Posted on 11/06/2002 1:39:57 PM PST by Tree of Liberty
Neil Cavuto just interviewed Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr., the director of the OMB, and Neil let it be known that he's hearing rumblings that Pres. Bush is considering a total re-write of the tax code and that SecTreas O'Neill is strongly pushing a national retail sales tax!
No, I think the exact opposite. Which is why I don't want that level of power given to a single individual who is subject to even less oversight than members of Congress.
The HHS has a long track record of using honest calculations to determine the poverty level, certainly far more honest than how members of congress trash the U.S. constitution to the harm of all citizens. However, members of congress could start to correct their frauds by being honest like the HHS and passing HR2525. That you fail to acknowledge the wide disparity in the honest track record in the HHS calculating the poverty level from the track record of fraud perpetrated by congress regarding the graduated income tax is to be expected from persons that chose deceit over honesty.
Under GCA'68, the secretary of the treasury has the ability to declare that certain arms don't have a sporting purpose.
Congress wrote and passed GCA'68. Thus it was congress that created the problem that need not exist in the first place.
"The framers of GCA'68 borrowed an idea--that certain firearms are "hunting weapons"--from the Nazi Weapons Law (Section 21 and Section 32 of the Regulations, page 61 and page 73, respectively, of Gun Control.- Gateway to Tyranny). The equivalent U.S. term, "sporting purpose," was used to classify firearms. But it was not defined anywhere in GCA'68. Thus, bureaucrats were empowered to ban whole classes of firearms. They have, in fact, done so."
http://www.boogieonline.com/revolution/firearms/laws/us/origin.html
Excerpts from an article in the May 1993 Guns and Ammo by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.The ability of the bureaucracy to misuse power it is granted is well established,
Members of congress violating their oath of office to empower most of the alphabet agencies. The IRS being but one of them. Congress created the problem. You have only tin-foil-hat assertions the the HHS would suddenly become a monster in regards to determining the poverty level. You wrote: "They can simply say the poverty level is $150,000." 901
Zon: You demonstrated your intent to deceive the reader. Thus rendering yourself not to be trusted or respected because you disrespect the reader. You probably think you can mislead and try to deceive the reader and that they should just comply with you and answer your questions or take you seriously. You deserve no person's attention in a discussion. Scorn. That's what you deserve. 936
Technogeeb: Your lies and personal attacks do nothing to refute the clear flaws in the system you are advocating. Government handouts to every household in the United States (the "prebate" mechanism) is socialism. To claim that it is otherwise is a lie. And since that system allows an unelected bureaucrat to determine the value of those handouts (with no additional action by Congress once the system is enacted), the only thing preventing it from becoming pure communism is the goodwill of the bureaucrats. 939
Your comments are on record; I'm glad to let the reader juxtaposition our comments.
and your assertion is a lie in any case. Robert Reich, Clinton's secretary of labor, has admitted that the administration didn't adjust the poverty level during the Clinton administration for fear that it would make the poverty rate would look worse. Check out the May 26, 2001 issue of the New York times for proof of his statement
I didn't know about that one specific Clinton strong arm tactic. I wonder what sort of initiatory threat of force Clinton used. Perhaps evidence is in the 900 illegally obtained FBI files that the Clinton's had possession of.
My claim that the HHS has a long track record of honesty was not a lie. It was an error. Since you don't know the difference between an error and a lie here's a quick lesson: Person A asks person B what day of the week it is. Person B responds, "it's Tuesday". Unbeknownst to person B it is actually Wednesday. Person B made an error not a lie. Had person B said "it's Tuesday" knowing full well it was actually Wednesday that would be a lie not an error. Now's your chance to correct your error and apologize for claiming that what I wrote was a lie.
That's one fraud compared to how many thousands of frauds and abuse by the IRS? IRS Abuse Reports -- The Case Against the IRS
Do you realize what you are saying? You essentially admit that the bureaucracies have misused powers that Congress has granted them, but you somehow believe that the HHS will be magically immune to this abuse of power.
I compare the track record of the basically honest HHS to the basically corrupt IRS. They are miles apart. Do you realize what you are saying? You, with your tin-foil hat assert: "They [HHS] can simply say the poverty level is $150,000." Thus overnight turn into a monster that the NRST is intent on kill a monster IRS in the first place. That you fail to acknowledge the wide disparity in the comparatively honest track record in the HHS calculating the poverty level from the track record of fraud perpetrated by congress regarding the graduated income tax is to be expected from persons that chose deceit over honesty.
