The Income Tax is Slavery

Throughout the entirety of human history. Wow this government is powerful.

You can't point me to privately ran currency not because of law but because people trust in governments to back the currency they issue. As soon as the people stop trusting said government, said government is done for.

Step one government creates rule of law for people to conduct business in.

Step two government issues currency to expedite the conducting of business.

Step three steal underwear

Step five profit

 

Governments enforce their currency through force... gold and silver have been used as currency for millennia... with or without being government issue.

 

Yeah giving a couple flakes of gold for a shot of whiskey is more bartering though.

 

That's what money is.

 

Enough minutia, the suggestion that government is the problem implies that anarchy would be more economically viable and that is crazy.

 

You are assuming you will be moving to a plot of land you own. First of all, there are places in the world with no property taxes!! The Bedouin of the Rub al Khali in Saudi Arabia pay no taxes, live off the land, but even they receive the benefits of society. You would likely have to go somewhere like the Mongolian desert, Canada, or Siberia. However, it is unquestionably possible. It is also possible to live off land you don't own. The Bedouin tribes I mentioned don't own the land they live on(though many certainly own some land), they move about in the desert, which is communal land. You would be free to do the same!!

 

The currency can collapse because of misgoverning by a bunch of incompetent crooks in DC but the economy is moving on. There may be a short period of disruption due to a new currency being implemented but to suggest the economy can't survive without government sponsored currency is simply naive and totally misguided.

 

A collapse of fiat currency would require a redefining of how we measure economic growth. In addition, while productive capacity under a new currency system would be very stable, whether the gold standard or a general hard currency standard, productive capacity would be drastically inferior to the current system because it is hindered by very slow and gradual changes in the monetary supply. Therefore, for a new currency system to be truly successful, every other nation would have to abandon a fiat currency structure in favor of a more intrinsic currency system. That would be the only way to maintain a proper balance of economic power. The economy would certainly survive under a new currency system. What would not is the United States as an economic superpower. Essentially, we would be re-starting with a relatively undersized economy.

 

The economy is not just about growth, it's about using available resources efficiently and sustainably. No economy can achieve that demand-supply balance with constant government intervention. In the long run, government involvement on the economy will lead to misallocation of resources. Socially-engineering housing bubble is a great example of failed central planned economy.

Why do you think productive capacity would be drastically inferior from one currency to another? Amount of money supply is not an indication of productive capacity, it's indication of an inflation, to think otherwise is simply ridiculous.

Super power status has nothing do with how much fiat money a country has. A country can sustain a super power status due to its vast resources, technologies, and constant innovation. If the US can produce products and services that everyone wants, surely it will continue to be a leader of the world economy.

 

The money supply is not an indicator of productive capacity, but it is correlated to how much productive capacity we as a nation can have. Lets say we adopt a pure gold standard. A rough estimate of the intrinsic value of gold coins in circulation that I did yesterday was $510,000,000,000. If we base a new hard currency system based upon the intrinsic value of these gold coins, this means we can only make as much as $510,000,000,000 worth of transactions, otherwise known as consumption, investment, government spending, and net exports, or GDP. This is assuming we circulate all gold coins.

Now, as I stated, under such a system, economic stability and growth would be great. We would still be producing, investing, and prospering. The problem is pure size. Under such a system, the United States would be ranked in the 20 to 30 range in terms of Gross Domestic Product, a major economic indicator. China, which if the IMF say maintained the dollar on the international stage, would have a gross domestic product of over 6 trillion in comparison to our 510 billion gross domestic product. So yes, it would be great to adopt a new currency system. However, just because we as a nation could uphold our superpower status, doesn't mean in reality, and to the rest of the world we would be.

The reality would be that the United States would be restarting its economy, vastly undersized in comparison to the rest of the developed world, and under a gold standard style economic growth structure, which is slow but stable. The inflation growth we have had since 1914 would be non-existent, but so would a 14 trillion dollar GDP. Some problems that could arise would be the importing of inflation. Essentially, the United States could see China turn the tables on us. Instead of our reckless monetary policy (i.e. QE, QE2) hurting other nations, the monetary policy of other nation will hurt us.

