Türk Siyaseti ve Türkiye Siyasi Tarihi - Video Projesi - Türk ve İslam Tarihi - Türk Dna'sı

Trilateraller Kendileri İçin Vergi İstemiyorlar

Birinci Dünya Savaşının galibi İngiltere'dir. İngiliz devletini yöneten unsur kraliyet hanedanlığıdır. Bilindiği gibi İngilizler, Almanlar, Hollandalılar ve Fransızlar gibi Cermen milletinin bir mensubudurlar.
Birinci Dünya Savaşından sonra Dünyayı yöneten unsurun Birinci Dünya Savaşının galibi ve baş aktörü olan ülkenin olduğunu anlamamız gerekir.
İşte bu İngiltere devleti, kendisinin bir uzantısı olan Amerikan devleti ve Almanya devletindeki bazı aile şirketlerini, şeytani tarikatları ve hükümet nezdindeki önemli kişileri kullanarak(ve ayrıca onları büyütüp, ünlü yapıp, sahneye çıkartıp ve sonrasındada besleyip), Devlet+Mafya-Tarikat-Gladyo sistemini İkinci Dünya Savaşı öncesinde ve sırasında kurmaya çalışmak istemiştir ve başarılı olmuştur.
Nasıl başarılı olmuştur ve bu Devlet+Mafya-Tarikat-Gladyo sisteminin içinde kimler var?
Devlet: İngiltere-Amerika.
Devleti Yöneten Hanedan(İngiliz/Cermen Milletine Hizmet Ediyor): Windsor(İngiliz Cermen Kökenli) ve Rothschild(Hazar Türk Kökenli) sülalelerinin karışımı
Mafya: Rockefeller-Rothschild-JP Morgan gibi sülale şirketleri
Tarikat: İlluminati, Mason, Bilderberg gibi şeytani tarikatlar
Gladyo: İngilizlerin kontrolünde olan Faşist İktidarlar: İngiliz Ajanı Kukla Hitler ve Kukla Nazi Devleti/Hükümeti, ve İngiliz Ajanı Kukla Stalin ve Lenin'in Sovyetler Birliği'nin Yıkımını Amaçlayan Yeni Sovyet Devleti/Hükümeti.
Bu konu hakkında ayrıntılı bilgileri bu forumdaki başlıklarda bulabilirsiniz.

Trilateraller Kendileri İçin Vergi İstemiyorlar

Mesajgönderen TurkmenCopur » 05 May 2011, 21:50

TRILATERALS DON'T LIKE TAXATION.. FOR THEMSELVES

Oddly, while there are Trilateralist papers on almost every major policy issue, there are none at all on taxation. After some research, we discovered a possible reason for the silence. Taxation is not a pressing problem for Trilateralists; it is only a pressing problem for you and me. Research unearthed an interesting paradox: Trilaterals emphatically favor more taxes for the common man, but do very well avoiding taxation for themselves and their corporate vehicles.
When we were able to identify Trilateral public statements on Proposition 13, for example, they were not unexpectedly strongly against reducing California property taxes.

For example,

• Bank of America (Trilaterals Clawson and Wood were directors) contributed $25,000 to defeat Jarvis-Gann (Proposition 13).
• Governor Thompson of Illinois, who is making appropriate presidential noises, rejected a similar tax reduction program in Illinois.
• Carter said Proposition 13 is an "aberration" that will not sweep the country.
• The Los Angeles Times (a director is Commissioner Harold Brown) was described by Jarvis himself as "the vindictive paranoiac, schizophrenic Los Angeles Times" for the vitriolic nature of its opposition to 13.

In sum, Trilateral put their weight against Jarvis-Gann and tax reduction.
Trilateral opposition to tax reduction most emphatically did not apply to their own taxes nor to those of their corporate affiliations. Trilateral multinationals have successfully avoided paying taxes in the United States and have made some headway in tax avoidance in England and possibly elsewhere.
The United States picture was publicized by Congressman Charles A. Vanik (on 26 January 1978) after a congressional study of the taxes paid by major multinational corporations.

Reported Congressman Vanik:

This study, covering tax year 1976, examines 168 companies. These include 108 industrial, 7 mining, 8 airline, 9 railroad, 5 trucking, 13 utility, 8 retailing, and 10 commercial bank companies. Because a few did not furnish data adequate for computation, some categories of taxes or rates could not be computed
Where sufficient data made computations possible, the average effective U.S. tax rate on worldwide income of the corporations was approximately 13.04 percent, down significantly from the 21.3 percent rate in tax year 1975. In order to qualify for a tax rate this low, an average family of four could only have earned $20,000. The companies listed in this study had a pretax income of more than $38.7 billion.

