Forum Post: There's no such thing as the religious right
Posted 12 years ago on June 12, 2012, 4:16 p.m. EST by stevebol
(1269)
from Milwaukee, WI
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
It's just tax evasion and theatre. True believers pay their taxes!!
Like there's no such thing as a mafia :)
Well, of course not.
You could say the same thing about all big business, commercials and advertising are the theater and the buyers are the believers, except the businesses do for the most part pay taxes..
Do you think everyone should have to pay taxes?
Amazing how you had your karma count reset to Zero JFT!.....
If they have the means to. Can't squeeze blood from a stone, which leaves whats left of the Middle income group, the wealthy, and the super wealthy which claim only Capital Gains tax - which doesn't contribute to supporting the infrastructure that they use.
Taxes on the local city, county, and state levels are essential as they directly pay for public services.
Taxes on the Federal level do not support Federal government spending, but instead are used as one of many possible tools to moderate the volume of money in the system. Taxes at this level are also used to modify behavior. The Federal Tax Code needs restructuring to reflect the changes to our currency that have taken place since 1971.
"...changes in our currency..."
LOL
Like the skyrocketing value! Good thing they got rid of that nasty and valuable gold! Good thing we're forcing poor people to spend their money immediately or lose it's value, otherwise they might be able to save up and start a business!
We need factory workers for our centrally planned economic machine! We'll be just like the Soviet Union! Oh the day!
You think gold is valuable? Now who really is the fool...
"Ooooh....ooooh look shiny object!" LMFAO.
I know, right? It makes an extremely poor high-ductility charge carrier for use in integrated circuits and light emitting diodes, not to mention the fact that it oxidizes at the drop of a hat and makes a really poor plating for mating electrical conductors. They only use it in those industries because they like the way it sounds! If it wasn't for jewelry, gold wouldn't have any value at all!
Look, even a zinc standard would would beat a paper standard any day. You're beating the drums of the establishment and don't even know it. Inflation is just another way to keep poor people poor, to make them spend their money like lemmings before it loses its value.
Wait a second... what makes you think that gold is inherently shiny? You do realize, I'm sure, that a metallic object's reflectivity is a function of its surface smoothness and has little to do with the number of protons in its elemental nucleus, right?
gold doesn't rust
Neither does lead.
Wait a second... what makes you think that gold is inherently shiny? You do realize, I'm sure, that a metallic object's reflectivity is a function of its surface smoothness and has little to do with the number of protons in its elemental nucleus, right?
Due to its malleability it is very easy to obtain a very, very smooth surface.
Outside of its few industrial uses, which really uses tiny, tiny amounts, it has no real intrinsic value.
Currency is just an exchange unit. Money is not wealth. Making a currency tied to a commodity only provides the means to undermine that currency.... which is why a gold standard, salt standard, wampum, whatever type currency has never lasted.
Um, no, the malleability has nothing to do with it. Give me an end mill and a bucket of zirconium oxide powder and I will polish some yellow brass that you cannot tell apart from gold.
Diamonds are one of the least malleable materials known to man, and yet they can be prepared with a surface smoothness exceeding common gold jewelry. Gold's softness and ductility actually make it less shiny under wear conditions than other, harder materials would such as tungsten carbide.
Like I said, you could just as easily make a copper-backed currency. But gold works fine.
Tying a currency to a commodity does not allow someone to undermine the currency. I would love for you to expound greatly on this. The only way to undermine a commodity backed currency is to produce more of the commodity, essentially counterfieting the currency. When production cost of the commodity is equal to the value of the currency, the currency is sound and cannot be undermined.
The reason that a commodity backed currency has "never lasted" is not due to an actual failing, but because clever 1%ers realized they can tax every citizen simultaneously through inflation, and blame it on "evil corporations" for raising prices.
Um, no, the malleability has nothing to do with it. Give me an end mill and a bucket of zirconium oxide powder and I will polish some yellow brass that you cannot tell apart from gold.
Yeah maybe you couldn't, but I could. Brass looks nothing like pure gold. Put lipstick on a pig and its still a pig.
Diamonds are one of the least malleable materials known to man, and yet they can be prepared with a surface smoothness exceeding common gold jewelry.
That property is called 'luster' if you are referring to the light reflected by that finished surface (diamond) and how it compares to the reflectivity of gold.....and has nothing to do with surface smoothness, but how a crystal inherently reflects light do to its structure.
