reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker discusses taxation without representation in the US, highlighting how Americans pay roughly 50% of their income in various taxes. They break down the different taxes they pay, including income tax, property tax, and sales tax, showing how it adds up to nearly 50%. Despite this high tax burden, they express frustration at the lack of benefits and services they receive in return, such as affordable healthcare, nutritious food, and quality infrastructure. The speaker criticizes the government for not adequately representing the interests of taxpayers.

Tariffs were once a significant source of revenue for the U.S., but in the early 1900s, the country shifted to an income tax due to pressure from other nations. A commission was formed in 1887 to address the surplus wealth generated from tariffs on foreign goods. The U.S. thrived by taxing imports, which protected American jobs. China, for example, allows foreign companies to build factories there, leading to a different economic dynamic. Elon Musk is mentioned as a notable figure who has successfully navigated these challenges, particularly with his ventures in the automotive and space industries.

The speaker argues that using debt to acquire property reduces tax payments. They claim that taxes are a Marxist concept and that a progressive income tax supports communism. They mention the Boston Tea Party as an example of America being tax-free until the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913. The speaker believes that the harder one works and the more money they make, the higher their taxes, which they equate to communism.

At the start of the 20th century, America was the richest country. We used tariffs to defend our workers from unfair trade policies and had no income tax. Foreign companies paid to sell to America. Now, we have the Internal Revenue Service, charging us internally. Politicians who can't manage money keep taking more from us. Donald Trump plans to fix this by creating the External Revenue Service. Foreign companies will pay to sell to the U.S. If they want to compete with American workers, we shouldn't tax our own people. This will ensure that no bureaucrat will cut your benefits.

Do it. The tariffs are said to be bringing in a lot of additional revenue, which, the speaker states, is being used to give tax relief to the American people and make it easier for average Americans to get by. So

The speaker believes tariffs should be placed on goods the U.S. makes, not on goods it doesn't, and sees them as a bargaining chip. They claim that Europe and Japan have 100% tariffs on American cars, preventing Ford and GM sales. The speaker suggests the U.S. should reciprocate to force negotiation and lower tariffs, allowing American companies to compete. While broad statements are necessary when running for office, tariffs are an amazing tool to protect the American worker. The speaker believes tariffs will either generate revenue or drive up domestic productivity, ideally both. The speaker references the Marshall Plan, where the U.S. allowed Germany and Japan to tariff American goods to rebuild their economies after World War II. They question why this arrangement persists decades later, with Europe and Japan still heavily tariffing U.S. industries like auto and furniture. The speaker attributes foreign-made furniture purchases to this tariff imbalance.

The speaker discusses the negative impact of a high capital gains tax on the economy, referencing the Laffer curve. The Laffer curve, created by economist Laffer, illustrates that excessive taxation can lead people to evade taxes, work less, or leave the country. Moderate taxes are generally accepted, but high taxes can cause individuals to opt out of the system, resulting in lower tax revenue.

Speaker 0: There is no law. And to date, nobody has been able to show that there is a law for the average American citizen working day in and day out to pay an income tax. Speaker 1: But We, The People Foundation for Constitutional Education put a full page ad in The USA Today on 07/07/2000. And within the body of that ad was a $50,000 challenge for anyone that could show the law. And to me, $50,000 is a lot of money. So I went after that and did the research based on the fact that I thought, let's put this baby to bed. I'm hearing all these rumors. You know, I'm gonna kill two birds with one stone. I'll answer these people's questions they're asking me, and then I win this $50,000. And, you know, based on the research that I did throughout the year 2000 and that I'm still doing, I have not found that law. I've asked congress. We've asked a lot of people in the IRS, IRS commissioners, helpers. They can't answer because if they answer, the American people are gonna know that this whole thing is a fraud. Speaker 2: There is no law. There is no law that requires the average American worker in the private sector to pay a direct unapportioned tax on their labor and compensation for services. There is no law. Speaker 3: I really expected that, of course, there's a law that you can point to in the law book, the code, that requires you to file a tax return. Of course, there is. I mean, I don't know what it is right then as we as he was speaking to me, but sure. So, naively, I agreed to go off and research it and get back to him. Three and a half months later, I was at that point where I couldn't find the statute that clearly made a person liable, at least not me and, most people I know. And I had no no choice in my mind except to to resign. Speaker 4: I had to leave the IRS because I presented, evidence that I had accumulated indicating that the agency was violating the law and violating people's rights. And I asked the agency for a response to my sincere concerns, and the answer I got was that they would not respond to my concerns and that they would, provide me with the paperwork necessary to tender my resignation. Speaker 5: You can look through the statutes and look for the law that requires you to pay. And when you do that, you can't identify a law that requires the average person in America who earns a wage and works in private business to pay an income tax. Speaker 2: American citizens, along with the foundation, have been asking the IRS to specifically provide them with the the underlying legal foundation upon which they administer and enforce the personal income tax laws in our country. Speaker 3: At the national level, when people would attempt to contact somebody of a much higher authority, say the cons the commissioner, same kind of thing. They wouldn't get they would get answers that were in effect non answers. Speaker 6: You have to understand that an agency which will unlawfully impose a tax that doesn't exist it's not gonna care. If we, the people, don't know what our rights are, they're not gonna tell us. Speaker 4: If Americans just learned that the IRS was actually knowingly deceiving them, that that enough that would be enough for them to rise up and put a stop to it. Speaker 7: 100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the federal debt. All individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services taxpayers expect from government. People have been told, you know, that you need this income tax system to fund government, is absolutely ridiculous. I mean, my question is, well, if that's true, how did we fund government from 1776 to 1913? Speaker 8: The main purpose of the income tax is not to raise revenue, but to redistribute wealth and to control society. And a lot Speaker 9: of people might say, well, gee, if there wasn't an income tax, what would happen to education? They don't understand that education is paid for, for the most part, out of state and local taxes, your property tax. People might say, well, how are we going to build and maintain our highways if there's no money coming into the government? We need our highways. There is a tax on every gallon of gasoline that people buy. Proceeds from the income tax do not pay for highway construction. Speaker 10: I believe that in both spirit and substance, our tax system has come to be un American. Death and taxes may be inevitable, but unjust taxes

