Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 53

Thread: Abolish All Taxes

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    16

    Abolish All Taxes

    Somehow, the America people have been programmed into believing that taxes are absolutely necessary to pay for the cost of running government as well as all the "essential" services of government. WRONG! In fact, Federal Funds are borrowed from the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve creates these funds from NOTHING! The government only collects taxes to repay it's debt to the Fed.

    Bureaucracy, public debt and corporate corruption are the direct result of decades of borrowing and forced taxation. Voting is not enough power for voters to control their legislature. Voters must be free from taxation in order to be free from tyranny.

    1) Return to Congress it's Constitutional right to create money.
    2) Abolish the Federal Reserve and revoke Congresses right to borrow.(Create public debt)
    3) Abolish all taxes and close the IRS.

    Congressional revenue can be created by the US Treasury and spent as needed or dispersed as grants to the public as part of the monetary policies of the Congress or a committee appointed by Congress.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Sydney, Oz
    Posts
    3,253
    Financing government by printing money is equivalent to a tax on cash holdings.
    He or she who supports a State organized in a military way whether directly or indirectly participates in sin. Each man takes part in the sin by contributing to the maintenance of the State by paying taxes.

    ~ Gandhi

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by Symbiote
    Financing government by printing money is equivalent to a tax on cash holdings.
    Well, that was brief. Are you arguing that printing money increases the money supply which reduces the value of the dollar (inflation)? If so, you are correct. However, it would be missleading to suggest that inflation caused by increasing the money supply is bad for the economy.

    Say we double the money supply. Eventually, we can expect wages to increase. When people earn more, they tend to spend more so, we can then expect demand to increase. Producers will sense this increase in demand and respond with increases in prices. Assuming everyone does their homework, wages will double and prices will double and the algebraic relationships between supply and demand, wages and prices will return to normal.

    In simpler terms, their is no difference between earning a $1,000/mo. and paying $2/gal for milk or earning $2,000/mo. and paying $4/gal for milk.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Sydney, Oz
    Posts
    3,253
    I mean what I said.

    If the government prints money and uses it to finance its operations, it is equivalent financing itself via a tax on cash holdings.

    There is no difference between taking 25% of someone's money and reducing the purchasing power of that money by 25% via inflation.

    The rest of what you said is bad economics, but it's not the issue.

    You can't get something for nothing. You can't finance a government without taking something from the people, regardless of how tricky you are with the money supply.
    He or she who supports a State organized in a military way whether directly or indirectly participates in sin. Each man takes part in the sin by contributing to the maintenance of the State by paying taxes.

    ~ Gandhi

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,628
    Quote Originally Posted by Harbinger
    Well, that was brief. Are you arguing that printing money increases the money supply which reduces the value of the dollar (inflation)? If so, you are correct. However, it would be missleading to suggest that inflation caused by increasing the money supply is bad for the economy.
    How is that GOOD for the economy? Inflation is the rise in general prices no? While prices rises, real wages for the past decade haven't risen accordingly. The nominal wage and price level have all gone up but RW haven't. How does making everything cost more yet not increasing the RW help the economy? Not to mention that those on fixed salaries are going to be put into poverty if lnflation goes up 100%. Let's say you make $25,000 and it's fixed. Your real wage is actually around $18,000. Inflation now skyrockets 100%. What cost you $1 before now costs $2. Your RW is really $9,000. How does that help you and the economy? Not to mention that if the US dollar tanks that the world will instantly switch to euros further degrading our value on the world's market. And countries will abandon their US reverses, causing the dollar to sink even more in value. So on top of 100% inflation, we have a huge drop in the dollar's buying power in the world. How is this good?

    Say we double the money supply. Eventually, we can expect wages to increase.
    Nominal yes. Not real. Nominal is for all general purposes useless.

    When people earn more, they tend to spend more so, we can then expect demand to increase.
    Why would they spend more? If inflation is 100% and their real wages aren't any higher, demand doesn't increase because their buying power has actually decreased hugely.

    Producers will sense this increase in demand and respond with increases in prices.
    Why would demand increase in real wages haven't increased? No actual wealth is being created.