 

I do not suggest a fully gold-backed currency. The wealth of the nation, ultimately depending on how much resources, technologies, innovation and capacity to produce what everyone wants and needs, not how much gold we have. Having said that, unless we can't come up with some mechanism to prevent The Federal Reserve print money at will, I'd like to see a fractional gold/silver/commodity backed currency. In the long run, such system would preserve the value of the dollar while keeping inflation in check.

Please elaborate why do think all of the sudden, US economy status would drop to 20-30 rank something... Do you even realize US companies footprints are all over the globe? US economy power is not measure just the US GDP, it measures on capacity of US companies producing products and services everyone wants, it's irrational fear to think China would surpass US economy over night.

 

The capacity of US companies producing products and services everyone wants is investment spending and consumer spending, snoop. Guess What? Investment spending and consumer spending are components of GDP. Part of the intrinsic quality of such measures is the corporate footprint of the United States around the globe. Therefore, I do not think that it is an irrational fear that China could surpass the US economy, but an honest fear.

 

wow

I'm amazed that anyone would lend this nonsense credibility by replying!

 

I think you failed basic understanding of money, currency exchange and global economy. Any countries that uses US dollar is a part US economy. IMF measures other countries economy in US dollar, in that sense, if the Fed decides to replace all US dollars with new currency let's say a ratio 1/10, $10 is now worth $1, Chinese GDP measurement would be reducing at the same ratio. There is little or no impact to either productive capacity, investment, or consumer spending.

Chinese economy is growing no doubt about that, but they still have a very long way to go before they can catch up with the US. In fact, why should we be fearful about China growing economy? US corporates are making as much money in Chinese market as they do in the US. Don't we want to grow even more so they consumer more American goods and services? If anything, China growing economy would provide more opportunities for American companies. It's a win win for everyone.

 

And if that house or productive field is destroyed by a natural event like a flood or a wildfire, are you diminished as a person? You are trying to claim property as an extension of your very being, which I honestly find rather silly. You are far too focused on things. Things are, by their nature, impermanent. The universe itself takes away the products of your labor. The house requires constant maintenance, or it will deteriorate and eventually fall apart. A productive field will turn back into a meadow unless it is continually worked. This is the nature of things. How can you claim the absolute and permanent right to own something that by its very nature is fleeting and ephemeral? Or do you think it is immoral of the universe to take away the products of your labor as well?

Morality is about consequences. Generally speaking, actions themselves are neither moral nor immoral. If I push a button, is that moral or immoral? Well, that depends on what the button does, does it not? If I take an action that I can be reasonably sure will result in great harm, that action is immoral, whether the great harm is a direct or indirect consequence of that action. Morality cannot be defined independently of outcomes.

To take your example, if the man rapes the woman, one outcome may well be the continuation of the human species, but another outcome will almost certainly be causing great emotional and physical harm to the woman. We can assign a great deal of certainty to the latter outcome, but very little certainty to the former. And even if the human species does survive because of that rape, it is hard to assess whether that will itself be harmful or beneficial. We all know that humans can be tremendously destructive as well as tremendously creative. Which will be the better outcome, a world with humans or without? There is no way to know. Therefore choosing between a highly certain outcome of immediate harm and an extremely uncertain outcome of a nebulous possible future good is not much of a choice.

In any case, the extinction of humanity would most certainly not result in the end of all intelligence and sapience on Earth. Humans are hardly unique - it is a sheer conceit to think that we are. Every time we have tried to draw a firm distinction between ourselves and other species, we have invariably found that distinction to be far from universal. There are any number of species that could easily succeed humans in building a technological civilization in an evolutionarily very short time.

LOL Well, I would point out that the reality of the Soviet Union is not at all what Marx had in mind, and that he has a lot of competition for the title of the most absurd economic theory. But I would agree with the essential point - Marx was very idealistic and naive, and his ideas generally were highly impractical.

