The FAL Files  

Go Back   The FAL Files > News & Political Discussion > Politics

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 16, 2019, 12:19   #51
yellowhand
Dinosaur
Silver Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 67949
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Sierra Vista AZ
Posts: 18,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by bubbagump View Post
Precisely. And enough of this pissing around already, bring on the freaking asteroid!


Did money work today,,,,?????

Yes it did.

All is well, today.

Bring on the BFR.
__________________
You may find me dead in a ditch one day, on my knees, but I will be up to my waist in spent rifle brass.

It ain't the firearms they are wanting to be rid of, its you!
yellowhand is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2019, 14:39   #52
bubbagump
Registered
 
bubbagump's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 21705
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Marietta, Georgia
Posts: 10,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exit308 View Post
I have never read the law or statute itself, but my guess would be that if the tax debtor is not able or willing to pay the alleged tax debt in FRNs, the agency responsible for collecting that alleged debt has the legal authority to seize any and all assets perceived to have value when sold at auction and converted to FRNs. The proceeds of said auction may or may not be sufficient to satisfy the alleged debt.

In other words, in the quest to take the 'Kings Cut', if the preferred medium of exchange(FRNs) is not available, the Kings men are willing to take chattel, sheaves of corn, and even a serfs freedom of movement.
Doubtless this is true. But it just begs my original question, which is how does this square with legal tender laws, which declare a currency to be exclusively 'legal tender for all debts, public or private'. Which means FRNs MUST be accepted for public debts. And which also declare that FRNs are the only lawful currency in the land, ie, the exclusivity clause. This to prevent banks from issuing their own currency backed by land, deposits, gold, or perhaps like the FR itself, nothing at all.

Because it sure seems to me that the act of seizing an asset transfers to that asset the status of money in that it is used to settle a debt, and that is not legal.
__________________
Urban free range hippies are pushovers. Especially with a D-9 Cat. -L. Haney
If God wanted us to carry Glocks, John Browning would have invented them. -shooter_37
Do or do not. There is no try. -Yoda
bubbagump is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2019, 20:21   #53
Exit308
Saxon/Celt
Silver Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 62143
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: WA
Posts: 5,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by bubbagump View Post
Doubtless this is true. But it just begs my original question, which is how does this square with legal tender laws, which declare a currency to be exclusively 'legal tender for all debts, public or private'. Which means FRNs MUST be accepted for public debts. And which also declare that FRNs are the only lawful currency in the land, ie, the exclusivity clause. This to prevent banks from issuing their own currency backed by land, deposits, gold, or perhaps like the FR itself, nothing at all.

Because it sure seems to me that the act of seizing an asset transfers to that asset the status of money in that it is used to settle a debt, and that is not legal.
I just spent some time searching for the legal blah, blah, blah about whether anything other than FRNs are considered acceptable to the IRS for payment of taxes, other than the quote on the FRNs about 'legal tender for all debts....'.

I couldn't find anything about acceptable forms of payment, but there is a whole section in the Internal Revenue Code on the procedure for the levy and sale of property for the satisfaction of tax debt.

Reading legalese crosses my eyes and tees my dots.

If anyone else wants to try to find it, here is where I was searching.
https://irc.bloombergtax.com/public/...irc/subtitle-a
__________________
"Barbarism is the natural state of mankind. Civilization is unnatural. It is a whim of circumstance. And barbarism must always ultimately triumph." Robert E. Howard


The truth does not require your belief.

"Fracking involves a two-phase combustion process: the first phase burns borrowed money to produce oil and gas; the second burns the oil and the gas." Dmitri Orlov
Exit308 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2019, 22:27   #54
Gary Harwell
Becoming Embittered
Silver Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 39460
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: AzTex
Posts: 2,032
Local IRS refused my FRNs a few years back, had to show the the head monkey the phrase on the greenback. Asked him to sign something saying he was refusing my legal payment , finally relented and accepted, but warned me not to try that stunt again. Same scenario a month later. So yeah, .gov may or may not recognize it's own currency for fulfillment of debt.
Gary Harwell is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2019, 22:44   #55
Black Blade
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 76490
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Springville/USA
Posts: 1,664
No problem. We can always "print" more money. We have been doing it since the Eisenhower Administration without much problem. As long as the people accept paper and digits it really doesn't matter how much the government squanders away.
__________________
Black Blade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17, 2019, 04:52   #56
bubbagump
Registered
 
bubbagump's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 21705
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Marietta, Georgia
Posts: 10,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exit308 View Post
I just spent some time searching for the legal blah, blah, blah about whether anything other than FRNs are considered acceptable to the IRS for payment of taxes, other than the quote on the FRNs about 'legal tender for all debts....'.

I couldn't find anything about acceptable forms of payment, but there is a whole section in the Internal Revenue Code on the procedure for the levy and sale of property for the satisfaction of tax debt.

Reading legalese crosses my eyes and tees my dots.

If anyone else wants to try to find it, here is where I was searching.
https://irc.bloombergtax.com/public/...irc/subtitle-a
Right. The law is one thing, regulations are another. Regulations are simply some bureaucrat's take on the law, a public statement on how they implement it.

As far as I'm concerned it's still a fair question, although it's a near certainty that it's been backed by case law somewhere. Because clearly the law, the real law, the one passed by congress says something quite different.
__________________
Urban free range hippies are pushovers. Especially with a D-9 Cat. -L. Haney
If God wanted us to carry Glocks, John Browning would have invented them. -shooter_37
Do or do not. There is no try. -Yoda
bubbagump is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 17, 2019, 09:29   #57
Exit308
Saxon/Celt
Silver Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 62143
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: WA
Posts: 5,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by bubbagump View Post
Right. The law is one thing, regulations are another. Regulations are simply some bureaucrat's take on the law, a public statement on how they implement it.

As far as I'm concerned it's still a fair question, although it's a near certainty that it's been backed by case law somewhere. Because clearly the law, the real law, the one passed by congress says something quite different.
Give me a hint as to what this is, so that I can see what you mean, please. I'd like to take a look.
__________________
"Barbarism is the natural state of mankind. Civilization is unnatural. It is a whim of circumstance. And barbarism must always ultimately triumph." Robert E. Howard


The truth does not require your belief.

"Fracking involves a two-phase combustion process: the first phase burns borrowed money to produce oil and gas; the second burns the oil and the gas." Dmitri Orlov
Exit308 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 17, 2019, 13:08   #58
bubbagump
Registered
 
bubbagump's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 21705
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Marietta, Georgia
Posts: 10,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exit308 View Post
Give me a hint as to what this is, so that I can see what you mean, please. I'd like to take a look.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5103. My understanding is this has been amplified through case law to restrict to US FRNs and their derivatives. You cannot offer an old car to the IRS to settle a debt, for example. But somehow they can take it if they want to.
__________________
Urban free range hippies are pushovers. Especially with a D-9 Cat. -L. Haney
If God wanted us to carry Glocks, John Browning would have invented them. -shooter_37
Do or do not. There is no try. -Yoda
bubbagump is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 17, 2019, 21:18   #59
Bama Steve
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 1982
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Where I am
Posts: 5,800
Quote:
Originally Posted by bubbagump View Post
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5103. My understanding is this has been amplified through case law to restrict to US FRNs and their derivatives. You cannot offer an old car to the IRS to settle a debt, for example. But somehow they can take it if they want to.
It's not a question of which assets you own that they will take as payment/in exchange for a debt as much as it is; how many assets you own that you can be forced to liquidate to settle the terms of the debt.
__________________
Being dyslexic has a bright side - it's easy to put things back together
Bama Steve is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:21.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©1998-2018 The FAL Files