Zon: You demonstrated your intent to deceive the reader. Thus rendering yourself not to be trusted or respected because you disrespect the reader. You probably think you can mislead and try to deceive the reader and that they should just comply with you and answer your questions or take you seriously. You deserve no person's attention in a discussion. Scorn. That's what you deserve. 936
Technogeeb: Your lies and personal attacks do nothing to refute the clear flaws in the system you are advocating. Government handouts to every household in the United States (the "prebate" mechanism) is socialism. To claim that it is otherwise is a lie. And since that system allows an unelected bureaucrat to determine the value of those handouts (with no additional action by Congress once the system is enacted), the only thing preventing it from becoming pure communism is the goodwill of the bureaucrats. 939
Your comments are on record; I'm glad to let the reader juxtaposition our comments.
Your assertions [that the wealthy pay a lower % of wealth in taxes than the poor or middle class] are mere repetition despite strong and clear evidence counter to what you want us to accept on the basis of your mere words.
Assertions? Mere repetition? You are denying the obvious! Show me ONE reputable source that even attempts to deny this. The evidence you offer uses the value of a persons home as a proxy for his wealth. This would be laughable even if your calculations didn't stop at a $60,000 income level.
I suggest you take a good refresher course in economics assuming of course that you have ever been exposed such a course in your experience.
Actually, Ive read and written extensively on the financial sector.
Moving the finances in payment of production, may termed "unproductive" in terms of manufacturing. Its loss to the economy and ability to deliver payment for goods and services would be of great negative impact to any economy.
You dont recognize a parasite when you see one.
Deuce: Some of the activity will be curtailed, while the rest of it will be taxed. Im fine with that.
Geezer: Spoken as a true socialist.
Curtailing some activity that cant bear a ½ of 1% tax while taxing that which can constitutes a socialistic position to you? What is your criteria for considering something socialist?
Zon: You, with your tin-foil hat assert: "They [HHS] can simply say the poverty level is $150,000." 943
It isn't a tin-foil hat assertion when they really can do that, and the current system would allow them to do just that.
And you can go postal and shoot up the local mall and kill a dozen people. If the HHS declared the poverty level was anywhere near $150,000 is would be a completely obvious fraud.
Zon: You demonstrated your intent to deceive the reader. Thus rendering yourself not to be trusted or respected because you disrespect the reader. You probably think you can mislead and try to deceive the reader and that they should just comply with you and answer your questions or take you seriously. You deserve no person's attention in a discussion. Scorn. That's what you deserve. 936
Technogeeb: Your lies and personal attacks do nothing to refute the clear flaws in the system you are advocating. Government handouts to every household in the United States (the "prebate" mechanism) is socialism. To claim that it is otherwise is a lie. And since that system allows an unelected bureaucrat to determine the value of those handouts (with no additional action by Congress once the system is enacted), the only thing preventing it from becoming pure communism is the goodwill of the bureaucrats. 939
Your comments are on record; I'm glad to let the reader juxtaposition our comments.
Curtailing some activity that cant bear a ½ of 1% tax while taxing that which can constitutes a socialistic position to you? What is your criteria for considering something socialist?
Ever hear of truth in lending? I suggest you engage in a little truth in taxation.
That "½ of 1% tax" is compounded by the number of accounts & instuments the money must pass through to consumate the trade becoming a 365% tax on the basic value of the commerce being financed.
That is not only socialist it is down right usurous and confiscative.
As posted in a prior reply regarding the effect of the Tobin tax you advocate:
http://www.europarl.eu.int/workingpapers/econ/107_en.htm#chap3
Table 1: Simple annualised effective Tobin Tax rates for differing turn-around periods, assuming constant exchange rates (see also " Calculating equivalent annual tax rates"
Nominal Tax rate (%) Effective Tax rate (annual %) 1 day/ trading day* 1 week 1 month 3 months 1 year 10 years 0.01 7.3/4.8 1.04 0.24 0.08 0.02 0.002 0.05 36.5/24.0 5.2 1.2 0.4 0.1 0.01 0.1 73/48.0 10.4 2.4 0.8 0.2 0.02 0.15 109.5/72.0 15.6 3.6 1.2 0.3 0.03 0.2 148/96.0 20.8 4.8 1.6 0.4 0.04 0.25 182.5/120.0 26.0 6.0 2.0 0.5 0.05 0.5 365/240 52.0 12.0 4.0 1.0 0.1 1.0 730/480 104.0 24.0 8.0 2.0 0.2 * As formulated by Tobin, the annualised rate was calculated on the basis of what a round-trip would cost if carried out every day, on the basis of 240 trading days in the year.
You dont recognize a parasite when you see one.
Transfer of payment across both time and space for goods and services without risk to those who it is due is parasitic?
Ever hear of a futures contract sold by a producer to remove risk of currency value, and price change of goods contracted for future delivery? Someone needs to take on that commercial risk or trade does not take place at the levels necessary to sustain our level of commerce, and that is the people who engage in your "unproductive", "parasitic" activity. That risk by the way is substantially induced by irratic government fiscal and monetary policies more than any other factor.
Government protection, of private property my eye. The market does the protect from the rapacious inroads of government manipulations of currency base and central banking control of intrest rates under government auspices.
