Except for your obvious lack of wisdom and good judgment, what I also see is lack of historic perspective. The patent system has only been in place for a few hundred years, but the real litigation didn't start until last century from about 19 hundreds to today. However the innovation has always been here and it will be here after the patent system is gone, just like the civilization has been here before this insane intruding government and it will be here long after that is gone too.
It's against my better judgment to go on with someone who is clearly as frothing-at-the-mouth-crazy as you appear to be, but I'll give it one last shot just for the hell of it.
oh, well, that and this
Like I said, it doesn't matter whether they were asked a question,
means SS is Constitutional. Clearly. Saying it is not is irrelevant because clearly, those who say it based on the fact that it was not decided to be Constitutional are "frothing-at-the-mouth-crazy".
No, he is paying lip service to paying taxes, because he is benefiting from OTHER people paying taxes.
After all - his company was bailed out in 2008 through AIG and other bail outs. The 'genius' was genius enough to be deep in mortgage backed securities by the time of the crash. He was heavily leveraged, if AIG went under, he would have gone bankrupt himself.
Also he benefits directly from any estate taxes (death taxes), as his firm buys out the businesses that are liquidated (and that's what people have to do to pay death tax), they buy the companies below market price, restructure and resell them or pieces of them. He is part of the jobs destruction market.
Also he is fighting with IRS right now not to pay those 35% but to pay something below that, you are correct.
However that's not the point. The point is that there shouldn't be any income taxes, corporate taxes, payroll taxes, none of it should exist at all. People shouldn't be taxed for working and they shouldn't be taxed for investing.
If any amount of government is reasonable to have, it's the amount that can be paid for by consumption taxes, and the poorest can get credits.
There is no honesty in politics, but can't they be stopped from false advertising? When they name something "Jobs Act" it doesn't mean there will be jobs, but if you are against the act on actual details of the bill, then you'll be labeled as if you are "against jobs".
Same with the Patriot Act - do you think it's easy to be in opposition to a bill named "Patriot Act"? What are you, a terrorist?
"America Invents Act" will only succeed in innovative litigation procedures.
How about doing something useful to get America 'inventing' again?
How about abolishing the patent system? How about reducing regulations and all other government nonsense and stop standing in the way of inventions and innovations and stop allowing the huge companies from crashing competition with their patents?
Of-course you don't have to stop, but all the inventions and innovations will take place somewhere else, not in America.
The correct way to read names of government bills is to reverse the literal meaning of the names.
This bill can be named: "America Inventing Prevention Act" or "Inventing Anywhere But America Act".
It would be easy to vote against those names.
Get them to give bills numbers and not names and then everybody would have to know the details of what's inside. Stop the false advertising, companies get sued for it, why not governments?
The corporation appeared and answered without raising any issue of fact. Later, the United States Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the United States Collector for the District of Massachusetts, petitioners in this court, were allowed to intervene. They moved to strike so much of the bill as has relation to the tax on employees, taking the ground that the employer, not being subject to tax under those provisions, may not challenge their validity, and that the complainant shareholder, whose rights are no greater than those of his corporation, has even less standing to be heard on such a question. The intervening defendants also filed an answer which restated the point raised in the motion to strike, and maintained the validity of Title VIII in all its parts. The District Court held that the tax upon employees was not properly at issue, and that the tax upon employers was constitutional. It thereupon denied the prayer for an injunction, and dismissed the bill. On appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the decree was reversed, one judge dissenting. 89 F.2d 393. The court held that Title II was void as an invasion of powers reserved by the Tenth Amendment to the states or to the people, and that Title II, in collapsing, carried Title VIII along with it. As an additional reason for invalidating the tax upon employers, the court held that it was not an excise as excises were understood when the Constitution was adopted. Cf. Davis v. Boston & Mane R. Co., 89 F.2d 368, decided the same day.
A petition for certiorari followed. It was filed by the intervening defendants, the Commissioner and the Collector, and brought two questions, and two only, to our [p*639] notice. We were asked to determine: (1) "whether the tax imposed upon employers by ' 804 of the Social Security Act is within the power of Congress under the Constitution," and (2)
whether the validity of the tax imposed upon employees by ' 801 of the Social Security Act is properly in issue in this case, and if it is, whether that tax is within the power of Congress under the Constitution.
and the answer that resulted from it was..... we are not going to judge.
You can read the attached link, it's the entire case.
For the same reason that China and practically every government in the world is investing in the federal government:
- yes. The same reason - misunderstanding of basic economics.
It's the most secure investment in the world. That's why everybody buys them.
- you can't have something that 'everybody buys' being the most secure.
But you can have a bubble in it.
They don't have to "beat inflation" they are barely paying anything at the moment. Countries invest in them because they are secure, not because they are profitable. They're like putting money in the bank.
I am not confusing t-bills and bonds. Fed is likely going to buy 1.7Trillion worth of long term bonds, but most of the US debt that Chinese hold is t-bills, 3 months.
Federal reserve notes USED to be notes - IOUs that one could redeem for gold at Federal reserve bank.
In fact the original Federal reserve bank set a HIGHER standard for amount of gold reserve than any other bank at the time. So it was a STRONGER gold standard, when Fed was introduced. Of-course Nixon completely defaulted on the promise to pay gold for Federal reserve note, when the French decided to get their money out of the notes.
So all of your little comments there are complete nonsense, and that's why you are replying to my comments and not making any useful ones of your own.
It doesn't matter if the company is public, you are the largest shareholder - it's your company. It's your money as well, any money that the company makes is your money, which you could get in form of dividend. You are not going to get 35% of it due to corporate income tax. Then you'll be taxed 15% dividend tax on that federally.
Then there is State tax, the SS/Medicare, etc. --
That's why Warren Buffer is a big old liar, he is choosing to pay himself a dividend and not a salary, so he pays 15% tax on dividends.
BUT his company pays 35% corporate income tax on the earnings, which is his money, he is the largest shareholder.
That's the dividends he is NOT getting.
He is paying (X-0.35*X) - 0.15*(X-0.35*X) or a compound tax of about 44.5% - that's just federal, that doesn't count State taxes or SS/Medicare (which he CLEARLY doesn't need to either pay or receive benefits from).
So in reality the "rich" are paying waaaaaay more than a 'fair share', unless you take the words 'fair share' to mean over 80% of somebody's income just because they can earn money better than you can.
Anybody owning a company and producing something is also paying waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than his fair share just by production alone, so just by producing goods - wealth, the company is already moving the economy forward, unlike any government, which only can remove wealth from investors and spend it (especially on foreign stuff) and destroy the economy.
