U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-23-2017, 12:40 AM
 
Location: Nescopeck, Penna.
11,370 posts, read 6,790,399 times
Reputation: 14412

Advertisements

But even if we agree that the public sector requires additional revenue, a better approach would be tax consumption, and I have no problems with a higher tax rate on non-essential personal services. That would put a higher price tag on the foibles of those who've already gotten somewhere. rather than on the necessities of those just trying to get somewhere.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-23-2017, 12:41 AM
 
33,046 posts, read 20,720,491 times
Reputation: 8928
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustMike77 View Post
At 65, I still only spend what I earn. The money I've saved over the years is for later, if I quit working someday. I thought this was the way you're supposed to do it.

For a second, imagine you earn minimum wage. You think you could still only spend what you earn?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2017, 12:43 AM
 
33,046 posts, read 20,720,491 times
Reputation: 8928
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op View Post
But even if we agree that the public sector requires additional revenue, a better approach would be tax consumption, and I have no problems with a higher tax rate on non-essential personal services. That would put a higher price tag on the foibles of those who've already gotten somewhere. rather than on the necessities of those just trying to get somewhere.

Ah, but who defines what is essential (and thus not taxed) and what is non-essential (and thus what IS taxed)?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2017, 12:49 AM
 
33,046 posts, read 20,720,491 times
Reputation: 8928
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
Remember, Congress has no power to CREATE money. Congress can coin money (stamp bullion) or borrow money. IT cannot create bullion. Nor can it give that power to anyone else.

Ever heard of seigniorage?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2017, 12:58 AM
 
33,046 posts, read 20,720,491 times
Reputation: 8928
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim1921 View Post
So, you think the government owns everything and should decide what we get to keep?

Where did you get that idea? I think government regulation redistributes vast wealth from rent serfs to landlords and to homeowners generally.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2017, 01:00 AM
 
62 posts, read 20,556 times
Reputation: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op View Post
But even if we agree that the public sector requires additional revenue, a better approach would be tax consumption, and I have no problems with a higher tax rate on non-essential personal services. That would put a higher price tag on the foibles of those who've already gotten somewhere. rather than on the necessities of those just trying to get somewhere.
I agree in theory. I have no idea what will work, that is for those with more knowledge than me, but eventually we are going to hit the wall.

Whether the public sector needs more revenue or needs to spend less is another question.
It seems that our nation wants a better social safety net and likes big defense spending, so something is out of whack.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2017, 01:03 AM
 
Location: Future Expat of California
588 posts, read 260,120 times
Reputation: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
Where did you get that idea? I think government regulation redistributes vast wealth from rent serfs to landlords and to homeowners generally.
As a recent property owner, renters don't have the responsibility of maintenance and upkeep for an entire property as a landlord or homeowner. Renters also don't have shell out money for repairs and pay property taxes. So while the landlords and homeowners have benefits from ownership such as equity buildup the renters don't have the obligations like homeowners.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2017, 01:13 AM
 
Location: Future Expat of California
588 posts, read 260,120 times
Reputation: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op View Post
But even if we agree that the public sector requires additional revenue, a better approach would be tax consumption, and I have no problems with a higher tax rate on non-essential personal services. That would put a higher price tag on the foibles of those who've already gotten somewhere. rather than on the necessities of those just trying to get somewhere.
The public sector doesn't deliver on the money that is currently sent to them for spending correctly so why send them more money to screw up and create unnecessary bloat.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2017, 02:45 AM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,116 posts, read 9,205,456 times
Reputation: 8988
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bronn View Post
As a medium of exchange, the currency seems to spend just fine.
Actually, no.
Since 1933, the "buying power" has tanked. (Inflation / devaluation)
It's a revenue taxable privilege subject to an excise tax to use "their" worthless notes instead of lawful money (coin).
If you save it in a bank, or invest it, the interest is subject to taxation.
But the best joke of all is that thanks to participation in FICA, all "contributors" are liable parties on redeeming those worthless notes (IOUs).
So when the "creditor" forecloses, you and your property are pledged as collateral.
(The federal government repudiated redeeming "their" notes, in 1933.)
. . .
FYI : the going price for a real money coin, like a silver dollar or gold eagle, is far higher than that "currency" that seems to "spend just fine."

If one had been paid in lawful money (i.e. $20 gold coin) at a rate common in the 1920s, a salary of $600 (coin)/ annum would be 30 coins @ $3,910.59 FRNs, each, worth at least $117,317.70 (2017).

https://www.wholesalecoinsdirect.com...-wm-pcgs-ms64/

Yup, we've been hosed, real good.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2017, 03:00 AM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,116 posts, read 9,205,456 times
Reputation: 8988
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
Ever heard of seigniorage?
Seigniorage is the profit made by a government from the difference between the face value of coins and their production costs.

But that is still not creating bullion, with respect to lawful money.
LAWFUL MONEY - "The terms 'lawful money' and 'lawful money of the United States' shall be construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States..."
Title 12 United States Code, Sec. 152.
But all lawful money was confiscated from "free" Americans in 1933. And FDR criminalized the possession of gold by "free" Americans. (Silver was demonetized in the Coinage Act of 1873)

Think about it - private possession and ownership of gold was illegal for U.S. citizens. Any refusal to return one’s gold was punishable by a fine of $10,000 and 10 years in prison. These exceptional measures were aimed at preventing the general public from storing gold. The solution was simple: make it illegal to directly own gold.

In 1934, Roosevelt proclaimed the confiscation of the gold held by the banks (Gold Reserve Act: in exchange for gold certificates that could not be exchanged for gold!)

This law remained active in the USA until 1975, a few years after the dollar’s value had stopped being linked to that of gold. Although private ownership of gold in the United States was legalized on August 15, 1974, the power to confiscate gold remains in the hands of the President. The President still retains the right, under the Emergency Banking Relief Act, to “investigate, regulate or prohibit… the importing, exporting, hoarding, melting or earmarking of gold” in times of a declared national emergency.

Senate Report 93-549
https://archive.org/stream/senate-re...3-549_djvu.txt
War and Emergency Powers Acts
"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years (as of the report 1933-1973), freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency."
FREEDOMS ... GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION ... HAVE BEEN ABRIDGED BY LAWS ... UNDER EMERGENCY RULE ...

But our enemies hate us for our freedom.
ROFLMAO
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top