The figures show that 17 companies paid nothing in effective Federal income taxes in tax year 1976 — 6 more than tax year 1975 — despite combined total worldwide net incomes of more than $2,594,060,000 — table 1. The 17 companies accumulated tax credits of more than $375 million. In some cases, however, companies paid no taxes because they sustained net losses. In other cases, some companies will claim to have "paid''Federal taxes, but their credits exceed taxes, resulting in no effective payment and an effective tax rate of zero.

Included in this tax avoidance group of multinationals we 62 find numerous corporations with Trilateral connections.
Having assumed the burden of deciding the future for American society and the New World Order, one would at least expect that Trilaterals pay their full share of the costs. We therefore examined the Vanik study from the viewpoint of identifying the taxes paid by multinationals represented in the Trilateral Commission by company directors.

The lowest income tax bracket for an individual U.S. taxpayer is 14 percent. On the other hand, Chase Manhattan, Continental Illinois, and First Chicago, the power houses behind Trilateralism, all pay far lower rates. In fact, Chase Manhattan Bank paid no U.S. taxes at all in 1976.
On the one hand, David Rockefeller (chairman of Chase and the largest individual shareholder in Chase,) wants to decide the future of American society and the world; on the other hand, his bank is totally unwilling to make a contribution to the new American society and a New World Order.
Given these facts, we have every right to be skeptical about announced Trilateral intentions and objectives. We have every right to assume that the Trilateral Commission may be a gigantic rip-off on American society.

Unfortunately no study of multinational taxation rates has been made by Congress since 1978, the Vanik study was the last comprehensive study which revealed the low rates paid by multinationals. However, we believe that the rates paid in the late 1970s and included here have not changed dramatically in the last decade.

As we all know, personal income tax rates are much higher than the rates paid by the tax-avoiding multinationals. In the U.S. the starting individual tax rate is 14 percent and the highest rate is 70 percent. In Canada, the rate starts at 17 percent and ranges to 43 percent. Other European countries have even higher rates up to a confiscatory 98 percent in Britain. If you are a Trilaterally-connected international bank, your effective rate in 1976 was much lower than the lowest individual bracket.

In order of their success in avoiding taxes, Trilateralist banks rank as follows:

BankU.S. Taxes in 1976
Chase Manhattan0.00%
Manufacturers Hanover3.80%
First Chicago6.30%
Continental Illinois10.50%
Bank of America14.90%


This success in avoiding U.S. taxation is carried abroad by these same multinationals.

Take, for example, a report in the London Economist (14 January 1978) from the British viewpoint, under the scathing headline:

"No Tax Please, We're Banks"

American and other foreign banks in London could end up paying little or no British tax if their huge claims for relief which are now being examined by the Inland Revenue are accepted Even the British clearing banks could have their tax bills dramatically reduced ... the MNC is also a source of concern to some governments, since from its wide base it is often able to circumvent national monetary, fiscal, and exchange policies. The possibility of distortions arising from intracorporate pricing practices to take advantage of national variations in tax laws has also been cited with concern.
A check of multinational corporations and their 1976 U.S. tax rates on world income turns up some multinationals that did pay significantly high U.S. tax rates.

CompanyU.S. Taxes
Getty Oil21.14%
R. J. Reynolds Ind.41.00%
Greyhound46.80%
Textron40.10%


Generally, however, those MNCs with Trilateral connections appear to pay significantly lower rates. This is only an approximation. It could be a spurious correlation, but there is sufficient evidence to warrant a closer look.

Company1976 tax
Exxon (controlled by Rockefeller interests)8%
Standard Oil of California
(Rockefeller and Packard)17.10%
Eastern Airlines (controlled by Rockefeller0%
interests) (now defunct)
Arco (Ingersoll)11.40%
Occidental Petroleum(Armand Hammer, one-time friend of Lenin, was chairman of the board of Occidental In 1919 Julius Hammer, father of Armand, was secretary of the Communist Party U.S.A. Hammer has been probably the most active western capitalist in building the military power of the Soviet Union.) )4.20%


GULF OIL (Gulf provides almost $1 billion a 7.0% year in oil concession revenues to the Marxist Neto regime. Gulf's Cabinda oil wells were protected by Cuban troops, thus releasing Angolans to support the SWAPO forces invading South-West Africa.
We can push this argument a little further. Trilateralists in government are protecting fellow capitalists from taxation.