Investor buys company shares in hopes of dividends, that's until government turns the market into a casino, where the only "investment" that takes place is arbitrage - buying low, selling high.
However actual investment is about dividends, and when corporation pays corporate tax, this is the money that is taken directly out of shareholders' pockets.
That's why Warren Buffer is a big old liar, he is choosing to pay himself a dividend and not a salary, so he pays 15% tax on dividends.
BUT his company pays 35% corporate income tax on the earnings, which is his money, he is the largest shareholder.
That's the dividends he is NOT getting.
He is paying (X-0.35*X) - 0.15*(X-0.35*X) or a compound tax of about 44.5% - that's just federal, that doesn't count State taxes or SS/Medicare (which he CLEARLY doesn't need to either pay or receive benefits from).
So in reality the "rich" are paying waaaaaay more than a 'fair share', unless you take the words 'fair share' to mean over 80% of somebody's income just because they can earn money better than you can.
I know that you CAN pretend, but it doesn't work to pretend, you cannot make something into something it is not by pretending.
Ever since the beginning of payouts, the amount of money that subsequent payers were paying into the scam was more than people who came before them, and the amount of money that was paid out, was eventually cut a number of times, people were means tested.
Here is how Ronald Reagan "saved" SS ponzi scam by more benefit cuts and more tax hikes:
------ In 1984 the payroll tax was raised from 10.8 to 11.4% and kept creeping up. They increased the amount of income subject to tax from 32400USD to 37800USD in one year (16.6%). So SS was raised in total by over 20% in one year. Also SS was originally (in 40s and 50s) paid by employees, not by self employed. However self employed didn't have to pay employer payroll portion of the tax. In 1983 they started collecting the "employer" payroll portion of the tax, so the SS tax went up from 6.8% to 14% 106% increase in one year. This + the SS tax increase of 16.6% described above, the effective rate of tax increase on self employed individuals was 140% tax hike in one year, and kept getting worse.
Reagan also imposed income taxes on SS benefits for higher earning individuals, which is means testing and reduction in benefits.
Reagan basically cut SS benefits for higher income people by applying income tax to SS benefits, while increasing taxes on higher income people by 140%. ---------
So you can pretend all you want, but people are paying more and more percentage wise and in absolute dollars, they are getting less and less out of it.
Another important point is to understand that SS is unconstitutional, (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2437746&cid=37462432)
the gov't argued that SS tax payments are not going to any fund, specifically to avoid the Constitutionality of direct illegal fund transfer from employer to employee. This means there was never a fund based on the case that was left undecided, as the judge said:
Of-course the judge in the Supreme Court was very lazy, he didn't care (*was complicit*) and wrote this: The argument for the respondent is that the provisions of the two titles dovetail in such a way as to Justify the conclusion that Congress would have been unwilling to pass one without the other. The argument for petitioners is that the tax moneys are not earmarked, and that Congress is at liberty to spend them as it will. The usual separability clause is embodied in the act. ' 1103. [cornell.edu]
We find it unnecessary to make a choice between the arguments, and so leave the question open.
Yet another important point (maybe not to you) is the entire morality of shifting at this point 17 Trillion dollars of payments that were paid out that never were paid into the system upon the children who are young or not even born yet.
That's right, 17 Trillion dollars was paid out more than was taken in by the system.
That's not JUST a ponzi scam, that's also money destruction - debt that is accumulated must be paid out and with interest. So it's a ponzi scam that is perpetrated upon people, not even born yet, who are forced into this and will get nothing out of it but a broken economy and society.
17 Trillion dollars were transfered via debt from the past to the future, I believe the future may not be willing to pay this.
To keep SS going right now they'll have to raise taxes on it, just like Reagan did. I hope you like paying more taxes into ponzi scams.
--
Last point: if it were an honest insurance program, with actual trust funds, assets, investments, the participation would not have to been mandatory.
Any voluntary participation in a pension program is not a problem, the problem is when an entire nation is forced into ONE AND THE SAME program.
One single monopoly system to keep the pension payments going. One single place for politicians to get their money for their space programs and wars and bank bail outs.
SS is basically like a typical standard financial product: a fixed annuity with insurance premiums.
- they called it premiums to make it LOOK like an insurance program, but those were NEVER premiums.
The gov't had to argue specifically that SS taxes were NOT premiums, were not earmarked for any specific purpose and there was not fund, they had to argue this in front of SCOTUS, who unfortunately was just a puppet in the hands of the government.
SS is unconstitutional, it's funded like a ponzi scam and it never had any trust fund by government argument that was used to pass it.
it just invests in US treasury bonds. This is pretty much a guarantee of a low rate of return.
- bonds are a guarantee that you will have inflation destroy your investment, because USA prints money and is not on any gold standard, so US debt is worthless because US Federal reserve note is worthless.
And saying that t-bills are investment?
It's like writing an check to yourself for a million dollars and saying you are a 'millionaire', but you are not. That check is an asset and a liability at the same time. And it transfers the payment from you to the next generation (what a way to SCREW YOUR CHILDREN.)
Of-course it's a ponzi scam, and was from the very first monthly payment.
The first monthly payment was issued on January 31, 1940 to Ida May Fuller of Ludlow, Vermont. In 1937, 1938 and 1939 she paid a total of $24.75 into the Social Security System. Her first check was for $22.54. After her second check, Fuller already had received more than she contributed over the three-year period. She lived to be 100 and collected a total of $22,888.92.
You can't even PRETEND that it was not a ponzi scam with this nonsense.
Pay 25 dollars into the program and get 23K out of it over decades?
Great "investment".
But as I said as well:
It never had a trust fund.
Government explicitly argued that SS taxes were NOT going into any trust fund, that they were NOT earmarked for anything from the get go, that's the only way they could even start that program.
it's in a court decision that they are not going to make a ruling on whether the SS taxes are actually Constitutional or not, so it's definitely up for grabs, but it's clearly NOT declared to be Constitutional.
But the point of that case was to prove to the SCOTUS that SS NEVER HAD a trust fund:)
People don't get this simple thing, the only way that SS could ever pass was for gov't to argue it was NOT SS.
That's because SS payroll tax is an illegal (unconstitutional) way to do direct and illegal transfer of property from employer to employee.
Congress can always modify Social Security so as to keep it funded, even if there are fewer people paying into the system later than at present, e.g. by raising taxes or lowering payouts.
