Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;fatima, post: 999730, member: 22143&quot;]Indeed. It&#039;s interesting you agree with me and then disagree in the next comment.&nbsp; A contract, is an agreement between two parties and each party has an obligation based on it.&nbsp; Hence if the dollar is a contract between you and the Federal Reserve, as you just agreed to, then it&#039;s the Federal Reserve that has the obligation.</p><p>&nbsp; Nope. Explained above.&nbsp; &nbsp; Federal Reserve Notes (dollars) are obligations of the Federal Reserve.&nbsp; The law requires the Federal Reserve to hold assets equal to the number of $s issued.&nbsp; These assets <u>include</u> liabilities of the US Government&nbsp; but are not limited to them.&nbsp; As we all know, the FR claims to hold ~7000+ tons of gold as an asset.&nbsp; This is listed on their balance sheet.&nbsp; They also hold various other assets.&nbsp;&nbsp; The Federal Reserve does create dollars based mostly on borrowing by the federal government but none the less, these dollars are obligations of the Federal Reserve.Actually the issuance of this money was in fact declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1870.&nbsp; A party refused to accept payment for a debt with this paper currency claiming it was not lawful money and demanded gold instead. The court agreed by declaring paper money to be in violation of the US Constitution.&nbsp; This decision was later reversed by other cases brought forth in front of the Supreme Ct. and subsequent acts of Congress.&nbsp;&nbsp; However the key point isn&#039;t the gold and silver clause which I was only responding to, the Constitution specifically defines how the federal government is to fund currency that it issues.&nbsp; This is why, instead, they allow the Federal Reserve to do it instead now.&nbsp; The primary purpose of the Federal Reserve, is to avoid the constitutional requirements on borrowing and taxation, so that the government can borrow in an unrestricted manner, without having to raise taxes.&nbsp; My statements are not wildly incorrect and I also stated in my original post that much of it has not been properly adjudicated because of fears of what the court would do.&nbsp; The 1870 decision was overturned only after Grant stacked the court.&nbsp;&nbsp; This is an opinion but not fact.&nbsp;&nbsp; First the AGE and ASE were not created for collectors, which you&nbsp; state.&nbsp; They were authorized for bullion investors.&nbsp; The art bars were&nbsp; not their predecessors.&nbsp; Second on your other point, Krugerrands have been bought by bullion investors in the USA since the early 1970s and they have no legal tender status in the USA.&nbsp; Furthermore Krugerrands, the original bullion coin, have no face value printed on them. These coins have been sold to bullion investors since the 1960s who have no issue with the lack of face value or legal tender status.&nbsp; (and to further prove my point, these coins are legal tender in S. Africa, but with no currency denomination).&nbsp; &nbsp; Your statement is not proved out by the facts.&nbsp; &nbsp; [/quoteYou are paying the tax on the numismatic as a collector of an historical item.&nbsp; This shouldn&#039;t be that hard to understand.&nbsp; As further proof of what I stated, you can take a AGE to the IRS or FR Bank for payment of taxes or as a deposit.&nbsp; By law they will gladly accept this coin for the face value of $50.&nbsp;&nbsp; However if you receive the AGE as income, the IRS demands full intrinsic value.&nbsp;&nbsp; The paradox should be clear and as I state again, has not been properly handled in the judicial system.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in