    Assuming everyone does their homework, wages will double and prices will double and the algebraic relationships between supply and demand, wages and prices will return to normal.
    HUH? No. Nominal wages will double, prices will double, fixed salaries people will be in poverty, and no real demand is created. Not to mention that the US's buying power overseas will litterally die.

    In simpler terms, their is no difference between earning a $1,000/mo. and paying $2/gal for milk or earning $2,000/mo. and paying $4/gal for milk.
    Except when your real wage doesn't increase.
    Some people love their country because of what it is, because of the principles it is built on, because of its prosperity and freedom. Then others love their country because it is their country, and will destroy all that is actually good about it to silence those who disagree. Which do you think you are? - Symbiote

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by Symbiote
    If the government prints money and uses it to finance its operations, it is equivalent [to] financing itself via a tax on cash holdings. There is no difference between taking 25% of someone's money and reducing the purchasing power of that money by 25% via inflation.
    No, there is. If you take 25% of someone's money, that's theft. If you give someone 25% more income and they turn around and spend 25% more money and cause 25% inflation, they haven't really lost any purchasing power.

    Quote Originally Posted by Symbiote
    You can't finance a government without taking something from the people, regardless of how tricky you are with the money supply.
    I totally agree. Financing (lending) to governments is probably the most lucrative business in the world. Especially with fascist governments who tax their citizens by force to pay back their debts. That is why every country in the developed world has a central bank. Taxes are pure usury.
    Last edited by Harbinger; 05-05-2005 at 04:53 AM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Sydney, Oz
    Posts
    3,253
    What do you mean by "...a tax on cash holdings"?
    If I have $100,000 in the bank, and you inflate the money supply, the value of that $100,000 declines. Hence, the inflation is a tax on cash holdings.

    Even if my income were to proportionally increase, the cash holdings I had would not.

    Suppose you have $500 in your wallet, and the money supply doubles. Does that $500 suddenly turn into $1000, or has 50% of its value just been taxed away?

    No, there is. If you take 25% of someone's money, that's theft.
    That's roughly what increasing the money supply by 25% amounts to.


    If you give someone 25% more income and they turn around and spend 25% more money and cause 25% inflation, they haven't really lost any purchasing power.
    We aren't talking about increasing the money supply and proportionally increasing everyone's wages and cash holdings, that would be somewhat neutral, if pointless.

    You are talking about inflating and using that inflated money to finance the government.

    You are correct about the the character federal reserve, but your idea that if the american government prints money this does not "tax" the previous holders of cash is incorrect.

    Do you understand - the income tax is a tax on income, inflation is a tax on cash holdings, money you have sitting in the bank?

    Where do you think the value in newly printed money comes from? Do you think by printing money you actually create value?

    The truth is, the value of newly minted money is "taxed" away from previously minted money.
    He or she who supports a State organized in a military way whether directly or indirectly participates in sin. Each man takes part in the sin by contributing to the maintenance of the State by paying taxes.

    ~ Gandhi

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,628
    That doesn't make any sense.

    If the gov't solely relied upon treasury bills to finance its operations, they would be in constantly, increasing debt until at a point their default on their payments or reach a point of infinite debt.

    There's no way they could pay their debt off as to finance the buying back of debt would require issuing new debt on top of issuing bonds to pay for the next year.

    There's another huge problem, how would the gov't pay for the military solely through debt? At the moment the military takes up around 1/4 of the federa; budget or 650-450 billion dollars. Transfer payments take up around $1.56 trillion. How would the gov't finance such huge expenditures purely through means of debt while paying a ever increasing amount of net interest?
    Some people love their country because of what it is, because of the principles it is built on, because of its prosperity and freedom. Then others love their country because it is their country, and will destroy all that is actually good about it to silence those who disagree. Which do you think you are? - Symbiote

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Sydney, Oz
    Posts
    3,253
    What he is advocating is the direct control of the money supply by congress, as I I believe it was prior to 1913. No "t-bills" need be issued for the minting of money under such circumstances, it goes direct from printing press to government coffers.

