Have been reading too many fairy-tales? I thought it was the Dems that are vulnerable to Utopia; I guess I was wrong.
Can a resident economist from around here help me out here? Wouldn't a sudden infusion of cash into the economy creat lots of inflation rather than prosperity? Or wouldn't it? (I'm honestly not sure.)
We owe these scounderals because the congress in 1913 voted to allow them to take over. Or should I say the few congress people that were there on December 23rd 1913 (3 senators that were paid off by the central bankers) took a voice vote and unanimously voted to allow these crooks to take over our money system.
Get rid of the federal reserve and that damned Sir Allen Greenspan and watch this economy really take off.
The IRS is the enforcement arm of the FEDERAL RESERVE and has no actual power. The only reason that it gets away with what it does is because the AMERICAN SHEEPLE allow it.
STAND UP. SPEAK OUT. TO HELL WITH THE FEDERAL RESERVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
To Rule a Free People you need to control three spheres, Political, Monetary, and Social.
In the three years 1912-1914 three measures were taken to take control of these spheres. Who were the Presidents during this time?? No PARTY monopoly on conspiracy or intrigue. Can I say treason??
1. To Control the Political the 17th Amendment was passed. This seemingly harmless admendment took the election of U.S Senators away from the State Legislatures and placed there election in the hands of democratic elections by the people. Harmless?? Not really because what happened was that in low population States outsiders came in and bought seats. Check out Arkansas, Alaska, Nevada, Hawaii. Think of other States with low populations preferably ones with only one Rep.
What can a Senator do?? RATIFY TREATIES which if you notice have been given a superior status to The Constitution. They also approve Federal judges. And how about their rulings, which unless Congress acts, carry the weight of Law? Isn't that the Legislature's DUTY??
2. The Monetary control was done just as you have said, throught the twin montrosities, the Federal Reserve, which is neither a Reserve or Federal, and the 16th Amendment which was needed to pay the INTEREST on the money? that the Fed would create for US. How sweet of them.
Just how can Congress delegate IT'S Constitutional duty to regulate the value of money??? Article 1, Sec. 8
3. The Social sphere was to be controlled through the Harrison Narcotics Act and subsequentially Alcohol Prohibition. Think what the WOD has done for social control.
Both Prohibition and the WOD also have the added benefit(for the scoundrels who gave us this crap) of TURNING us against each other in a fight to SAVE WESTERN CIVILIZATION.(from the yellow horde, communists, Mexicans, Hipsters, n******, hippies, fill in the blank with your favorite bogeyman.)
Keep the commoners fighting amongst themselves so they don't figure out who the real enemy is. "Braveheart", comes to mind when I think of who that would be.
All seemed reasonable and even prudent by many but those are the seeds that were planted and my haven't they raised a healthy crop of weeds in the garden of liberty.
Regards from Hardyville,
CATO
LenS: I'd hate to see the property taxes, sales taxes, and tariffs that would result.
Satadru: I oppose a consumption tax system. It is such an efficient way to raise money, that the federal govt will collect a lot more in tax revenues which will increase the size and scope of the federal government. As such, it is a bad idea, unless the rate is very small.
kcpopps: I've read that the intent would be to start out at 15-17% with the rate set to decrease over time. I would be leery of trusting the politicians to follow through on that and leave it alone - even if it were working perfectly.
All of these statements mistakenly assume that a National Retail Sales Tax (NRST) would have to be high. Actually, a NRST has a built-in mechanism that works to force tax levels down, where the income tax makes it easy to increase tax levels. Our current tax system is evidence of the ease in which the income tax is raised. That is because most people do not consider taxes as having ever been their money, since taxes are taken out before the taxpayer ever sees the money. The NRST, on the other hand, reminds the taxpayer just how much he is paying in taxes every time he pulls out his wallet. That constant reminder will have the effect of driving sales tax levels down and keeping them low.
Lens: Nor would I like to see what was left of our military.
TopQuark: Oops! You forgot to tell us who will repair the roads, pay for the army and armements, etc.
A CA Guy: It would be good if they went with the Reagan model of a top level of 28%. But the idea of ending it would be crazy since the country can't run a military, roads, services and hospitals for free.
There are a couple of things to consider here. In all probability, if the income tax is abolished, another system of taxation (probably a tax on consumption) will certainly replace it. Any such system of taxation would be designed to be revenue neutral, though it need not be, as explained below.
According to the OMB, in recent years, federal expenditures for national defense has been around 16 to 18 percent of total revenue. Only another 1 or 2 percent is used to fund government overhead (salaries and infrastructure for Congress, the courts, etc.). So, for less than 20% of what we are currently paying in taxes, we could fund 100% of the Constitutionally mandated functions of government. Granted, that this is not likely to happen. But, as long as we rely upon any form of income tax for revenue, it will certainly never happen. It is the difference between not likely and never.
majic12: I believe it was KARL MARX who advocated the graduated income tax as one of the 10 planks of the COMMUNIST MANIFESTO. What else do you need to know to support a flat tax?
Just one other thing. Our current progressive income tax began as a flat income tax.
Marx would be quite pleased with a flat income tax, because he knew that once you have a flat income tax in place, it is only a small step to a progressive income tax. In fact, the ONLY way that you can keep a flat income tax from becoming a progressive income tax is to not tax income at all.
Any tax based on income will very soon become progressive.
I don;t agree with all of Harry Browne's ideas, either. But then, I doubt that there are very many republicans who agree with all of Dubya's ideas or those of their own representatives in federal and state governments. That's just normal. The sad thing is that the leadership of the GOP has become so afraid of losing their own power, that they are now willing to compromise their principles, rather than face even the slightest risk of facing a tight election race. As a result, I find that I now agree with Harry Browne's solid stand on his principles (though somewhat different than my own), much more than I agree with the attitude of capitulation and appeasement, so obvious in Dubya and the GOP leadership.
Who are you trying to kid? They would have to instantly raise the sales tax. The only problem is, it is already over 8% in many parts of the country. Would consumers stand for another 10% or 15% on top of that? In their pay checks, they see the deductions but the tax is not passing through their fingers. Wait until they are paying $15.00 to $20.00 extra on every $100 they purchase.
yes, its time to end all tax laws. Rush has commented in the past about how laws in the US seem to be oriented to keeping Americans from moving up into higher tax brackets and becoming wealthy. At first, I thought Rush may be stretching the true, but upon further consideration, I think he's on to something.
Our very own government may be working to hold all of us down. Are poor Americans easier to control?