"Tariffs are vital to the success of this country." "They could possibly replace federal income tax." "From 1850 to 1913, in the 1887, it's about 1887, they had the Great National Tariff Act." "And then in 1929, you had the depression." "They ended them in 1913. How did that work out? And then we went to the income tax." "I settled seven different wars. One going thirty one years, one go look at the Congo and Rwanda." "Thirty one years, ten million people dead. I got it settled." "We have trillions of dollars coming into our country." "If we didn't have tariffs, we would be a very poor nation, and we would be taken advantage of by every other nation in the world."

The speaker argues against the idea of paying taxes, claiming that a progressive income tax is a tool for spreading Marxism and communism. They point out that America was founded as a tax-free nation, citing the Boston Tea Party in 1773. However, in 1913, the Federal Reserve and the IRS were created, leading to the introduction of taxes. The speaker believes that those who work harder and earn more money end up paying higher taxes, which they equate to communism. They assert that it is an American duty to refuse to pay taxes, referencing the Communist Manifesto as support for their stance.

At the turn of the century, around 1900, America's economy was booming with no income tax, only tariffs. We had so much money, the greatest businessmen gathered to figure out how to spend it. After World War I and II, we felt obligated to rebuild the world, so we lowered our protections and tariffs, taxing Americans to export our economic power. When should that have ended? The eighties, nineties, or 2000s? We're letting the world take advantage of us, and it's time to make America great again. Getting rid of tariffs was sold as helping the earth, but middlemen just wanted a cut. We have delivered victory against the globalists, but their systems are still attacking us. Support us at RealAlexJones.com to keep us on the air regardless of what happens to InfoWars. History is happening now, and we need your support to complete our victory against the globalists.

The speaker argues that the idea of imposing tariffs on foreign imports can appear patriotic because it protects American products and jobs. However, this approach only yields short-term benefits, and over the long run, trade barriers ultimately harm American workers and consumers. The speaker asserts that high tariffs provoke retaliation by foreign countries and trigger fierce trade wars, which leads to negative consequences for the economy. As a result of such dynamics, markets shrink and collapse, businesses and industries shut down, and millions of people lose their jobs. Beyond these immediate effects, the speaker notes a growing global realization about economic prosperity: it comes from rejecting protectionist legislation and promoting fair and free competition. This perspective emphasizes that prosperity for all nations is tied to open markets rather than barriers to trade. The overarching concern highlighted is that America’s jobs and growth are at stake within this debate over tariffs and protectionist measures. In summarizing the chain of reasoning, the speaker presents a sequence: tariff adoption may seem beneficial in the short term, but it leads to retaliation and trade wars; these tensions culminate in significant economic harm, including job losses and reduced market activity. The implication is that long-run economic health depends on resisting protectionist policies and embracing competitive, open trade as a pathway to shared growth. The message culminates in a call to recognize that safeguarding American employment and economic vitality aligns with broader international shifts toward fair and free competition, rather than turning to tariff-based protectionism.

Tariffs could replace income taxes. This idea stems from historical context, as the U.S. was wealthiest in the late 1800s under President McKinley, known as the "tariff king." He eloquently advocated for tariffs, emphasizing the need to protect American jobs, factories, and families from foreign competition. The message was clear: foreign entities should pay a significant price to operate in the U.S. to safeguard domestic interests.