    What he proposes is an alternative to debt.

    I agree it would be, in some ways, a superior system. But it is not the abolition of tax, in anything but name.
    He or she who supports a State organized in a military way whether directly or indirectly participates in sin. Each man takes part in the sin by contributing to the maintenance of the State by paying taxes.

    ~ Gandhi

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,628
    ah, but he said this
    Congressional revenue can be created by the US Treasury and spent as needed or dispersed as grants to the public as part of the monetary policies of the Congress or a committee appointed by Congress.
    Ah, but the US treasury issues bonds. Alright, nevermind.

    wait, I don't understand. How would the gov't actually fund itself without taxes or debt? To pay for a 2.6 trillion budget for a few years through printing that much more money would litterally devalue the dollar to the point where it is useless. Wouldn't his plan just led to hyperinflation?
    Some people love their country because of what it is, because of the principles it is built on, because of its prosperity and freedom. Then others love their country because it is their country, and will destroy all that is actually good about it to silence those who disagree. Which do you think you are? - Symbiote

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Sydney, Oz
    Posts
    3,253
    Wouldn't his plan just led to hyperinflation?
    It probably would.
    He or she who supports a State organized in a military way whether directly or indirectly participates in sin. Each man takes part in the sin by contributing to the maintenance of the State by paying taxes.

    ~ Gandhi

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by Duo_Maxwell
    Inflation is the rise in general prices. While prices rises, real wages for the past decade haven't risen accordingly. The nominal wage and price level have all gone up but RW haven't. Those on fixed salaries are going to be put into poverty if lnflation goes up 100%. Let's say you make $25,000 and it's fixed. Your real wage is actually around $18,000. Inflation now skyrockets 100%. What cost you $1 before now costs $2. Your RW is really $9,000. If the US dollar tanks that the world will instantly switch to euros further degrading our value on the world's market. And countries will abandon their US reverses, causing the dollar to sink even more in value. On top of 100% inflation, we have a huge drop in the dollar's buying power in the world. If inflation is 100% and their real wages aren't any higher, demand doesn't increase because their buying power has actually decreased hugely. Nominal wages will double, prices will double, fixed salaries people will be in poverty, and no real demand is created. The US's buying power overseas will litterally die. Except when your real wage doesn't increase.
    Wow! All this doom and gloom simply from abolishing taxes, huh? Real funny, go troll someone elses thread.
    Last edited by Harbinger; 05-05-2005 at 05:03 AM.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,628
    Quote Originally Posted by Harbinger
    When wages lag behind inflation, then inflation isn't being caused by increased consumer spending. This kind of inflation is caused by price hiking which only happens when there is not enough competition in the market. It isn't good for the economy nor did I ever say it was.
    This kind of inflation?

    You just contradicted what you said above. If real wages haven't changed then nominal wages aren't lagging inflation. Where did you go to school?
    What? How? That didn't make any sense. Did you just say that to throw me off? Nominal wages are useless as they only show a change in price level, not a change in actual wealth. If real wages do not increase with inflation, then the actual buying power of consumers doesn't increase, it decreases which results in less consumer spending and AD decreases. If AD decreases, SAS will shift upward, resulting in less output. Again, how is that good for the economy?

    Wait a sec! If inflation increases by 100% then your real wage would be $12,500 not $18,000. I think you mean $18,000 would be my "net income".
    No. Huh? Alright. Good, this actually gives me a lower number to work with. Your real wage is $12,500. Inflation of 100% cuts your real wage down to $6,250 resulting in less consumer spending on your part causing less demand, which causes producers to cutback on production, leading to unemployment. Again, how is this good?

    $7K in taxes from $25k in gross income would be about 28% in income taxes. Whooo, that's not good for the economy at all. Pretty high tax bracket for such low income. Anyway, go head...
    $12,500 is better then $6,250 wouldn't you say?

    Of course not. Did I ever say it did? No.
    But utlimtely that is what will occur if you double the money supply.

