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.
Since we are all to be treated equally by our governments, fair would be we all get punished the same.
The coach makes everyone run for a single screwup
Not, your the quarterback so you run 10 extra laps, being the captain.
The money that is earned and considered income is created by the Federal Reserve: fiat money. Paying taxes on income that is in the form of fiat money, created by the Federal Reserve is what those that use that form of 'money' sign up for by default. Those that create the paper, determine the rules by which it is used and how much of it they can take away.
Once again: created and essentially put into circulation by the Federal Reserve, and it's value is backed by the government. As long as you believe the shell game and smoke and mirrors, it has value.
Interesting to note - those that pay the most in terms of income taxes are the same group of people that would literally freak out if the Federal Reserve system ceased to exist and replaced by private banking.
Taxation is confiscation and theft. The Federal Reserve needs to be abolished. There is no doubt about that.
But just know what it is you are asking for if you have a high net worth. Right now, because 'money' is literally printed out of thin air - the government can insure bank accounts up to $250,000 each and they do that essentially free of charge. In a private banking system in the absence of the Federal Reserve - if you have for example $200,000 in an account and want it insured - be prepared to pay for insurance at a rate of about 1% a year, which would be $2,000. That would be just to insure the money through a large insurance company, if the bank goes under. Kind of like insuring a house, a vehicle, etc.
And 30 year mortgage loans at less than 4% would never exist in the absence of the Federal Reserve. No bank is going to loan money on a fixed asset for a period of three decades at less than 4%. Try a 10-15 year mortgage at between 8-10%. Once again - once the banking industry is or would be forced to be more aligned with reality (with no mystics of the temple at the Federal Reserve) - then money / loans will not be as easy to secure.
The list goes on. I'm for a flat income tax of 10% for incomes over a 25,000 / year deduction, a national sales tax to fund all other government services - and an end to the Federal Reserve. Not many people would be able to handle that though and my guess is that there would be riots in the streets within the first 12 - 18 months if the Federal Reserve was abolished.
The money that is earned and considered income is created by the Federal Reserve: fiat money. Paying taxes on income that is in the form of fiat money, created by the Federal Reserve is what those that use that form of 'money' sign up for by default. Those that create the paper, determine the rules by which it is used and how much of it they can take away.
Once again: created and essentially put into circulation by the Federal Reserve, and it's value is backed by the government. As long as you believe the shell game and smoke and mirrors, it has value.
Interesting to note - those that pay the most in terms of income taxes are the same group of people that would literally freak out if the Federal Reserve system ceased to exist and replaced by private banking.
Taxation is confiscation and theft. The Federal Reserve needs to be abolished. There is no doubt about that.
But just know what it is you are asking for if you have a high net worth. Right now, because 'money' is literally printed out of thin air - the government can insure bank accounts up to $250,000 each and they do that essentially free of charge. In a private banking system in the absence of the Federal Reserve - if you have for example $200,000 in an account and want it insured - be prepared to pay for insurance at a rate of about 1% a year, which would be $2,000. That would be just to insure the money through a large insurance company, if the bank goes under. Kind of like insuring a house, a vehicle, etc.
And 30 year mortgage loans at less than 4% would never exist in the absence of the Federal Reserve. No bank is going to loan money on a fixed asset for a period of three decades at less than 4%. Try a 10-15 year mortgage at between 8-10%. Once again - once the banking industry is or would be forced to be more aligned with reality (with no mystics of the temple at the Federal Reserve) - then money / loans will not be as easy to secure.
The list goes on. I'm for a flat income tax of 10% for incomes over a 25,000 / year deduction, a national sales tax to fund all other government services - and an end to the Federal Reserve. Not many people would be able to handle that though and my guess is that there would be riots in the streets within the first 12 - 18 months if the Federal Reserve was abolished.
All value in an economy begins and ends with people. They are the backing. The good faith and credit. The blood sweat and tears. Both govt and bankers obfuscate this very important reality. Even gold has no value without people. The issue really is someone else extracting your value. Essentially, it is siphoned and funneled to the top of the hierarchy.
While this senator may be well meaning I have to laugh at the irony of a govt rep talking about fairness and transparency. I agree, but govt has never done either well. I would add personal accountability, as well. Corporate structure of any kind, including municipal is layered and opaque. It does not promote personal accountability.
Please, HFT's do serve a purpose: They make the market. Do they make some money by doing so? Of course.
Perhaps you would suggest we make grocery stores illegal. After all, they just skim a few pennies off everything you buy. Based on that, you might suggest you could buy your groceries cheaper without that middle man being in the way.
I suspect you will scoff at that analogy but that only shows your lack of understanding of how the stock market actually works today. The supposed advantages of HFT were engineered by the SEC to benefit individual investors by eliminating the monopoly of centralized exchanges to which orders had to flow. Allowing orders to flow to more exchanges results in more accurate quotes and lower prices.
Here are some comments on the controversy from Gus Sauter, CIO of Vanguard Funds:
If you know anything about Vanguard you know they are a tireless advocate for the small investor, and the underlying principle of their entire company is about low cost investing. If Vanguard is not concerned, I am not concerned.
Please don't compare a grocery store to high frequency trading.
I don't think you fully understand the service that is being provided, or the overall impact to trading costs. If the Chief Investment Officer of Vanguard isn't concerned, I'm not worried.
What service have they provided that business can not?
All value in an economy begins and ends with people. They are the backing. The good faith and credit. The blood sweat and tears. Both govt and bankers obfuscate this very important reality. Even gold has no value without people. The issue really is someone else extracting your value. Essentially, it is siphoned and funneled to the top of the hierarchy.
Very true.
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.