- yeah, that's what Reagan did:
In 1984 the payroll tax was raised from 10.8 to 11.4% and kept creeping up. They increased the amount of income subject to tax from 32400USD to 37800USD in one year (16.6%). So SS was raised in total by over 20% in one year. Also SS was originally (in 40s and 50s) paid by employees, not by self employed. However self employed didn't have to pay employer payroll portion of the tax. In 1983 they started collecting the "employer" payroll portion of the tax, so the SS tax went up from 6.8% to 14% 106% increase in one year. This + the SS tax increase of 16.6% described above, the effective rate of tax increase on self employed individuals was 140% tax hike in one year, and kept getting worse.
Reagan also imposed income taxes on SS benefits for higher earning individuals, which is means testing and reduction in benefits.
Reagan basically cut SS benefits for higher income people by applying income tax to SS benefits, while increasing taxes on higher income people by 140%.
Do you know WHY this ponzi scam is much WORSE than any private ponzi scam?
Because of THIS. Because the gov't FORCES you into it and it "adjusts" the ponzi scam by forcing you to pay MORE into it even when you KNOW it's a ponzi scam.
They means test you and pay you LESS benefits, but they force you to pay MORE into it.
Oh, no. It's a scam because you are forcing the unborn children into it, to pay your expenses.
Here is little history:
The first monthly payment was issued on January 31, 1940 to Ida May Fuller of Ludlow, Vermont. In 1937, 1938 and 1939 she paid a total of $24.75 into the Social Security System. Her first check was for $22.54. After her second check, Fuller already had received more than she contributed over the three-year period. She lived to be 100 and collected a total of $22,888.92.
You can't even PRETEND that it was not a ponzi scam with this nonsense.
Of-course it's a ponzi scam, and was from the very first monthly payment.
The first monthly payment was issued on January 31, 1940 to Ida May Fuller of Ludlow, Vermont. In 1937, 1938 and 1939 she paid a total of $24.75 into the Social Security System. Her first check was for $22.54. After her second check, Fuller already had received more than she contributed over the three-year period. She lived to be 100 and collected a total of $22,888.92.
You can't even PRETEND that it was not a ponzi scam with this nonsense.
Pay 25 dollars into the program and get 23K out of it over decades?
Great "investment".
But as I said as well:
It never had a trust fund.
Government explicitly argued that SS taxes were NOT going into any trust fund, that they were NOT earmarked for anything from the get go, that's the only way they could even start that program.
it's in a court decision that they are not going to make a ruling on whether the SS taxes are actually Constitutional or not, so it's definitely up for grabs, but it's clearly NOT declared to be Constitutional.
But the point of that case was to prove to the SCOTUS that SS NEVER HAD a trust fund:)
People don't get this simple thing, the only way that SS could ever pass was for gov't to argue it was NOT SS.
That's because SS payroll tax is an illegal (unconstitutional) way to do direct and illegal transfer of property from employer to employee.
Government explicitly argued that SS taxes were NOT going into any trust fund, that they were NOT earmarked for anything from the get go, that's the only way they could even start that program.
it's in a court decision that they are not going to make a ruling on whether the SS taxes are actually Constitutional or not, so it's definitely up for grabs, but it's clearly NOT declared to be Constitutional.
But the point of that case was to prove to the SCOTUS that SS NEVER HAD a trust fund:)
People don't get this simple thing, the only way that SS could ever pass was for gov't to argue it was NOT SS.
That's because SS payroll tax is an illegal (unconstitutional) way to do direct and illegal transfer of property from employer to employee.
it's in a court decision that they are not going to make a ruling on whether the SS taxes are actually Constitutional or not, so it's definitely up for grabs, but it's clearly NOT declared to be Constitutional.
Secondly: SS is a ponzi scam based on the way it is funded, not based on intentions or any political motivations.
The manner in which the program is funded makes it indistinguishable from a ponzi scam, which is all that's important here.
AFAIC it was a ponzi scam from the start, I gave facts and data as to why that is in this comment (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2437746&cid=37462432)
It was a court case and SCOTUS didn't bother to make a judgment. He basically said: "gov't says that SS taxes are not earmarked for anything, thus they are right, and I am not going to make a ruling" - and somehow this is supposed to be Constitutional?
Obviously it's not Constitutional, the judge never found it to be Constitutional, the case should have been thrown out and SS taxes should have been found unconstitutional. But SCOTUS hasn't been an independent body for at least as long as there is Federal reserve (also not an independent body.)
-- I am not arguing with you though, just pointing out that SS taxes were never found to be Constitutional from the start.
There is no difference between funding any ponzi scam and funding SS. The important part is the reality, not the intentions. There should be no wealth 'redistribution', it's destructive to the economy as it moves investment capital out of hands that can invest and produce and it moves it into hands that do not invest and produce but instead consume without production, which is a net negative for the economy.
People must have all of their income, no income taxes, no payroll taxes, no SS or Medicare taxes and thus people are free individuals, who must support themselves and they DO. In China there is no SS or Medicare, their savings are now highest in the world. USA didn't use to have these programs and income taxes didn't exist and USA became the largest creditor/producer nation in the world and people came to USA for freedoms from government coercion. Now look at it.
SS is a ponzi scam regardless of the intentions, because that's how it's funded.
The questions you have to ask yourself are these: Is it the governments right or responsibility to do these things? If these things are not done by Social Security how will they get done? Do you want to live in a society where these protections are not provided?
1. There is no authorization by people to government for these things in the Constitution of USA, like it or not. It's unconstitutional, as I showed in the comments above and thus gov't has neither right nor responsibility to do this, and if it does this, it's against the law.
2. People must not be robbed of their income, and so income/payroll/SS/Medicare taxes must not exist, and that would allow people to have their own investments. Free people should take care of themselves.
3. Yes. I want to live in a society that does not force me into its collective programs. I don't want to live in a society that forces me into ponzi scams to promote Marxist ideals. AFAIC the less coercion by gov't there is, the happier I am because the freer I am. Individual rights must trump the collective rights every single time. The smallest minority is an individual.
Didn't you know that USPS used to do delivery 2 times a day, every day?
That's right. Twice a day. They stopped it because they couldn't finance it anymore. That was way before Reagan.
USPS was always destined for a catastrophic failure, because the prices of stamps are directed by government, which tries to hide the rate of real inflation it creates by money printing.
Also USPS social obligations are ridiculous, so with the prices of stamps being fixed, inflation going up and labor costs piling up, it was inevitable that it would go bankrupt.
Now the Congress may decide to keep this zombie program continue, but it's obviously not providing enough value if it's this unprofitable that it can't sustain itself.
Those jobs must be eliminated because they are unproductive, if they can't generate enough profit to at least maintain itself.
They are going to force the remaining productive workers to support these unproductive ones, but what else is new in the land of government?