A recent report by the House Government Operations Committee disclosed the following:

• IRS decisions on some multinational oil firms have cost the U.S. Treasury over $7 billion since 1974. "By the early 1970s, multinational petroleum companies were operating abroad under a set of factual and legal circumstances completely at variance with those upon which the previous foreign tax credit rulings were based."
• IRS failed to audit oil company returns or require them to provide supporting information for their expense claims (Presumably audits are only for individual taxpayers.)
• These favorable actions stemmed from "interference" by then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger (Trilateral).
• More recent "improper interference" for the same purpose came from Secretary of Treasury Blumenthal (Trilateral).

The committee did not cite the U.S. oil companies involved, except to note that they operate in Saudi Arabia, Libya, and Indonesia.

Aramco alone was named in one place:

this company is linked with Exxon and Chase Manhattan interests.
In brief, a House committee has charged Trilateralists Henry Kissinger and Michael Blumenthal with "improper interference" with IRS to obtain benefits for certain companies. Even further, In September 1977, at the very time that the subcommittee discovered and criticized a suggestion made by a Treasury official a year earlier to have IRS and Treasury officials "cooperate" in secret dealings with Indonesia and oil companies therein regarding foreign tax credits (a suggestion which was also admonished as being improper by other Treasury officials), the new International Affairs officials were recommending similar actions.

Another example follows for those readers who have read my Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution and who may remember that in 1918, the leading Wall Street law firm supporting the infant Bolshevik regime in Russia was Simpson, Thacher and Bartlett of New York. As one indication of then-support, partner Thomas D. Thacher wrote a report which became decisive in gaining British cabinet support for the Bolsheviks. Also Thomas Lamont, Dwight Morrow, and H. P. Davison were closely involved in developing policy towards the Bolsheviks: all were partners in the J. P. Morgan firm.

While in London on 13 April 1918, Thomas D. Thacher, a member of the American Red Cross Mission to Russia, wrote to the American ambassador in London that he had received a request from H. P. Davison, a Morgan partner, "to confer with Lord Northcliffe" concerning the situation in Russia and then to go on to Paris "for other conferences." Lord Northcliffe was ill, and Thacher left a memorandum to be submitted to Northcliffe on his return to London with yet another Morgan partner, Dwight W. Morrow. This memorandum not

only made explicit suggestions about Russian policy that supported the pro-Bolshevik position of William Boyce Thompson (director of Chase, now Chase Manhattan, Bank), but even stated that "the fullest assistance should be given to the Soviet government in its efforts to organize a volunteer revolutionary army."

The first three proposals in Thacher's report follow:

First of all... the Allies should discourage Japanese intervention in Siberia.
In the second place, the fullest assistance should be given to the Soviet Government in its efforts to organize a volunteer revolutionary army.
Thirdly, the Allied Governments should give their moral support to the Russian people in their efforts to work out their own political system free from the domination of any foreign power. . .

Was Wall Street attorney Thacher a capitalist enemy of the Bolsheviks? Of course not. Thacher was right in there, helping the revolution, as part of the "breakaway ruling class," along with capitalists from J. P. Morgan and Chase Bank.
Similar aid for Marxist revolution came in South Africa and Red China. And who was U.S. Secretary of State in charge of facilitating this aid? Cyrus D. Vance, who before his appointment as Secretary of State was also a partner in Simpson, Thacher and Bartlett.
Senator Clifford P. Case was a member of the firm of Simpson, Thacher and Bartlett from 1928 to 1953, when he became president of the Fund for the Republic, the foundation that funded the study for a "new constitution" so desired by the elite.

Yet another memorandum from William Boyce Thompson (director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and Chase Bank) to Lloyd George (prime minister of Great Britain) in December 1917, supported the Bolsheviks and admitted in part:

About the overthrow of the last Kerensky government we materially aided the dissemination of the Bolshevik

literature, distributing it through agents and by aeroplanes to the German army. If the suggestion is permissible, it might be well to consider whether it would not be desirable to have this same Bolshevik literature sent into Germany and Austria across the West and Italian fronts.
Does this sound as if Wall Street and the Bolsheviks were enemies? Or allies?
Another excellent example of the capitalist-communist alliance is Gulf Oil in Angola, the financial backer of the Neto government, while Cuban troops protect Gulf's Cabinda production facilities.