Gold's softness and ductility actually make it less shiny under wear conditions than other
And that is true, while gold polishes far brighter than other metals because of its softness, it does not hold that shine for the same reasons. Gold jewelry has to be hardened with alloys to make it work for everyday use. 14K gold is only 58.5% gold.
Like I said, you could just as easily make a copper-backed currency. But gold works fine.
Neither works because both copper and gold are COMMODITIES. Which means they have a secondary market price that is volatile and susceptible to speculation. Another key driver is trade imbalances tied to large foreign currency holdings. Read up on why Bretton Woods collapsed....it is why all commodity based currencies eventually collapse.
http://www.nber.org/chapters/c6876.pdf
Inflation is a hideous tax that is the greatest robber of all time. The only way to prevent it would be to use a currency that would have actual gold placed into the bills themselves or thin foil molded inside clear plastic coins.
I laugh when I see the steps the mint uses to make currency counterfeit proof, but cry when the fed increases the money supply with that same currency, in effect counterfeiting trillions of dollars, robbing all who hold them, no matter how safely stored, anywhere on earth!
The fraud begins with interest. It is based on the assumption that money can "grow". Inflation is needed to keep the fraud going a little while longer. The following example demonstrates this and also that interest on money is unsustainable and leads to crisis:
If someone brought a 1/10 oz gold coin to the bank in the year 1 AD, and the money remained there until the year 2000 AD, collecting a yearly interest of 4%, the amount of gold in the account would have been 3.6 * 10^31 kilogramme of gold weighing 6,000,000 times the complete mass of the Earth.
Interest is an insidious process. Over time it is inescapable that it reduces large numbers of people to a state of servitude to the money lenders. This is a long term development that transcends the life span of a human. Interest is the main reason why a number of civilisations have failed and why Western civilisation is about to fail. Therefore all interest is usury and the current financial system is a usury financial system.
The example of the growth by interest of the gold coin does not prove that interest is a bad thing. It just shows a fundamental property of rate of growth which could apply to anything.
If a pair of birds increased their numbers by 10% a year over 2000 years, they would cover the earth and consume everything in it. Luckily that did not happen. There are other limiting factors like the number of insects required to sustain the growth of the birds. If the insect population does not keep up with the birds demand, the bird population growth will be checked.
In the example of interest, the growing amount of additional gold which represents the fees charged for it's lending, would require an equal growth in the number of borrowers at 4% per year. If the population was 1 million in 1 AD, it would need to increase to 2 and a half billion by 200 Ad to sustain the growth of gold lent.
Great wealth requires great growth in numbers to supports it's continual increase. Bad loans, war, theft, and taxes also limits growth.
There is no difference between charging interest or renting. Both are fees for providing a service. You could rent a new tractor for $100 per month, or take a loan to buy one for $100 a month. Is renting also an unjust way of making money?
There is a difference between money and capital. So charging interest is not the same as charging rent on a house. Money can be made without effort but a house cannot. Apart from that interest on money leads to a number of systemic issues. Financial crises is only one of them.
Renting money does take labor to produce a profit. Ask any banker if he works for his money.
Can you provide a scenario that explains how charging interest leads to financial crisis.
If the simple math above does not demonstrate it to you, then it will be difficult to convince you as you cannot directly link action to consequence. Interest is an insidious process. It is a long term development that transcends the life span of a human.
Interest is not paid to the banker but to the saver. The banker operates as an intermediary. The saver may have worked for the money but the money is itself put into circulation at near zero cost (printing or adding a computer entry). There is a distinction between money (a calculation unit) and capital (something that costs effort to produce).
There is a systemic issue with interest as it causes money to accumulate into a few hands that can then use it for power games.
If you can't provide the link between charging interest and financial crisis, maybe it does not exist. Why believe something when it can't be proven?
"Interest is not paid to the banker but to the saver."????
My bank pays .1% interest on a savings account. They charge 6% for a mortgage. The banker receives the majority, not the saver.
The money put into circulation at zero cost did cost everyone holding dollars. It drained a portion of the value of that dollar bill. That is what causes inflation.
So many people believe things that cannot be proven, most notably in the field of economics. In the case of interest it can be proven with mathematical certainty but if you say that it cannot be proven then I rest my case. Most economists are simply not smart enough to get it.
As for the banks their primary function is to bring together demand and supply for money. If they make a big profit on the mortgage then it must be possible to get a cheaper mortgage if the market operates correctly, which it may not do.
On this we agree.
Warren Buffet should pay his taxes... over 1 billion and counting, and he has the nerve to say his secretary pays more than he does. I guess she would if she pays her taxes!