Do you know, all those people who are holding most of their money in T-Bills, what they will be called in maybe just 2 years?
Bankrupt.
Just because something is popular, doesn't make it a good investment. In fact it makes it a lousy investment because all of the good news have been priced into that long time ago AND because the US economy is dying, so there is no way to pay that shit back, that's why it's mostly short term debt, that other nations hold. China holds mostly 3-12 months t-bills, not long term bonds.
It is just a bunch of IOUs. And just like the Federal reserve note - an IOU to pay gold, it doesn't pay anything back.
You take your 42 dollars to the Federal reserve bank and ask for an ounce of gold. See how that works out for you. USA has defaulted on its obligations in 1971. It is defaulting on its currency all the time, and it will default on its debt too, by printing more of that defaulted currency.
Do you know the REAL millionaires, where their money is? Gold. Dividend paying stocks of real producing companies, that are not located in countries, that are moving towards Marxism rather than away from it.
SS is not an insurance program and never was. It's a transfer program that is based on willingness and ability of future generations to pay YOUR debts. That's a ponzi scam.
An insurance program that is legitimate, requires to have assets that are worth something. It requires real investments, not investing into another ponzi scheme - the US t-bill or Federal reserve note.
When an agency lowers the rating of sovereign debt, it really lowers the rating of your CURRENCY, because in case of USA, it can print money no problem. So the real ratings that are going down are the ratings of the currency, and rating of the debt is just a consequence of that.
As to Ronald Reagan - you are such a moron. The guy perpetrated the SS ponzi scam ever further, by increasing taxes, as I said before, and will give this FACT
FACT and DATA
right here again:
In 1984 the payroll tax was raised from 10.8 to 11.4% and kept creeping up. They increased the amount of income subject to tax from 32400USD to 37800USD in one year (16.6%). So SS was raised in total by over 20% in one year. Also SS was originally (in 40s and 50s) paid by employees, not by self employed. However self employed didn't have to pay employer payroll portion of the tax. In 1983 they started collecting the "employer" payroll portion of the tax, so the SS tax went up from 6.8% to 14% 106% increase in one year. This + the SS tax increase of 16.6% described above, the effective rate of tax increase on self employed individuals was 140% tax hike in one year, and kept getting worse.
Reagan also imposed income taxes on SS benefits for higher earning individuals, which is means testing and reduction in benefits.
Reagan basically cut SS benefits for higher income people by applying income tax to SS benefits, while increasing taxes on higher income people by 140%.
If it was legitimate negligence that caused death (and not testing drugs for safety is), then there is no ambiguity. It's not premeditated murder, but it's murder.
Cartels don't work, the oil cartel proves it. Nobody wants to be the only guy who meets and does not exceed his quotas, so prices go down.
Forcing people to pay fines for talking on their phones while driving is going too far. If they are being negligent/careless on the road, that's already a cause enough, and if they are involved in an accident while being careless, that's again a good enough cause.
Staggering naivete. The overwhelming majority of minimum-wage jobs are dead-end jobs, and that would only be more true for jobs that paid less.
- staggering ignorance. Before minimum wage laws (and before minimum wage was above $1), there were plenty of apprentices. Kids were working at mechanic shops, wood shops, actually learning the trade while helping and being paid almost nothing, but they didn't have to accrue any debt and they didn't waste their time.
Sure he should, because he's doing what all the other rich people do; if we're not taxing him we're not taxing them either.
- I just read he is fighting the IRS about his taxes as well. What's good for the goose, good for the gander, or is it?
What are you saying, that taxation increases personal debt?
- Ha, you again missed the point. Taxation increases national debt. Any money given to the government is fungible, so they will use it to the maximum, always spending and always growing the debt.
They are only limited in their spending by the amount currently available, of-course they borrow, but at some point that window will close, so they will only print/collect/confiscate.
Any money given to the gov't makes the economy worse, that's what I am saying, because it causes larger spending, which in return causes more gov't debt, which forces them to keep interest at 0, which prevents any investment savings and investments and this prevents economy from recovery.
Any amount of money at this point, that is given to gov't prevents recovery.
So money is wealth as long as it belongs to the person who earned it, but as soon as you take it from them and give it to someone else it magically stops being?
- of-course.
Money that is earned and SAVED is capital - it was earned by creating wealth (products), and it is used to reinvest.
Any of this money taken away by gov't will prevent recovery, but also when "redistributed" to others to spend on consumer goods, this money becomes more public DEBT, because this money will go to OTHER COUNTRIES, and they will keep it, print their own currency, buy out this, will use it to buy more US debt.
Any money taken away to SPEND ON CONSUMER GOODS that are NOT produced in USA prevents recovery in more ways than one.
USSR has taxed at 100%, which breaks things. Britain has taxed the rich 95%, and not only did the country not collapse, it was one of the most glorious periods in its history. Even in the US, right now tax rates on the rich are at historic lows.
- USSR didn't tax much at all.
You didn't live there, so how would you know. It just paid in PRINTED RUBBLES. They printed trillions of pieces of paper a year, it was completely worthless.
I am sure that nobody in Britain actually ever paid 95%, such a thing is ridiculous on its face, and forcing a king to sign Magna Carta was a good primer on how people deal with tyrants.
USA was formed by tax evaders by the way, who felt that King George was unfairly taxing them.
Oh please. The rich are all doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, because they're rich so they must be good. Poor people couldn't possibly do any good, because they're poor, so must be evil.
- you missed my point again, but what else is new?
When I say CHARITY by the RICH is them working, what I mean is they do NOT have to work. They are NOT doing this out of any goodness, they are doing this because they like doing it. But you can't tax mental satisfaction.
Are poor evil? If your logic deducts that from my comments, then I wonder who taught you logic in you socialist paradise?
So there's more than one way to ruin an economy, that proves nothing. I can dig up an example of a country with zero income tax going to hell in a handbasket if that's what you want.
Slashdot Mirror
I remember now why I wrote the leetkey extension long time ago.
Encryption people - encrypt your emails.
Except for your obvious lack of wisdom and good judgment, what I also see is lack of historic perspective. The patent system has only been in place for a few hundred years, but the real litigation didn't start until last century from about 19 hundreds to today. However the innovation has always been here and it will be here after the patent system is gone, just like the civilization has been here before this insane intruding government and it will be here long after that is gone too.
It's against my better judgment to go on with someone who is clearly as frothing-at-the-mouth-crazy as you appear to be, but I'll give it one last shot just for the hell of it.
oh, well, that and this
Like I said, it doesn't matter whether they were asked a question,
means SS is Constitutional. Clearly. Saying it is not is irrelevant because clearly, those who say it based on the fact that it was not decided to be Constitutional are "frothing-at-the-mouth-crazy".