 

Are you seriously trying to tell me that the lower 48% of earners get enough of an EITC to fully refund their payroll taxes? Because frankly I just don't believe it. It's interesting that conservatives tend to respond to criticisms of the wealth distribution in the US by decrying jealousy, and then turn around and complain about poor people not paying federal income tax. Isn't that jealousy as well? And very misplaced jealousy, I might add. If you really think that low income earners are getting such a sweet deal, why don't you try quitting your job and supporting a family flipping burgers at a McDonald's for minimum wage?

Which is somewhat besides the point. You asked a fair question. However, you're still overlooking taxes other then federal income and payroll taxes. Anyone who participates in the economy is going to wind up paying taxes in some way. Homeowners pay property taxes, and renters pay property taxes indirectly through their rent. Anyone who buys anything pays sales taxes. Anyone who drives pays the gas tax, and anyone who buys anything that's been shipped by road (and what isn't these days?) pays the gas tax indirectly. Some jurisdictions use a per capita tax. (The school district I live in has a $10 annual per capita tax, for example.) And then there are state income taxes, and other local taxes - I'm sure I've missed quite a few taxation schemes that are used in various places in the US. I very seriously doubt that there is anyone in the US who uses money in any way who doesn't wind up paying some sort of tax at some point.

If you're asking why the poor pay much less then the rich, well there are two answers. The first is moral - is it just to impose even more of a financial burden on those who are already struggling just to provide the very basics? The second is practical - you can't squeeze blood from a turnip. The very poor don't pay much in taxes because they don't have much to begin with.

Well, the first thing that jumps to mind is that if you don't play by the credit reporting agency's rules, you can't buy a house, a car, get a credit card, even getting a job can be almost impossible.

However, more generally, my point is that saying that doing business with companies is voluntary when those companies provide things that as a practical matter you really don't have the option of doing without is highly disingenuous at best.

(Sigh) There is always an element of reasonableness involved. Saying that inaction is an action does not mean that you are responsible for everything that occurs in the universe. We are limited, imperfect beings, and as such have a limited ability to effect what happens. For example, if an adult stands by and does nothing while a child wanders out into the street and is hit and killed by a truck, the morality of that inaction depends very much on the circumstances. If the child walks slowly out into the road and stands there for several minutes before being struck by the oncoming car, that is clearly different then if the child darts out into traffic unexpectedly and is hit before the adult can react. In the latter case, it is possible for the adult to have intervened, but not reasonable.

A kidney transplant is major surgery for the donor as well as the recipient, and entails a lot of risk for both. A donor has a very real risk of complications and infections. Also, even in ideal matches, transplants often fail. Rejection by the recipient's body is always of great concern. So, we are talking about a difficult, expensive, risky procedure that may or may not help a random stranger - I would classify this as possible, but not reasonable.

That is an ideological position unsupported by facts. Many of the things that government does today are a specific response to dramatic failures of the private sector. The private sector gave us cities with undrinkable water, unbreathable air, and rivers catching on fire. The private sector gave us the dustbowl, child labor, breadlines, and education only for the rich. Is the Hoover Dam a failure? The interstates? Was WWII a failure? How about the freeing of the slaves?

Gold and silver coins are just as much fiat currency as federal reserve notes. Why do gold and silver have value? They are rare and useful, but hardly uniquely so. They have value because we have collectively decided that they do, in exactly the same way we've decided that fiat currency does. In the end, money does not have value, it represents value.

 

Well reading through this thread and giving it some thought I come to one conclusion. The TAX is a blessing for all.

People never consider what they get for their dollar and they are simply unappreciative animals that are even below apes on the evolutionary chain. Why below apes? Because they are smart enough to work within the world they live in and they know (through instinct) there is an order to things.

People that (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about taxes are generally those who pay little to no tax and those who are at a threshold where either those just below them in the pecking order receive enough to have a better life style or those just above them can take advantage of certain credits they can not and live a better lifestyle.

We do have slavery in this country but to compare it to the 1800s is bull. What we have for some is an economic type of slavery. It is the point where opportunity diminishes unless effort beyond that put forth by previous generations is made. This time in our history on can no longer expect to have a better life than ones parents. Why? Greed, laziness and entitlements.