And how about Armand Hammer, chairman of Occidental Petroleum? In the Russian edition of Lenin's Collected Works, you will find several letters from Lenin to Hammer addressed affectionately as "Dear Comrade." Capitalists, the big enemy of communists? Nonsense. They work hand-in-glove to rule the world.
And in 1994 inside history is not too much different to 1919.

It has not gone unnoticed that politicians make election promises that are abandoned when they enter office.
President Bill Clinton, a Trilateralist, is a prime example. Election promises to reduce bureaucracy, to protect individual privacy, to reduce the power of the elite and lobbyists and similar populist scenarios have all been abandoned.
And a series of declassified FBI documents illustrates the behind-the-scenes origins of many Clinton appointments. They are evenly divided between associates and supporters of the Institute for Policy Studies, a pro-Marxist think tank, and multinational professional lobbyists.

The co-directors of the transition team were both Trilaterals:

Warren Christopher and Vernon Jordan; and both were big time lobbyists. Then came a series of appointments reflecting Marxist-leaning Washington think tank persons (mostly from the Institute for Policy Studies, i.e. Anthony Lake, Leon Panetta, Morton Halperin) and/or big time lobbyists (Ron Brown, Warren Christopher), and revolving door insiders (Winston Lord, David Gergen, Bruce Babbitt).

The only truly non-Washington appointment is Attorney General Reno, who has proven herself adept at squashing investigations and actions that might embarrass the Administration — BCCI, Brown bribe investigation, Whitewater affair, Waco. . .
The key to understanding world events is to look at the world in terms of a Marxist Ruling-Class Alliance.

Then, seemingly inconsistent actions and events make sense:

• The elite subsidizes Marxist regimes: they are not enemies.
• The elite abandons free enterprise allies: it wants socialism.
• The elite presses for more individual taxation, that is, the Marxist "graduated income tax."
• The elite reduces its own taxation in the same way that the Moscow elite lived it up in Soviet Russia at the expense of the Russian working class.
The textbook modern history is illusory because it is based on a mythical capitalist-versus-communist struggle.

Thus, when we are asked to believe that Trilateral ambitions are morally justified to build a New World Order devoted to the peace and welfare of mankind, two points strike us: (a) this end does not coincide with other interpretations of Trilateral motivations and actions, and (b) the means adopted appear authoritarian and suggest that the ends may also be authoritarian.

What are some of the practical lessons we can learn from this alliance?

• If you, an average American-in-the-street voter, recall the history of both Democrats and Republicans, can you think of one instance where either party kept a promise? 'Very few!
• Our argument is that if you are a small- or medium-sized businessman or independent professional, then you are targeted for elimination. Does this coincide with your personal experience over your own working lifetime?
• If you are a socialist, then stop deluding yourself. You are working hand-in-hand with the elitists you proclaim to despise.
• If you are interested in tax reform, then consider that the only acceptable tax reform is complete repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment.

To emphasize the discriminatory approach of the Carter administration on tax matters, we can do no better than quote the congressional testimony of Philip E. Vision, supervisory revenue officer in the Chicago District Office of IRS, who in 1976 blew a small whistle on IRS procedures before the Subcommittee on Oversight of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Congressman Jones asked Vision about differing treatment of rich and poor taxpayers:

Is there pressure to seize a small business or a poor taxpayer's property in order to close the case, and pressure to perhaps settle quickly with a rich taxpayer who has plenty of accounting and legal ability to drag things out?

To which IRS official Vision replied:

In all candor, Congressman, I must say this: You will find those branches or groups that are involved in the inner city of Chicago, the low income, the closures are highest because there is really no problem. It requires no technical skills or knowledge to prepare a levy upon the employer of an employee who is getting take-home pay of about $80. We can go in, serve the levy, and take the entire $80.

Certainly a taxpayer who is earning $80 could hardly be expected to employ an expensive attorney or CPA. Usually when he comes in, in response to the levy, it is with tears in his eyes because he allocated that $80 to the gas or electric company and because IRS took that money, his electric and gas will be shut off and also part of that money was intended to feed his family. This is a common practice.

I am sorry to report that, but if you would look at the closures in the poor areas of Chicago, the depressed areas, you would find that the closures of the small dollar TDA's are overwhelmingly larger than they are in the affluent suburbs of Deerfield where I live.

