Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Anyone who works providing a service or product for others operates under a trickle UP economy. One only has to look where a companies income comes from to understand this.
Can you give an example of this?
The socialistic welfare economy, what is going on now and growing, is based on trickle up economics which only make the government bigger and the rich richer, The lower 'poor' class are only pawns used in this socialist/communist economy. The middle working class are the middle men transfering the money to upper class.
In a proper free market economy work is done with as little govt intervention as possible. This is what works for the long term economic health as long as the people know how to handle their money.
Socialistic policies are a cancer to the economy. You may think it is healthy but there is a big unhealthy mass festering inside of it.
No. No taxes are required to fund the Federal Government. That is a lie.
Please cite a source for your assertion.
Opin Yunated is absolutely right here. While taxes are necessary for State and local government support, the Federal Government does not need taxes in any way, shape, of form to support its operations.
To understand this you need to understand how money is created and destroyed. The vast majority of people confuse money with the cash that is in circulation.
The majority of the money is simply keystrokes on a computer and is only virtual in its existence.
The Federal Government has the ability to simply print whatever funds it needs with a single keystroke.
The amount of so called debt, is an illusion. It is not inflationary because it has no bearing whatsoever on the M2 or the actual supply of cash in circulation.
The only purpose the income tax serves, it to control the income of the citizens and to give the government control of the workforce.
If the government were to allow people to reap the full rewards of their own labor, the most industrious of the workforce would in short order be able to retire and leave the workforce creating a downward spiral in the competency and productivity of the labor market.
It is only through taxation that the government can enforce wage slavery and keep the most productive people in the workforce for the maximum amount of time possible.
I read the article with interest, and understand his position. Unfortunately, this paper doesn't go far enough.
Yes, the Federal Reserve has the ability to create & destroy money because of the fractional reserve banking system. Strictly speaking, I understand that without explicit taxation, the Federal Reserve (or any sovereign nation aside from the Euro Zone) has the ability to "create money" at will where that money can be thought of as really just entries on an electronic ledger.
But it ignores the effect: creating money in sufficiently large quantities causes inflation, and inflation, in turn, is a tax in that it alters the proportion of purchasing power (money) held by the private sector as a percentage of the whole (private plus public). Think about it this way: if there is, say, $1 Trillion of "money" where 20% (200 million) is held by the sovereign federal government for its purposes and the remaining 80% (800 million) is in the private and various state & local governmental entities. If the federal sovereign now creates more money so the total is, say, $1.5 Trillion, the net effect is that 53% (800 million) is in the non-federal hands while 47% is in the hands of the federal government.
If the Federal sovereign moves its share of the total from 20% to 47% in the simple example above, that is a tax regardless if that change in percentage is a result of explicit taxation (IRS 1040s etc) or implicitly via money creation (the Fed).
At the end of the day, both are the same: the private sector (actually, everything but the federal sovereign) is left with less purchasing power as a percent of the total, and that is a tax.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom
Opin Yunated is absolutely right here. While taxes are necessary for State and local government support, the Federal Government does not need taxes in any way, shape, of form to support its operations...
I understand your point; but please see my example above.
Last edited by SportyandMisty; 04-26-2015 at 11:34 AM..
I read the article with interest, and understand his position. Unfortunately, this paper doesn't go far enough.
Yes, the Federal Reserve has the ability to create & destroy money because of the fractional reserve banking system. Strictly speaking, I understand that without explicit taxation, the Federal Reserve (or any sovereign nation aside from the Euro Zone) has the ability to "create money" at will where that money can be thought of as really just entries on an electronic ledger.
But it ignores the effect: creating money in sufficiently large quantities causes inflation, and inflation, in turn, is a tax in that it alters the proportion of purchasing power (money) held by the private sector as a percentage of the whole (private plus public). Think about it this way: if there is, say, $1 Trillion of "money" where 20% (200 million) is held by the sovereign federal government for its purposes and the remaining 80% (800 million) is in the private and various state & local governmental entities. If the federal sovereign now creates more money so the total is, say, $1.5 Trillion, the net effect is that 53% (800 million) is in the non-federal hands while 47% is in the hands of the federal government.
If the Federal sovereign moves its share of the total from 20% to 47% in the simple example above, that is a tax regardless if that change in percentage is a result of explicit taxation (IRS 1040s etc) or implicitly via money creation (the Fed).