One speaker believes cutting corporate taxes overwhelmingly benefits the wealthy because capital income represents a huge amount of their income. Another speaker argues corporations provide jobs and pay taxes that fund government jobs. The first speaker asks where the government gets the money to pay its employees, and the second speaker answers, "Revenue from both households and corporations," further stating that trickle-down economics has not worked for the past 50 years. Michael Faulkinder believes tariffs are an important tool to address practices like currency manipulation and intellectual property theft, particularly by China, and to bring them to the table to negotiate trade inequities. He anticipates tariffs would incentivize moving supply chains to more resilient locations.

In 1978, the speaker earned $16-$18/hour at a steel mill with $125 monthly house payments. The speaker claims the decline of the U.S. steel industry, due to untaxed or untariffed steel from China and other countries, caused the speaker to lose their job when the mill shut down in the early 1980s. Unable to find sufficient replacement work, the speaker started their own businesses. The speaker believes that taking steel mills, the auto industry, and other industries from the U.S. has damaged the economy. The speaker asserts that creating a fair playing field, as President Trump is doing, will bring back jobs and money to the U.S. While products may no longer be cheap, the money spent on them will stay in the country, leading to manufacturing and good-paying jobs.

Speaker 0 contends that when someone proposes imposing tariffs on foreign imports, it is often framed as a patriotic move aimed at protecting American products and jobs. While such measures may yield a short-lived effect in some cases, the speaker asserts that their long-term impact is detrimental to every American worker and consumer. The argument is that high tariffs provoke retaliation from other countries and trigger intense trade wars. As a result, the worst consequences unfold: markets contract and even collapse, businesses and entire industries shut down, and millions of people lose their jobs. On a global scale, there is a growing realization that genuine prosperity for all nations comes from rejecting protectionist policies and embracing fair and open competition. The speaker emphasizes that America’s jobs and growth are at stake in this dynamic.

The White House is pursuing both long-term tariff revenue and trade deals. The administration has 18 important trading relationships and will be speaking to those partners. President Trump believes tariff revenue could provide income tax relief, potentially in the upcoming tax bill. He campaigned on no tax on tips, Social Security, and overtime, while restoring interest deductibility for American-made autos. Tariff income could be used for tax relief on those items. The speaker believes tariffs will bring back American manufacturing and generate substantial revenues, suggesting a significant role for tariff revenue in US fiscal policy.

Democrats plan to expand the IRS with 87,000 new agents, according to the administration's treasury department. One speaker claims to have not paid federal income taxes for 30 years, blaming international bankers and the Federal Reserve. Another speaker criticizes Congress for implementing income tax in 1909 and questions why technological advances haven't made everyone prosperous. They propose a plan to drain the Washington DC swamp. The same speaker claims to be the number one NMD IRS and pays taxes, but also mentions voting for Barack and Hillary as an American thing to do.

We often hear the slogan "make America great again," but what does it really mean? It's important to consider when America was considered great. Looking back to the turn of the century, around 125 years ago, the economy was thriving. At that time, there was no income tax, and the government relied solely on tariffs.

Tariffs are a key part of economic independence and were the main source of US government revenue before 1913, allowing the country to fund itself without income tax. Tariffs protect American workers and industries from being undercut by lower-cost foreign goods, allowing American businesses to compete. Levying tariffs maintains jobs and encourages domestic production, which is crucial for national security and prosperity. Tariffs help the U.S. negotiate better trade deals by pushing other countries to lower their trade barriers. Globalists, corrupt politicians, and crooked elites oppose tariffs because they benefit from cheap labor and lax regulations abroad. Tariffs value American workers, consumers, and the nation. The U.S. needs tariffs, not taxes, to put America first and begin a new golden age.

