Free State Wyoming Forum
Free State Wyoming (FSW) Promotional => Making the Case for Moving Toward Freedom (and Wyoming!) => Topic started by: Bret on November 26, 2011, 10:53:19 AM
-
I am trying to learn if this is something that would be generally frowned upon or something that may cause the opposite reaction. I seek opinions from everyone on whether this is a good idea, abuse of the system, or anything else. I understand the constitutional issues however feel to comment on them if you think that it is important.
This is a highly watered down version of everything, that is done to make the post as small as possible. There are a lot of details and fine points that are missing from this document as a result. Please don't critique what is provided over missing information or finer points of the law itself for that reason.
- BIA Registered natives can create "indian country", think of it like a reservation out of any land they own. I am one such registered native.
- Indian country only has 14 mandatory laws, the rest are from the tribal government (which would have none). Laws like murder, arson, rape, etc.
- Federal income and payroll tax is exempt if income is 1. from indian land 2. by a tribal member
- State sales tax is exempt if it is a sale to 1. the tribal government 2. on tribal land to tribal members (non-members have tax assessed and remitted to the state)
there is no blood quantum requirement to be a tribal member, the tribal government would decide who is a member, BIA has stated this
The base idea is to create a self sufficient community, no casinos just ranching, farming and other businesses as people see fit (restaurant, tavern, hair salon, whatever). Trade would be required for items like salt, toothpaste, toilet paper, etc but the model is designed to allow for surpluses in production to ensure that can happen. This is not a commune, it is not a share all thing, people own their own labor. Further it would be a community not a neighborhood, the difference is that largely you know your neighbors, you want to help them as opposed to have to help them, etc.
If there is a US collapse the states would be free to form their own union under the same or different rules as each State sees fit. As this would be legally equal to the states this nation would also be free to do the same, in essence it would be 100% sovereign at that time. If there is a US recovery then this nation would still be 99% sovereign and thus more free.
So would pulling land out of the state for something like this be generally frowned upon or not by the people on this forum?
-
I am trying to learn if this is something that would be generally frowned upon or something that may cause the opposite reaction.
...
So would pulling land out of the state for something like this be generally frowned upon or not by the people on this forum?
If you and some number of others would like to combine your properties, declare it a separate political entity, and build a voluntary economy, that's fine with me.
I would expect all kinds of difficulty with the Federal and State governments getting angry over jurisdiction, of course.
-
Did not see an edit button. I wanted to clarify that income has to be from the land itself not just on the land to be tax exempt under federal rules. Income from a store for example is taxable federally. There are other ways to limit tax liability but that is a discussion for another day (and ends up getting very individual specific quickly anyway) but it would be avoidance not evasion, one is legal the other isnt.
The average American pays 20-40% wage taxes combined (as WY has no state income tax this is lower there). Labor is a fair value trade for a wage, no profit is generated. The average American works as an indentured servant for the government 1-2 days a week - the idea of this part is to restore that freedom to own your labor.
-
I would expect all kinds of difficulty with the Federal and State governments getting angry over jurisdiction, of course.
Actually the BIA manual on doing this was last modified May 2011 and made it easier to do than the 2008 modifications. The feds do not have a problem with Indian reservations although the states may, generally that involves issues to get out of taxes or casinos. As the plan is to not have any casinos (which is a whole separate deal anyway and generally a lot harder to do) and generally not operate stores and such that would sell cigarettes or gasoline in a way that avoids taxes (see NY vs various tribes on the cigarettes thing) I do not envision a lot of objection from the state. There may be some because they do lose the power to govern, the county loses property tax (which what I was looking at its about $0.50/acre for undeveloped ag land 640 acres is $300/year for example so not a huge loss there). Tax revenue is one of the things that BIA specifically considers as part of this process to prevent someone from just buying a bunch of land and bankrupting a local municipality (after big objections in CT over the tribe there using their $6B/year casino to do exactly that).
-
I admire your plan as proposed. If not done under sanction of BIA, then you may get into secession conflict. I understand the last time that was tried several of the collaborators were killed.
pW
-
It has to be done under the BIA, there is no other way to create "indian country" that I am aware of.
-
Actually were you referring to wounded knee or something similar? Yeah, those types of things work as well as the people that have claimed their home sovereign territory and refused to pay taxes, mortgage payments, or leave when evicted.
Taking by force causes force to be used in resistance, using the system to carve out a nation generally is met with less opposition :) I want a country not a hole in the head
-
No Bret i was not referring to wounded knee. I was referring to the civil war.
pW
-
No Bret i was not referring to wounded knee. I was referring to the civil war.
pW
That was peaceful for quite some time and the North left everywhere except fort Sumpter where they sent in 3000 troops as reinforcements. The North honored the secession except for 1 fort in 1 area. That was done to provoke an armed response so that those who fired first could be demonized. That era of history is often mistaught, for example the emancipation proclimation freed 0 slaves in the US, in fact it allowed a few US slave states to remain, it merely said that if you were a CS slave and made it North you would be free (Lincoln campaigned on the idea that the president, under the 10th amendment, did not have the authority to abolish slavery). Lincoln also locked up a state legislature because they were considering seceding http://teachingamericanhistorymd.net/000001/000000/000017/html/t17.html (http://teachingamericanhistorymd.net/000001/000000/000017/html/t17.html) (he suspended the writ of habeus corpus and locked up newspaper editors for being critical of him too).
This is a president that the current president talks about a lot.