    If real wages aren't keeping up with inflation, as you first suggested, then the US dollar IS tanking.
    Not necessarily. The dollar isn't entirely tied to the real wage. Your senario would work in a closed economy, but that isn't the situation here. The US dollar is to a degree, being kept artifically high because countries such as Japan keep large reserves of it and a signifiecnt portion of oil transactions are done in dollars, causing a demand for dollars and raises their value.

    Now you aren't even trying to be serious.
    Would you keep a reserve of money that was quickly losing value? It's already starting to happen. A number of countries have swapped a large portion of their dollar reserves for Euros. That's one factor in the dollar's recent slide.

    Hey, you've gotten lost in your own hypothetical here. Symbiote was talking about inflation caused by increasing the money supply. You are talking about inflation persisting with low wages which has historically been caused by retracting the money supply. What's your point?
    What? If you double the money supply inflation is going to hit unless you can double the amount of goods for sale at the same time. Obviously that can't happen. Therefore inflation is going to hit 100% reducing real wages by 50% as everything costs double what it used to. That causes the amount of consumer spending to tank resulting in a shift of the AD curve to the left and the shift of the SAS curve up. That results in a recession. How is that good for the economy?

    Now I think you're just trolling.
    Explain why demand, or more appropaitely, consumer consumption would increase if real wages decreased.

    All this doom and gloom simply from abolishing taxes, huh? Real funny, go troll someone elses thread.
    That's not from abolishing taxes, it's from doubling the money supply.
    How can there be more consumer consumption when the amount of buying power out there has decreased by 50%? Wouldn't real GDP decrease because of that?

    As I recall GDP = C + I + G + NX
    If investing is the same, while gov't spending is the same and net imports don't change, but Consumer consumption drops by 50%, how can GDP increase when one of the factors has suffered a 50% reduction?

    You actually haven't responded with anything besides a snide remark.
    Some people love their country because of what it is, because of the principles it is built on, because of its prosperity and freedom. Then others love their country because it is their country, and will destroy all that is actually good about it to silence those who disagree. Which do you think you are? - Symbiote

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by Symbiote
    We aren't talking about increasing the money supply and proportionally increasing everyone's wages and cash holdings, that would be somewhat neutral, if pointless. You are talking about inflating and using that inflated money to finance the government.
    The government will spend however much money it wants to spend regardless of where the money comes from. As long as the government has had the luxury of borrowing from the Fed, it has borrowed and spent far more then it has collected from taxpayers. The taxes we pay now are only going to repay government debt.

    The catch is that the Fed creates it's money from NOTHING! Government spending constantly increases the money supply but, it doen't cause the kind of out of control inflation you are refering to because the money doesn't end up in your pocket, it ends up in some corporate or rich guys overseas bank account or in a tax shelter and we all end up paying back the loan plus interest.
    Last edited by Harbinger; 05-05-2005 at 05:04 AM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Sydney, Oz
    Posts
    3,253
    There are really only three things that cause inflation- increased consumer spending, decreased competition or a severe retraction of the money supply.
    Oh please, you have got to be joking. Where are you pulling this from? A "severe retraction of the money supply" causes inflation?

    Not necessarely. It is a historically founded assumption but, it is not a mathematical certainty.
    It isn't a "historically founded assumption" or a "mathematical" certainty, and to deny it is virtually to deny all economics. Supply and demand determine price.

    Niether. The only money that is of any concern to you is the money in your pocket. If the money supply doubles, who cares?
    I care, because the purchasing power of that money correspondingly declines.

    If you think the government printing currency and spending it does not cause the value of all other currency in circulation to decline, the same must apply to private citizens. Why don't we just issue a printing press to every American, then they can all have as much money as they want.

    You are twisting yourself in a knot trying to justify this lunacy

    You originally wrote:
    Are you arguing that printing money increases the money supply which reduces the value of the dollar (inflation)? If so, you are correct.
    then

    There are really only three things that cause inflation- increased consumer spending, decreased competition or a severe retraction of the money supply.
    [
    He or she who supports a State organized in a military way whether directly or indirectly participates in sin. Each man takes part in the sin by contributing to the maintenance of the State by paying taxes.

    ~ Gandhi

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •