Act in Canada. This so-called Act, is not a valid and lawful Act; this “Act” was unlawfully fabricated in violation of the Constitution of Canada, namely, the British North America Act of 1867 as it existed at the time of the purported enactment of the illegal Act.

The impugned Income Tax Act of 1948, as well as many other federal acts enacted by the de facto Canadian government since 1931 have not been enacted properly pursuant to the laws of England and Canada. The Income Tax Act of 1948, with unlawfully created versions thereof incorporated within various derivatives of the Revised Statutes of Canada are now fraudulently being used by the Defendants to rob the Plaintiffs and all the people of Canada.

For a bill or Act to be lawful and valid, the bill must be passed by the Canadian Parliament and the Senate. The Income Tax Act of 1948 was never passed by the Senate. After the bill has met the approval of the parliament and the senate, the bill must be assented to by the representative of the real Crown of England – the “Royal Assent” by the Governor General. At no time had this purported Act been given a Royal Assent by the Governor General if at all. And finally, pursuant to the Canadian Constitution, any Act that has been given a Royal Assent must be published in the Canada Gazette. At no time had this purported Act been published in any Gazette.

There has not been a lawfully appointed representative of the Crown since 1931 to the present. In order to circumvent this problem, the then ruling Prime Minister of Canada, William Lyons MacKenzie King signed the infamous Letters Patent of 1947 which gave the de facto Governor Generals all the powers of the Crown, including the power to give Royal Assent. This unlawful practice still goes on today. The ruling Crown of England is precluded by its own law to appoint Governor Generals. Again, to thwart this issue, King and the de facto Prime Ministers who came after him started to appoint their own Governor Generals.

Notwithstanding the fact that the said Income Tax of 1948 has not been lawfully passed by the Parliament, nor had it been given a Royal Assent, nor been published in the Canada Gazette, the Canadian government, took it upon themselves, to collect income taxes and extorted monies from the people of Canada without any colour of right, and without legal or juristic authority from 1948 to the present, and continues to collect and extort monies and properties from the people of Canada unlawfully.

Those who resisted or refused to pay income taxes were either arrested and falsely incarcerated, charged under various false criminal offences and their properties were unlawfully seized or confiscated contrary to the Magna Charta, the English Bill of Rights 1689, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Plaintiffs claim that the government and its agents also violated the Canadian Bill of Rights of 1960 after its enactment as well the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms after it was enacted and accepted as law that is enshrined within the Constitution of 1982 in Canada.

To further carry out its fraud and deception, the Canadian government “revised” the bogus Income Tax Act of 1948 (Income Tax Act – 1948, c. 52) and fraudulently and without colour of right, incorporated the illegal Act within the 1952 Revised Statutes of Canada (see R.S.C. 1952, c. 148). To further conceal their deception, the Defendants again revised the unlawful and counterfeit Income Tax Act (now with the reference to the year “1948″ removed) and integrated this “new” Act with the 1970 Revised Statutes of Canada (see R.S.C.1970, c. 1-5). Again, to further obscure the truth and complete the “colouring” process, the 1970 (R.S.C. 1970, c. 1-5) Revised Statutes of Canada was again revised and further became the 1985 Revised Statutes of Canada (R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp)).

In all of the above machinations, debauchery and wicked manipulations and fraudulent misrepresentations, the government of Canada failed to fully hide the fact that Canada never had a valid and lawful income tax act or statute that could have justified the colossal crimes and unlawful acts perpetrated by the Canadian government against its own people.

The Plaintiffs, Lovey Cridge and John Ruiz Dempsey on behalf of the People of Canada, with the help of other researchers searched law libraries and archives for any proof that the impugned Income Tax Act might exist. The Plaintiffs found no evidence of it. The Plaintiffs says such “Act” simply did not exist and are therefore claiming for damages including the return of all money and property wrongfully confiscated (stolen) by the Canadian government from its people.

If people don’t want to eat out of garbage cans when they’re old they can (a) save money while they’re young or (b) keep working.

That individuals will have to “pay twice” for the transition is no argument at all. Someone has to get the short end of the stick, no matter what we do. If we were to eliminate Social Security altogether, right now, we would be tremendously punishing current and approaching recipients, who honestly participated in the system and had every reason to expect it would come through for them. And I know it’s tempting to say “Screw them, they’re statists!” but failing to rectify current promises can have disastrous effects on the future free society we’re trying to create.