Okay then.
No, he is paying lip service to paying taxes, because he is benefiting from OTHER people paying taxes.
After all - his company was bailed out in 2008 through AIG and other bail outs. The 'genius' was genius enough to be deep in mortgage backed securities by the time of the crash. He was heavily leveraged, if AIG went under, he would have gone bankrupt himself.
Also he benefits directly from any estate taxes (death taxes), as his firm buys out the businesses that are liquidated (and that's what people have to do to pay death tax), they buy the companies below market price, restructure and resell them or pieces of them. He is part of the jobs destruction market.
Also he is fighting with IRS right now not to pay those 35% but to pay something below that, you are correct.
However that's not the point. The point is that there shouldn't be any income taxes, corporate taxes, payroll taxes, none of it should exist at all. People shouldn't be taxed for working and they shouldn't be taxed for investing.
If any amount of government is reasonable to have, it's the amount that can be paid for by consumption taxes, and the poorest can get credits.
There is no honesty in politics, but can't they be stopped from false advertising? When they name something "Jobs Act" it doesn't mean there will be jobs, but if you are against the act on actual details of the bill, then you'll be labeled as if you are "against jobs".
Same with the Patriot Act - do you think it's easy to be in opposition to a bill named "Patriot Act"? What are you, a terrorist?
"America Invents Act" will only succeed in innovative litigation procedures.
There are 152 PAGES in that bill. (PDF warning)
How about doing something useful to get America 'inventing' again?
How about abolishing the patent system? How about reducing regulations and all other government nonsense and stop standing in the way of inventions and innovations and stop allowing the huge companies from crashing competition with their patents?
Of-course you don't have to stop, but all the inventions and innovations will take place somewhere else, not in America.
The correct way to read names of government bills is to reverse the literal meaning of the names.
This bill can be named: "America Inventing Prevention Act" or "Inventing Anywhere But America Act".
It would be easy to vote against those names.
Get them to give bills numbers and not names and then everybody would have to know the details of what's inside. Stop the false advertising, companies get sued for it, why not governments?
I'm not familiar with that case, but I do know that standard procedure for courts
- well, maybe you should familiarize yourself with the case.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/socsec/course/readings/301us619.htm
The corporation appeared and answered without raising any issue of fact. Later, the United States Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the United States Collector for the District of Massachusetts, petitioners in this court, were allowed to intervene. They moved to strike so much of the bill as has relation to the tax on employees, taking the ground that the employer, not being subject to tax under those provisions, may not challenge their validity, and that the complainant shareholder, whose rights are no greater than those of his corporation, has even less standing to be heard on such a question. The intervening defendants also filed an answer which restated the point raised in the motion to strike, and maintained the validity of Title VIII in all its parts. The District Court held that the tax upon employees was not properly at issue, and that the tax upon employers was constitutional. It thereupon denied the prayer for an injunction, and dismissed the bill. On appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the decree was reversed, one judge dissenting. 89 F.2d 393. The court held that Title II was void as an invasion of powers reserved by the Tenth Amendment to the states or to the people, and that Title II, in collapsing, carried Title VIII along with it. As an additional reason for invalidating the tax upon employers, the court held that it was not an excise as excises were understood when the Constitution was adopted. Cf. Davis v. Boston & Mane R. Co., 89 F.2d 368, decided the same day.
A petition for certiorari followed. It was filed by the intervening defendants, the Commissioner and the Collector, and brought two questions, and two only, to our [p*639] notice. We were asked to determine: (1) "whether the tax imposed upon employers by ' 804 of the Social Security Act is within the power of Congress under the Constitution," and (2)
whether the validity of the tax imposed upon employees by ' 801 of the Social Security Act is properly in issue in this case, and if it is, whether that tax is within the power of Congress under the Constitution.
and the answer that resulted from it was ..... we are not going to judge.
You can read the attached link, it's the entire case.
For the same reason that China and practically every government in the world is investing in the federal government:
- yes. The same reason - misunderstanding of basic economics.
It's the most secure investment in the world. That's why everybody buys them.
- you can't have something that 'everybody buys' being the most secure.
But you can have a bubble in it.
They don't have to "beat inflation" they are barely paying anything at the moment. Countries invest in them because they are secure, not because they are profitable. They're like putting money in the bank.
- ooooh, they are paying.
They are paying negative real interest rates with inflation being over 11%
I am not confusing t-bills and bonds. Fed is likely going to buy 1.7Trillion worth of long term bonds, but most of the US debt that Chinese hold is t-bills, 3 months.
Federal reserve notes USED to be notes - IOUs that one could redeem for gold at Federal reserve bank.
In fact the original Federal reserve bank set a HIGHER standard for amount of gold reserve than any other bank at the time. So it was a STRONGER gold standard, when Fed was introduced. Of-course Nixon completely defaulted on the promise to pay gold for Federal reserve note, when the French decided to get their money out of the notes.
So all of your little comments there are complete nonsense, and that's why you are replying to my comments and not making any useful ones of your own.
A Federal Reserve Note is *not* "an IOU to pay gold". It's fiat money, and has no inherent value.
- redundant.
That's what most of my comment said.
In 1971 Nixon took US dollar and said - now it's just a piece of paper.
Why, why are you commenting to me with something I said as if you have something original there?
It doesn't matter if the company is public, you are the largest shareholder - it's your company. It's your money as well, any money that the company makes is your money, which you could get in form of dividend. You are not going to get 35% of it due to corporate income tax. Then you'll be taxed 15% dividend tax on that federally.
Then there is State tax, the SS/Medicare, etc.
--
That's why Warren Buffer is a big old liar, he is choosing to pay himself a dividend and not a salary, so he pays 15% tax on dividends.
BUT his company pays 35% corporate income tax on the earnings, which is his money, he is the largest shareholder.
That's the dividends he is NOT getting.
He is paying (X-0.35*X) - 0.15*(X-0.35*X) or a compound tax of about 44.5% - that's just federal, that doesn't count State taxes or SS/Medicare (which he CLEARLY doesn't need to either pay or receive benefits from).
So in reality the "rich" are paying waaaaaay more than a 'fair share', unless you take the words 'fair share' to mean over 80% of somebody's income just because they can earn money better than you can.
Anybody owning a company and producing something is also paying waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than his fair share just by production alone, so just by producing goods - wealth, the company is already moving the economy forward, unlike any government, which only can remove wealth from investors and spend it (especially on foreign stuff) and destroy the economy.
that's the entire problem with turning market into a casino to gamble rather than invest.