 

I couldn't agree with this statement more. The reason neo-conservative/Republicans are afraid of China is because they do not understand economics. First of all, Chinese economic growth is largely related to their massive debt. They are heavily in debt to the IMF/World Bank, and so they will face a debt crisis just as Europe is at some point. So that would cancel out any non-permanent economic growth they've had, just as it is being done in Europe.

Despite that happening, permanent Chinese growth is due to the free market. There is nothing wrong with economic growth anywhere in the world that is due to the free market, because the free market brings prosperity and peace along with it. And economic prosperity for one country can mean economic proseperity for its trading partners (the US). I think it's that neo-cons do not have faith in the free market that they base their irrational fears of China on.

 

Gold and silver coins are not just as much fiat as Federal Reserve Notes. Gold and silver coins do not require government violence to be accepted as money, they simply are accepted. Federal Reserve Notes, on the other hand, are inherently worthless and therefore are declared money by fiat, and enforced through legal tender laws.

Being rare is not the reason gold and silver are accepted as money. If that were true, then people would use something even more rare, like diamonds, as currency. But why do you think people don't use diamonds as currency?

What's useful about gold? I understand it is used as a conductor sometimes, in very small amounts, and jewelry, but that's about it. It's hardly "useful" as anything but a medium of exchange. The fact that it's really not useful is the reason it makes an excellent medium of exchange.

Who decided that fiat currency has value? I sure didn't. The government did though.

Real money, like gold and silver, represent the labor required to extract and refine the metal. Labor will always have value, so I agree with your statement if and only if you are referring to real money. However, fiat paper does not represent labor; its value derives from the threat of government violence. Money has value so long as people are willing to accept it as a medium of exchange....and people are not always willing to accept paper as a medium of exchange.

 

THen you have no concern for what are his "things". The fleeting and ephemeral nature of his "things" is not a basis for your claim on his "things".

 

No it does not. I am not suggesting we abolish all taxes and Government. Just the Income Tax, because it is slavery, because it conditionally means that the Government owns you and all of your work.

 

Gold and silver are what the market chose... what the people chose.

Fiat currency is forced on society through regulation and threat of violence.

 

So your local stores take gold and silver coins do they? Actually, is there anyplace in the world you can spend gold and silver coins as currency today?

I believe that diamonds are actually more common then gold, and gold is an excellent conductor, is almost completely chemically inert, and is highly malleable and easy to work. That makes it quite useful in several applications.

I meant that money represents value in a symbolic sense - it represents value in the same sense that a series of squiggly lines like "chair" represents the thing I'm sitting on.

You're right, it's not. As I said earlier, property laws are important. But they are not based in a fundamental right, nor are they absolute.

 

You are having this weird discourse about greed and selfishness, whereas I'm talking about rights. You have a right natural to the fruit of your own labor. The fact that it falls apart is irrelevant. Your body falls apart, yet you have a right to your body. You can't take your body with you when you die, yet you have a right to your body. Likewise, you have a right to your labor and to the fruits of your labor. It's not the "thing" that's important, it's your labor embedded your transformation of one thing to another.

I don't agree with your assessment of the unimportance of humanity whatsoever, let alone your assumption that another species would certainly evolve to build another civilization. Regardless, you yourself show the flaw in consequentialism: you can't know the consequences and you can't judge the positivity of the consequences without having some objective values independent of the consequences, such as the value you place on humanity.

So, thus, questions of justices can't be answered by outcome and have nothing to do with outcome. They have to do with each individual is being protected from trespass by any other individual.

He also had no understanding of the rights of the individual to his own person and to the fruits of his labor.

 

In my opinion, it is a simple moral failure on our part, that we are not Angels on Earth who have no need for the expense of Government.

However, in modern and temporal and secular times, solving official poverty would do more to secure that form of private property right and blessing of liberty.

Since, and hypothetically, a person should be able to claim unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed; why wouldn't anyone be able to pay their property taxes in perpetuity? It seems irrational that generational poverty could survive on an at-will basis in any at-will employment State.