To fully understand the implications of a viciously graduated income tax system aimed at the small/medium American businessman and the broad middle class and to understand as well the role of the multinationals and the international bankers who make up the power elite behind the Trilateral Commission, we need to go back to 1847 and the Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

Of the Communist revolution, Marx and Engels wrote:

In the first instance, this can only be affected by despotic inroads upon the rights of property and by despotic interference with bourgeois methods of production; that is to say by measures which seem economically inadequate and untenable, but have far-reaching effects, and are necessary as means for revolutionizing the whole system of production.
In brief, elimination of property owners and small- and medium-sized businessmen ("Bourgeois methods of production") outside the orbit of the multinationals and international banks is an essential prerequisite to socialism.
Then Marx and Engels outline the famous ten "measures" for achieving revolution in the advanced countries to bring about socialism.

These measures are described by Marx and Engels as follows:

In the most advanced countries they willy generally speaking, take the following forms:


1. Expropriation of landed property, and the use of landrents to defray State expenditure.
2. A vigorously graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of the right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigres and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of transport in the hands of the State.
7. Increase of national factories and means of production, cultivation of uncultivated land, and improvement of cultivated land in accordance with a general plan.
8. Universal and equal obligation to work; organization of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Agriculture and urban industry to work hand-in-hand, in such a way as, by degrees, to obliterate the distinction between town and country.
10. Public and free education of all children. Abolition of factory work for children in its present form. Education and material production to be combined

Notably, there is a parallel between Marx and Trilateral propositions:

centralization of credit in IMF and the Federal Reserve System parallels Marx's measure 5. AMTRAK, federal funding of rapid transit, and persistent efforts to cut down on use of individual automobiles parallels Marx's measure 6. Finally, our Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution, the "income tax amendment," is none other than the "vigorously graduated income tax" proposed by Marx in the Manifesto. What has this to do with Trilateral multinational avoidance of taxation? Plenty, as it turns out.

It is interesting to reread Karl Marx's Manifesto in the light of the alliance between Wall Street multinationals and the Communist imperialists. Marxists, especially, should reread Marx. The enemy of Marxist totalitarianism is not the capitalist but rather the "Bourgeoisie," the middle class. Marx sees the bourgeoisie as the source of all that is evil, yet he does not include all the ruling establishment in those designated for elimination.

To the contrary, when the class war is about to be fought to a finish, Karl Marx envisaged a curious event:

"a small part of the ruling class breaks away to make common cause with the revolutionary class, the class which holds the future in its hands."

In sum, Marx envisaged a coalition of ruling interests of the revolutionary Marxists and a segment of the ruling class. This is precisely what history has recorded in the hundred or so years since the Manifesto was published. One of the most significant forces in modern world development has been the assistance from a relatively small yet powerful part of the ruling Western establishment to the Soviet Union channeled through such influential organizations as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and today the Trilateral Commission. In Marx's terms, are not Cyrus Eaton, Armand Hammer, David Rockefeller, and the Trilateral Commission ruling class breakaways? Have not Marxists and the "breakaway ruling class capitalists" joined hands to eliminate the American middle class?

Unfortunately, academic analysts are blind to the implications of the alliance:

they read Marx with preconceptions. So let's present some evidence.
In 1976, the Marxist government of Angola reorganized Diamang, its diamond-producing monopoly. The Neto Marxist government will own 60.8 percent, and the balance will be owned by the former foreign corporate owners. It will be a mixed company. But which former owners will be expropriated to make way for the new Marxist shareholders? Not the big greedy capitalists we hear so much about in socialist literature, but, in the words of the Neto government, "a large number of small shareholders." The major "foreign companies," the large multinationals, that is, the ruling capitalists, will not be affected by the takeover. In other words, the ruling class joins hands with Marxist revolutionaries against the small bourgeois owners.

Kaynakça
Kitap: Trilaterals over America (1995)
Yazar: Antony C Sutton
Kullanıcı avatarı
TurkmenCopur
Genelkurmay Başkanı
Genelkurmay Başkanı
 
Mesajlar: 13983
Kayıt: 29 Eki 2010, 17:26

Dön İngiltere ve Amerika Birliği Faaliyetleri: 2. Dünya Savaşı ve Türk Soyumuzun Baş Düşmanı olan Cermen Menfaat Merkezi'nin Kuruluşu

Kimler çevrimiçi

Bu forumu gezen kullanıcılar: Hiç bir kayıtlı kullanıcı yok ve 1 misafir

cron