Here in the UK the government has chosen to punish young workers and reward the pensioners. A few years ago they closed off the old so-called defined benefit pension schemes, which allowed you a pension of the order of your last salary. The new “state pension” only gives you approx. $130 per week and won’t be enough for anyone to live on.
As a result young workers have to pay hefty “national insurance contributions” (which can easily amount to a fifth of your gross income) to pay for old retirees’ generous pensions, which they themselves will never get.
But the government figured that old people vote more than the young, so they decided to favour them.
Anyone interested in founding a Taxpayers Alliance party?

I heartily support Kyle’s opt-out option, mainly because I’m lucky enough to not be old enough to have paid too much into the system.

And because I think it would be more politically feasible, given ridiculous assertions like this:

“Without SS a third of our old people would be eating out of garbage cans. I have never seen any study indicating that Libertarians are better at investing and planning for the future than the average American.” — billwald

Old people are richer than young people, even without SS. A third of young people aren’t eating garbage, so why would we think that old ones would be?

The opt-out arguments shuts that down. You have the choice to be safe and Socially Secure, or you can go on your own. Then billwald is only left with the argument that HE (or the government) knows how to invest your money better than you.

Every couple of blocks there is a new check cashing/high interest loan shop. A third of new car buyers are “upside down.” The half of all credit card holders who don’t pay off every month carry an average $8,000 balance. Half the people who change jobs cash out their deferred comp. These people are not mentally able to save for their future.

If private investment in the market is such a good deal then SS can be “saved” by permitting the SS administration to buy seats and invest in the market.

Why do people who worry about SS going broke never worry about the U.S. Army going broke?

I think political reality must be faced: the social security system as designed is here to stay and is more likely to be enhanced than degraded by law. I don’t write this happily, but I simply cannot see how to undo the system by any political method. The system has a large and growing constituency- those who receive the benefits, many of whom who actually need them.

What I think will happen in the future is that economic reality will force many/most people to work and produce goods and services well past the age of 67, regardless of where the government sets the age for receiving benefits. Greenspan acknowledge this, in my opinion, when he said that government can guarantee a dollar value of benefits, but not the buying power.

“Every couple of blocks there is a new check cashing/high interest loan shop. A third of new car buyers are “upside down.” The half of all credit card holders who don’t pay off every month carry an average $8,000 balance. Half the people who change jobs cash out their deferred comp. These people are not mentally able to save for their future.”

Wow, Bill, that’s impressive. Are there any other rights that you think “these people” are not mentally fit to retain? Obviously if they’re too stupid to maintain credit, we shouldn’t let them vote — far more destructive than bad fiscal knowledge.

Saul:

The government has two ways of dealing with that. First, it is the early recipient of new dollars and can bid on goods before downstream recipients. Second, it controls the economic statistics on which COLA adjustments are based.

“Not optimistic” on Social Security? Ponzi schemes are doomed to fail. Wait until all those immigrants with five different Social Security cards in their wallet turn 62.

“Obviously if they’re too stupid to maintain credit, we shouldn’t let them vote”

Voting by ignorant and uninformed people doesn’t matter because:

1. They tend to cancel out
2. The NEA and the AARP can swing any election because the old people always vote but the young people don’t. Giving the franchise to the 18 year olds didn’t change anything. I would have bet that the young people would have voted themselves pot and alcohol . . . didn’t happen.
3. Since at least the Reformation nothing except the French and Russian revolutions has slowed the transfer of assets from the working class to the Swiss banks.
4. Doesn’t matter which party is elected because nothing substantial changes.
5. Any politician who goes against our owners will go the way of Lincoln, JFK, and Bobby. I suppose Ron Paul is permitted to exist as a harmless distraction to Libertarians and others.
6. People are either savers or spenders. People who don’t plan ahead (save) under this govt wouldn’t plan ahead under any govt – or under anarchy.
7. Money is money. The market doesn’t care the source. If it is good for the economy for workers to buy stocks then it would be good for the economy for the SS Administration to buy stocks with SS funds.
8. The stock market is now primarially a gambling game. Except for IPOs (a gamble)the money put into stocks does not go to the corporations for new construction. People buy stocks not to invest in a company but because they think someone else will pay more for it tomorrow.
9. The purpose of the commodities market is to stabilize prices for the industries that consume the commodities. 90% of the people who trade commodities lose.

Doesn’t matter who votes or what the public does with their money because the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer. On the other hand, the nature of poverty has changed so does it matter?

I’ve finally written something useful about the fiscal impact of opting out. I don’t think I have a future as an actuary, but I do offer some numbers that have surface plausibility.

loose diamonds Probaly you should read this. loose diamonds Hope this helps. See you next life. Buy loose diamonds now! God bless you.