At the end of the day, both are the same: the private sector (actually, everything but the federal sovereign) is left with less purchasing power as a percent of the total, and that is a tax.
I understand your point; but please see my example above.
The US dollar is unique in that it is the reserve currency of the world. That changes the dynamic of inflation by including the GDP of everything that is purchased by dollars world wide. In addition, you must take into account the fact that with a fiat currency, every debt which is defaulted on decreases the money supply by instantaneously erasing whatever amount of debt is defaulted on.
Central bankers wish to keep inflation going, but the reality of the situation is that they are going to extreme measures to prevent deflation because the problem in the economy is not one of inflation but of overvalued assets.
The FED has done everything in its power to inflate the value of assets in order to prevent the default of the loans that financed those assets, but that effort has had very negative consequences in that with the FED rate currently at .25% it has nothing left to use if and when the next crash occurs and the defaults on borrowed money causes assets to devalue and begins a cycle of devaluation and default which the FED will be powerless to stop.
Inflation is as much a phenomena of demographics as it is of economics. Demographics dictate that the US is going to need to go through a serious period of deflation and that is the real danger going forward.
The true cause of inflation is that the FED loans every dollar into existence. Every dollar created is worth less than its value at the very moment of its creation because it is loaned into existence at interest, and we all know the power of compounding interest. The only way to stop that phenomena, is to eliminate the FED and for the Treasury to once again create the money without interest as it was prior to the creation of the FED.
Dueling internet whackjob theories. The real world runs on fiat currencies and the services of central banks. This is because prior regimes were gigantic failures.
Know Nonsense, regarding the concept of “trickle down” (aka “urinate upon us”), economics:
Expenditures of the 1% are devoted to such necessities as jewelry, caterers, limousines, and larger estates. The Romney family certainly needed a garage elevator; the expectation that their vehicles use ramps was an inhuman consideration.
The working poors’ squandering for frivolities such as food and rent are extreme examples of what Veblen described as “conspicuous consumption”.
Adjusted to the U.S. dollar’s purchasing power, the Dow Jones and the S&P indexes continue to rise while wages and salaries rates are much less robust. This is unrelated to laws favoring employers and hindering labor organizations.
Similarly the annual trade deficits of goods that we’ve consistently experienced in excess of a half century are also statistical anomalies.
[Refer to:
Wikipedia’s articles entitled “Import Certificates"
and further discussed within the paragraphs entitled “Trade balances’ affects upon their nation’s GDP” excerpted from Wikipedia’s article entitled “Balance of trade “.
Respectfully, Supposn
... The FED has done everything in its power to inflate the value of assets in order to prevent the default of the loans that financed those assets, but that effort has had very negative consequences in that with the FED rate currently at .25% it has nothing left to use if and when the next crash occurs and the defaults on borrowed money causes assets to devalue and begins a cycle of devaluation and default which the FED will be powerless to stop.
I certainly never hopes it comes to that, but the FED does have other tools in their toolbox that have never been used. Some of these are theoretical tools and it is unknown if they will work.
Examples include money designed to lose value if not spent (e.g., lose X% per month), and when spent, they automatically reload to 100% of value and then start declining in value again.
These things are all theoretical, of course, and with luck they will never need to be used.
Know Nonsense, regarding the concept of “trickle down” (aka “urinate upon us”), economics:
Expenditures of the 1% are devoted to such necessities as jewelry, caterers, limousines, and larger estates. The Romney family certainly needed a garage elevator; the expectation that their vehicles use ramps was an inhuman consideration.
The working poors’ squandering for frivolities such as food and rent are extreme examples of what Veblen described as “conspicuous consumption”.
Adjusted to the U.S. dollar’s purchasing power, the Dow Jones and the S&P indexes continue to rise while wages and salaries rates are much less robust. This is unrelated to laws favoring employers and hindering labor organizations.
Similarly the annual trade deficits of goods that we’ve consistently experienced in excess of a half century are also statistical anomalies.
[Refer to:
Wikipedia’s articles entitled “Import Certificates"
and further discussed within the paragraphs entitled “Trade balances’ affects upon their nation’s GDP” excerpted from Wikipedia’s article entitled “Balance of trade “.
Respectfully, Supposn
Someone's been watching too much Rachel Maddow and Al Sharpton.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