The risk of price currency changes are spead among those who trade the contracts, an action which assures delivery of goods and services for a guaranteed payment not subject to manipulations of government monetary supply and other other intrusive factors external to trade.
Such is activity is the same activity as insurance plays on an individual level. That insurance requires the spread of risks among those willing to take the risk on for the possiblity of eaking out a profit with regard to unpredictable market changes across time .
should be 52% effective tax rate for a 1 wk of trade flow changing 240 hands in contract trades, (i.e. contract for delivery at guranteed price to the seller of goods), not unusual for todays markets. Most contracts will change hands several times a day until traded to the party who accepts delivery of goods for the current market price.
52% tax on the basic trade value of anything is confiscative.
So you would not be opposed to passing a law making it legal for someone to do that, because it is unlikely they would actually do it?
There is already a law prohibiting any person form going postal. Similar could be done for the HHS to ensure honest calculation of the poverty level. No law can guarantee any random person out of a quarter billion people won't go postal. A law prohibiting the commissioner at the HHS from putting out a dishonest poverty level $number is far far easier to "guarantee" that he abides by the law than a random person from a quarter billion people going postal. But you'd never think rationally that far ahead. But you do think irrationally far ahead to proclaim your tin-foil-hat assertion that: "They [HHS] can simply say the poverty level is $150,000." Despite it being a completely obvious fraud if HHS did that, and there would be a law prohibiting the HHS commissioner from putting out a dishonest poverty level $number in the first place. Your words show that dishonesty knows no bounds and the need for such a law.
You still refuse
I didn't refuse I simply ignore your false assertion.
Zon: You demonstrated your intent to deceive the reader. Thus rendering yourself not to be trusted or respected because you disrespect the reader. You probably think you can mislead and try to deceive the reader and that they should just comply with you and answer your questions or take you seriously. You deserve no person's attention in a discussion. Scorn. That's what you deserve. 936
Technogeeb: Your lies and personal attacks do nothing to refute the clear flaws in the system you are advocating. Government handouts to every household in the United States (the "prebate" mechanism) is socialism. To claim that it is otherwise is a lie. And since that system allows an unelected bureaucrat to determine the value of those handouts (with no additional action by Congress once the system is enacted), the only thing preventing it from becoming pure communism is the goodwill of the bureaucrats. 939
Your comments are on record; I'm glad to let the reader juxtaposition our comments.
He fears that too many people will actually learn the truth about the possibility of eliminating the socialist/marxist income tax. He'll do ANYTHING to stop it... sounds a lot like some liberal democrats?
Of course he'll come back denying that he's pro income tax - - - but his lack of well thought options is apparent...as is his knowledge of the nrst bill.
Yeah- "the numbers in the bill are... arbitrary". Sheesh.
I haven't a use for the combination of stupidity and/or dishonesty you've shown.
How a refund redistributes wealth???? How dumb is that... so dumb I think you may be lying.
Some places you say that it would be better to simply exempt certain items rather than refund the tax on necessites. What's the difference?
You need government to define what you need? Not me.
Why would you want or need to have government in control of what "necessities" are... that's the difference you desire.
Ignorant or purposefully misleading- I have no use for either. SHould you ever decide to be honest I am happy to engage.
Go ahead and use some big words on me now.... it'll make you feel better.
Happy FReeping or DU-ing or wherever you usually hang.
Zon: Your words show that dishonesty knows no bounds and the need for such a law. 952
Such a law quite clearly would be needed. The fact that you now admit as such,
Yes I do based on your words of dishonesty in several of your posts, dishonesty knows no bounds; thus you have demonstrated a need to thwart dishonesties that may also crop up in HHS.
Zon: You demonstrated your intent to deceive the reader. Thus rendering yourself not to be trusted or respected because you disrespect the reader. You probably think you can mislead and try to deceive the reader and that they should just comply with you and answer your questions or take you seriously. You deserve no person's attention in a discussion. Scorn. That's what you deserve. 936
Technogeeb: Your lies and personal attacks do nothing to refute the clear flaws in the system you are advocating. Government handouts to every household in the United States (the "prebate" mechanism) is socialism. To claim that it is otherwise is a lie. And since that system allows an unelected bureaucrat to determine the value of those handouts (with no additional action by Congress once the system is enacted), the only thing preventing it from becoming pure communism is the goodwill of the bureaucrats. 939
Your comments are on record; I'm glad to let the reader juxtaposition our comments.
At least Zon has (finally, rather than ignoring the flaw for so long) proposed a solution to this flaw by making a "fraudulent" value for the poverty level illegal.
I didn't ignore the flaw, I simply didn't see it as anything other than tin-foil-hat delusion until you had demonstrated an accumulated high degree of dishonesty in your posts -- witnessing that -- suddenly I realized that someone like Technogeeb could end up in a position of power and thus I saw the need for such a law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.