Investor buys company shares in hopes of dividends, that's until government turns the market into a casino, where the only "investment" that takes place is arbitrage - buying low, selling high.
However actual investment is about dividends, and when corporation pays corporate tax, this is the money that is taken directly out of shareholders' pockets.
That's why Warren Buffer is a big old liar, he is choosing to pay himself a dividend and not a salary, so he pays 15% tax on dividends.
BUT his company pays 35% corporate income tax on the earnings, which is his money, he is the largest shareholder.
That's the dividends he is NOT getting.
He is paying (X-0.35*X) - 0.15*(X-0.35*X) or a compound tax of about 44.5% - that's just federal, that doesn't count State taxes or SS/Medicare (which he CLEARLY doesn't need to either pay or receive benefits from).
So in reality the "rich" are paying waaaaaay more than a 'fair share', unless you take the words 'fair share' to mean over 80% of somebody's income just because they can earn money better than you can.
I know that you CAN pretend, but it doesn't work to pretend, you cannot make something into something it is not by pretending.
Ever since the beginning of payouts, the amount of money that subsequent payers were paying into the scam was more than people who came before them, and the amount of money that was paid out, was eventually cut a number of times, people were means tested.
Here is how Ronald Reagan "saved" SS ponzi scam by more benefit cuts and more tax hikes:
------
In 1984 the payroll tax was raised from 10.8 to 11.4% and kept creeping up. They increased the amount of income subject to tax from 32400USD to 37800USD in one year (16.6%). So SS was raised in total by over 20% in one year. Also SS was originally (in 40s and 50s) paid by employees, not by self employed. However self employed didn't have to pay employer payroll portion of the tax. In 1983 they started collecting the "employer" payroll portion of the tax, so the SS tax went up from 6.8% to 14% 106% increase in one year. This + the SS tax increase of 16.6% described above, the effective rate of tax increase on self employed individuals was 140% tax hike in one year, and kept getting worse.
Reagan also imposed income taxes on SS benefits for higher earning individuals, which is means testing and reduction in benefits.
Reagan basically cut SS benefits for higher income people by applying income tax to SS benefits, while increasing taxes on higher income people by 140%.
---------
So you can pretend all you want, but people are paying more and more percentage wise and in absolute dollars, they are getting less and less out of it.
Another important point is to understand that SS is unconstitutional, (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2437746&cid=37462432)
the gov't argued that SS tax payments are not going to any fund, specifically to avoid the Constitutionality of direct illegal fund transfer from employer to employee. This means there was never a fund based on the case that was left undecided, as the judge said:
Of-course the judge in the Supreme Court was very lazy, he didn't care (*was complicit*) and wrote this: The argument for the respondent is that the provisions of the two titles dovetail in such a way as to Justify the conclusion that Congress would have been unwilling to pass one without the other. The argument for petitioners is that the tax moneys are not earmarked, and that Congress is at liberty to spend them as it will. The usual separability clause is embodied in the act. ' 1103. [cornell.edu]
We find it unnecessary to make a choice between the arguments, and so leave the question open.
Yet another important point (maybe not to you) is the entire morality of shifting at this point 17 Trillion dollars of payments that were paid out that never were paid into the system upon the children who are young or not even born yet.
That's right, 17 Trillion dollars was paid out more than was taken in by the system.
That's not JUST a ponzi scam, that's also money destruction - debt that is accumulated must be paid out and with interest. So it's a ponzi scam that is perpetrated upon people, not even born yet, who are forced into this and will get nothing out of it but a broken economy and society.
17 Trillion dollars were transfered via debt from the past to the future, I believe the future may not be willing to pay this.
To keep SS going right now they'll have to raise taxes on it, just like Reagan did. I hope you like paying more taxes into ponzi scams.
--
Last point: if it were an honest insurance program, with actual trust funds, assets, investments, the participation would not have to been mandatory.
Any voluntary participation in a pension program is not a problem, the problem is when an entire nation is forced into ONE AND THE SAME program.
One single monopoly system to keep the pension payments going.
One single place for politicians to get their money for their space programs and wars and bank bail outs.
Good luck with your pretending.
SS is basically like a typical standard financial product: a fixed annuity with insurance premiums.
- they called it premiums to make it LOOK like an insurance program, but those were NEVER premiums.
The gov't had to argue specifically that SS taxes were NOT premiums, were not earmarked for any specific purpose and there was not fund, they had to argue this in front of SCOTUS, who unfortunately was just a puppet in the hands of the government.
So I give this case as an example, and the important part of the ruling is there
(http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2437746&cid=37462432)
SS is unconstitutional, it's funded like a ponzi scam and it never had any trust fund by government argument that was used to pass it.
it just invests in US treasury bonds. This is pretty much a guarantee of a low rate of return.
- bonds are a guarantee that you will have inflation destroy your investment, because USA prints money and is not on any gold standard, so US debt is worthless because US Federal reserve note is worthless.
And saying that t-bills are investment?
It's like writing an check to yourself for a million dollars and saying you are a 'millionaire', but you are not. That check is an asset and a liability at the same time. And it transfers the payment from you to the next generation (what a way to SCREW YOUR CHILDREN.)
Of-course it's true.
Of-course it's a ponzi scam, and was from the very first monthly payment.
The first monthly payment was issued on January 31, 1940 to Ida May Fuller of Ludlow, Vermont. In 1937, 1938 and 1939 she paid a total of $24.75 into the Social Security System. Her first check was for $22.54. After her second check, Fuller already had received more than she contributed over the three-year period. She lived to be 100 and collected a total of $22,888.92.
You can't even PRETEND that it was not a ponzi scam with this nonsense.
Pay 25 dollars into the program and get 23K out of it over decades?
Great "investment".
But as I said as well:
It never had a trust fund.
Government explicitly argued that SS taxes were NOT going into any trust fund, that they were NOT earmarked for anything from the get go, that's the only way they could even start that program.
SS taxes are unconstitutional (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2437746&cid=37462432)
it's in a court decision that they are not going to make a ruling on whether the SS taxes are actually Constitutional or not, so it's definitely up for grabs, but it's clearly NOT declared to be Constitutional.
But the point of that case was to prove to the SCOTUS that SS NEVER HAD a trust fund :)
People don't get this simple thing, the only way that SS could ever pass was for gov't to argue it was NOT SS.
That's because SS payroll tax is an illegal (unconstitutional) way to do direct and illegal transfer of property from employer to employee.