The transcript centers on a retrospective beginning with a Casablanca exchange at the end of World War II, where Roosevelt told Churchill that the war wasn’t fought to reestablish British eighteenth-century methods, and Churchill asked what Roosevelt meant. Roosevelt answered with a definition of a system that takes more out of a country than it puts back in. Roosevelt died before the war ended, and the result, as described, was the triumph of British eighteenth-century methods or a system that takes more out than it puts in. The speaker then argues that since World War II, the United States has deteriorated: manufacturing employment fell from 31% of the population in 1950 to 8% today, and when including other goods-producing sectors (agriculture, mining, transportation), the share dropped from 55% to less than 20%. The speaker contends that good-paying jobs, industry, infrastructure, and family farms disappeared, and economic sovereignty was stripped by “British eighteenth-century methods of financialization and free trade,” leading to imports of food and “cheap crap” and an exploding trade deficit. The claim is made that Donald Trump is reversing this trend, with tariffs described as a powerful weapon that the global elites hate, and that they are working to rebuild the U.S. manufacturing base and economic independence. Support for this claim includes concrete numbers: in November, 136 new factories were started, along with 78 processing plants and 199 new warehouses. The narrative emphasizes that, beyond physical growth, there is a reawakening of a productive spirit among the population, especially the youth. An example is given from blue Massachusetts, where young people respond to opportunities in vocational training and productive jobs instead of pursuing liberal arts degrees with heavy debt. The speaker also highlights the Trump administration’s broader vision, including a merger between Trump’s Truth Social and TAE Technologies, described as signaling a revolutionary development: cheap, clean, limitless fusion power that could drive the economy forward and propel humanity into the solar system. The broader strategic claim is that, on the eve of 2026—the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of American independence—there is an unprecedented opportunity. Trump is described as dismantling the postwar imperial system, ending perpetual wars, rebuilding American manufacturing, and treating nations as sovereign partners rather than pawns on a chessboard. However, the British establishment is portrayed as resisting this transformation, intending to turn back the clock by leveraging assets in Congress, the media, and intelligence agencies to create chaos and turn Trump supporters against one another. The speaker urges listeners not to fall for it and to keep their eye on the strategic picture.

The speaker discusses tariffs and questions their logic, arguing that tariffs are supposed to replace the income tax, but pointing to a pie chart that shows income tax and social security as the large portions, with a small line at the top representing proposed tariffs, and asks how tariffs could replace the income tax unless the system is off the charts and business becomes untenable. The speaker asserts that a recent development shows significant harm to farmers under the tariff regime, noting that Trump plans a $14,000,000,000 bailout for farmers because the tariffs are hurting their income. This is presented as part of the broader argument that tariffs have negative effects on agricultural interests. Turning to historical context, the speaker references the 1893 McKinley tariffs, which Trump allegedly quotes, and claims that such tariffs would lead to an economic depression and an agricultural depression, suggesting a cyclical or predictable downturn as a consequence of protectionist policy. The speaker then recommends reading Secrets of the Federal Reserve by Eustace Mullins, asserting a strong critical stance toward taxation. It is stated that no tax has ever helped the people, that all sides have implemented taxes, and that bankers have “screwed the people.” The speaker emphasizes the importance of being aware of these dynamics, linking taxation to a broader critique of financial and political systems.

Speaker 0 argues that nations prosper by rejecting protectionist legislation and promoting fair, free competition. He recalls the Great Depression to emphasize the consequences of protectionism, asserting that high tariff legislation like the Smoot-Hawley Tariff greatly deepened the Depression and hindered economic recovery. Initially, imposing tariffs on foreign imports may seem patriotic by protecting American products and jobs, but the effect is usually temporary. Over time, homegrown industries rely on government protection through high tariffs, stop competing, and stop making innovative management and technological changes needed to succeed in world markets. He explains that high tariffs provoke retaliation by foreign countries, triggering fierce trade wars. The result is more tariffs, higher trade barriers, and less competition. Because tariffs artificially raise prices and subsidize inefficiency and poor management, consumer buying declines. Markets shrink and collapse, businesses and industries shut down, and millions of people lose their jobs. The memory of these events during the thirties motivated him, upon arriving in Washington, to spare the American people from protectionist legislation that destroys prosperity. He acknowledges that it has not always been easy. There are those in Congress who seek quick political advantage and risk America’s prosperity for the sake of short-term appeal to special interest groups. He notes that more than 5,000,000 American jobs are directly tied to the foreign export business and additional millions are tied to imports. He emphasizes that he has never forgotten those jobs, and that on trade issues, by and large, progress has been achieved.

Tariffs are presented as vital for economic independence, having historically served as the primary revenue source for the U.S. government before income tax. They are said to protect American workers and industries from unfair foreign competition by ensuring domestic businesses can compete and thrive. Tariffs are claimed to maintain jobs, encourage domestic production, bolster national security and prosperity, and improve trade deal negotiations. Those who oppose tariffs are characterized as globalists, corrupt politicians, and elites who exploit cheap labor and foreign regulations. The speaker advocates for tariffs to value American workers, consumers, and the nation, keep jobs in America, and protect the economy. The conclusion is a call for tariffs over taxes to put America first and usher in a new golden age.

The speaker claims that America was once rich due to tariffs, which taxed other countries for taking American jobs, similar to China's current policies. They state that in the 1880s, a commission was formed to decide what to do with the excess money generated from tariffs. The speaker asserts that America switched to an income tax system in the early 1900s because other countries pressured America to stop using tariffs, implying these countries controlled American politicians. They contrast this with China's policy of requiring companies to build factories there to sell cars, referencing Elon Musk as an example and praising him.