Congress can always modify Social Security so as to keep it funded, even if there are fewer people paying into the system later than at present, e.g. by raising taxes or lowering payouts.
- yeah, that's what Reagan did:
In 1984 the payroll tax was raised from 10.8 to 11.4% and kept creeping up. They increased the amount of income subject to tax from 32400USD to 37800USD in one year (16.6%). So SS was raised in total by over 20% in one year. Also SS was originally (in 40s and 50s) paid by employees, not by self employed. However self employed didn't have to pay employer payroll portion of the tax. In 1983 they started collecting the "employer" payroll portion of the tax, so the SS tax went up from 6.8% to 14% 106% increase in one year. This + the SS tax increase of 16.6% described above, the effective rate of tax increase on self employed individuals was 140% tax hike in one year, and kept getting worse.
Reagan also imposed income taxes on SS benefits for higher earning individuals, which is means testing and reduction in benefits.
Reagan basically cut SS benefits for higher income people by applying income tax to SS benefits, while increasing taxes on higher income people by 140%.
Do you know WHY this ponzi scam is much WORSE than any private ponzi scam?
Because of THIS. Because the gov't FORCES you into it and it "adjusts" the ponzi scam by forcing you to pay MORE into it even when you KNOW it's a ponzi scam.
They means test you and pay you LESS benefits, but they force you to pay MORE into it.
It's THEFT.
Oh, no.
It's a scam because you are forcing the unborn children into it, to pay your expenses.
Here is little history:
The first monthly payment was issued on January 31, 1940 to Ida May Fuller of Ludlow, Vermont. In 1937, 1938 and 1939 she paid a total of $24.75 into the Social Security System. Her first check was for $22.54. After her second check, Fuller already had received more than she contributed over the three-year period. She lived to be 100 and collected a total of $22,888.92.
You can't even PRETEND that it was not a ponzi scam with this nonsense.
Of-course it's a ponzi scam, and was from the very first monthly payment.
The first monthly payment was issued on January 31, 1940 to Ida May Fuller of Ludlow, Vermont. In 1937, 1938 and 1939 she paid a total of $24.75 into the Social Security System. Her first check was for $22.54. After her second check, Fuller already had received more than she contributed over the three-year period. She lived to be 100 and collected a total of $22,888.92.
You can't even PRETEND that it was not a ponzi scam with this nonsense.
Pay 25 dollars into the program and get 23K out of it over decades?
Great "investment".
But as I said as well:
It never had a trust fund.
Government explicitly argued that SS taxes were NOT going into any trust fund, that they were NOT earmarked for anything from the get go, that's the only way they could even start that program.
SS taxes are unconstitutional (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2437746&cid=37462432)
it's in a court decision that they are not going to make a ruling on whether the SS taxes are actually Constitutional or not, so it's definitely up for grabs, but it's clearly NOT declared to be Constitutional.
But the point of that case was to prove to the SCOTUS that SS NEVER HAD a trust fund :)
People don't get this simple thing, the only way that SS could ever pass was for gov't to argue it was NOT SS.
That's because SS payroll tax is an illegal (unconstitutional) way to do direct and illegal transfer of property from employer to employee.
It never had a trust fund.
Government explicitly argued that SS taxes were NOT going into any trust fund, that they were NOT earmarked for anything from the get go, that's the only way they could even start that program.
SS taxes are unconstitutional (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2437746&cid=37462432)
it's in a court decision that they are not going to make a ruling on whether the SS taxes are actually Constitutional or not, so it's definitely up for grabs, but it's clearly NOT declared to be Constitutional.
But the point of that case was to prove to the SCOTUS that SS NEVER HAD a trust fund :)
People don't get this simple thing, the only way that SS could ever pass was for gov't to argue it was NOT SS.
That's because SS payroll tax is an illegal (unconstitutional) way to do direct and illegal transfer of property from employer to employee.
First of all: SS taxes are unconstitutional (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2437746&cid=37462432)
it's in a court decision that they are not going to make a ruling on whether the SS taxes are actually Constitutional or not, so it's definitely up for grabs, but it's clearly NOT declared to be Constitutional.
Secondly: SS is a ponzi scam based on the way it is funded, not based on intentions or any political motivations.
The manner in which the program is funded makes it indistinguishable from a ponzi scam, which is all that's important here.
AFAIC it was a ponzi scam from the start, I gave facts and data as to why that is in this comment (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2437746&cid=37462432)
It was a court case and SCOTUS didn't bother to make a judgment. He basically said: "gov't says that SS taxes are not earmarked for anything, thus they are right, and I am not going to make a ruling" - and somehow this is supposed to be Constitutional?
Obviously it's not Constitutional, the judge never found it to be Constitutional, the case should have been thrown out and SS taxes should have been found unconstitutional. But SCOTUS hasn't been an independent body for at least as long as there is Federal reserve (also not an independent body.)
--
I am not arguing with you though, just pointing out that SS taxes were never found to be Constitutional from the start.
The aims are irrelevant.
There is no difference between funding any ponzi scam and funding SS.
The important part is the reality, not the intentions.
There should be no wealth 'redistribution', it's destructive to the economy as it moves investment capital out of hands that can invest and produce and it moves it into hands that do not invest and produce but instead consume without production, which is a net negative for the economy.
People must have all of their income, no income taxes, no payroll taxes, no SS or Medicare taxes and thus people are free individuals, who must support themselves and they DO. In China there is no SS or Medicare, their savings are now highest in the world. USA didn't use to have these programs and income taxes didn't exist and USA became the largest creditor/producer nation in the world and people came to USA for freedoms from government coercion. Now look at it.
SS is a ponzi scam regardless of the intentions, because that's how it's funded.
The questions you have to ask yourself are these:
Is it the governments right or responsibility to do these things?
If these things are not done by Social Security how will they get done?
Do you want to live in a society where these protections are not provided?
1. There is no authorization by people to government for these things in the Constitution of USA, like it or not. It's unconstitutional, as I showed in the comments above and thus gov't has neither right nor responsibility to do this, and if it does this, it's against the law.
2. People must not be robbed of their income, and so income/payroll/SS/Medicare taxes must not exist, and that would allow people to have their own investments. Free people should take care of themselves.
3. Yes. I want to live in a society that does not force me into its collective programs. I don't want to live in a society that forces me into ponzi scams to promote Marxist ideals. AFAIC the less coercion by gov't there is, the happier I am because the freer I am. Individual rights must trump the collective rights every single time. The smallest minority is an individual.
USPS - it was not solvent much before Reagan.
Didn't you know that USPS used to do delivery 2 times a day, every day?
That's right. Twice a day. They stopped it because they couldn't finance it anymore. That was way before Reagan.
USPS was always destined for a catastrophic failure, because the prices of stamps are directed by government, which tries to hide the rate of real inflation it creates by money printing.
Also USPS social obligations are ridiculous, so with the prices of stamps being fixed, inflation going up and labor costs piling up, it was inevitable that it would go bankrupt.
Now the Congress may decide to keep this zombie program continue, but it's obviously not providing enough value if it's this unprofitable that it can't sustain itself.
Those jobs must be eliminated because they are unproductive, if they can't generate enough profit to at least maintain itself.
They are going to force the remaining productive workers to support these unproductive ones, but what else is new in the land of government?
Do you know, all those people who are holding most of their money in T-Bills, what they will be called in maybe just 2 years?
Bankrupt.
Just because something is popular, doesn't make it a good investment. In fact it makes it a lousy investment because all of the good news have been priced into that long time ago AND because the US economy is dying, so there is no way to pay that shit back, that's why it's mostly short term debt, that other nations hold. China holds mostly 3-12 months t-bills, not long term bonds.
It is just a bunch of IOUs. And just like the Federal reserve note - an IOU to pay gold, it doesn't pay anything back.
You take your 42 dollars to the Federal reserve bank and ask for an ounce of gold. See how that works out for you. USA has defaulted on its obligations in 1971. It is defaulting on its currency all the time, and it will default on its debt too, by printing more of that defaulted currency.
Do you know the REAL millionaires, where their money is? Gold. Dividend paying stocks of real producing companies, that are not located in countries, that are moving towards Marxism rather than away from it.
SS is not an insurance program and never was. It's a transfer program that is based on willingness and ability of future generations to pay YOUR debts. That's a ponzi scam.
An insurance program that is legitimate, requires to have assets that are worth something. It requires real investments, not investing into another ponzi scheme - the US t-bill or Federal reserve note.
When an agency lowers the rating of sovereign debt, it really lowers the rating of your CURRENCY, because in case of USA, it can print money no problem. So the real ratings that are going down are the ratings of the currency, and rating of the debt is just a consequence of that.
As to Ronald Reagan - you are such a moron. The guy perpetrated the SS ponzi scam ever further, by increasing taxes, as I said before, and will give this FACT
FACT and DATA
right here again:
In 1984 the payroll tax was raised from 10.8 to 11.4% and kept creeping up. They increased the amount of income subject to tax from 32400USD to 37800USD in one year (16.6%). So SS was raised in total by over 20% in one year. Also SS was originally (in 40s and 50s) paid by employees, not by self employed. However self employed didn't have to pay employer payroll portion of the tax. In 1983 they started collecting the "employer" payroll portion of the tax, so the SS tax went up from 6.8% to 14% 106% increase in one year. This + the SS tax increase of 16.6% described above, the effective rate of tax increase on self employed individuals was 140% tax hike in one year, and kept getting worse.
Reagan also imposed income taxes on SS benefits for higher earning individuals, which is means testing and reduction in benefits.
Reagan basically cut SS benefits for higher income people by applying income tax to SS benefits, while increasing taxes on higher income people by 140%.
If it was legitimate negligence that caused death (and not testing drugs for safety is), then there is no ambiguity. It's not premeditated murder, but it's murder.
Cartels don't work, the oil cartel proves it. Nobody wants to be the only guy who meets and does not exceed his quotas, so prices go down.
Forcing people to pay fines for talking on their phones while driving is going too far. If they are being negligent/careless on the road, that's already a cause enough, and if they are involved in an accident while being careless, that's again a good enough cause.
Staggering naivete. The overwhelming majority of minimum-wage jobs are dead-end jobs, and that would only be more true for jobs that paid less.
- staggering ignorance. Before minimum wage laws (and before minimum wage was above $1), there were plenty of apprentices. Kids were working at mechanic shops, wood shops, actually learning the trade while helping and being paid almost nothing, but they didn't have to accrue any debt and they didn't waste their time.
Sure he should, because he's doing what all the other rich people do; if we're not taxing him we're not taxing them either.
- I just read he is fighting the IRS about his taxes as well. What's good for the goose, good for the gander, or is it?
What are you saying, that taxation increases personal debt?
- Ha, you again missed the point. Taxation increases national debt. Any money given to the government is fungible, so they will use it to the maximum, always spending and always growing the debt.
They are only limited in their spending by the amount currently available, of-course they borrow, but at some point that window will close, so they will only print/collect/confiscate.
Any money given to the gov't makes the economy worse, that's what I am saying, because it causes larger spending, which in return causes more gov't debt, which forces them to keep interest at 0, which prevents any investment savings and investments and this prevents economy from recovery.
Any amount of money at this point, that is given to gov't prevents recovery.
So money is wealth as long as it belongs to the person who earned it, but as soon as you take it from them and give it to someone else it magically stops being?
- of-course.
Money that is earned and SAVED is capital - it was earned by creating wealth (products), and it is used to reinvest.
Any of this money taken away by gov't will prevent recovery, but also when "redistributed" to others to spend on consumer goods, this money becomes more public DEBT, because this money will go to OTHER COUNTRIES, and they will keep it, print their own currency, buy out this, will use it to buy more US debt.
Any money taken away to SPEND ON CONSUMER GOODS that are NOT produced in USA prevents recovery in more ways than one.
USSR has taxed at 100%, which breaks things. Britain has taxed the rich 95%, and not only did the country not collapse, it was one of the most glorious periods in its history. Even in the US, right now tax rates on the rich are at historic lows.
- USSR didn't tax much at all.
You didn't live there, so how would you know. It just paid in PRINTED RUBBLES. They printed trillions of pieces of paper a year, it was completely worthless.
I am sure that nobody in Britain actually ever paid 95%, such a thing is ridiculous on its face, and forcing a king to sign Magna Carta was a good primer on how people deal with tyrants.
USA was formed by tax evaders by the way, who felt that King George was unfairly taxing them.
Oh please. The rich are all doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, because they're rich so they must be good. Poor people couldn't possibly do any good, because they're poor, so must be evil.
- you missed my point again, but what else is new?
When I say CHARITY by the RICH is them working, what I mean is they do NOT have to work. They are NOT doing this out of any goodness, they are doing this because they like doing it. But you can't tax mental satisfaction.
Are poor evil? If your logic deducts that from my comments, then I wonder who taught you logic in you socialist paradise?
So there's more than one way to ruin an economy, that proves nothing. I can dig up an example of a country with zero income tax going to hell in a handbasket if that's what you want.
- there were over