The-governments-relentless-desire-to-confiscate-wealth

[lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!)]

worth a read

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19122474/The-Tru...cate-Wealth-809

Taxation is evil, when direct. It was wisely outlawed by the Founders who knew their history.

Edited August 27, 2009 by lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!)

[Injin]

worth a read

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19122474/The-Tru...cate-Wealth-809

Except Ron Paul, right?

[Jack Sparrow]

worth a read

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19122474/The-Tru...cate-Wealth-809

Taxation is evil, when direct. It was wisely outlawed by the Founders who knew their history.

I posted a topic concerning direct taxation some time back, it seems to have no support, but i beleive that systems such as PAYE are undemocratic, this was a wartime measure in the Uk and should be abolished. governments should be made to justify their expeiditure to debate and work hard for funding and not assume they have an open cheque from the electorate.

It is also a given that governemnts mistrust the electorate to the degree that they will introduce laws that assume guilt and introduce measures to stifle protest, you only have to examine the raft of legislation from NU Labour over the last ten years, they have introduced thousands of petty new laws for criminalising the electorate.

[lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!)]

Except Ron Paul, right?

eh

[Mick Dundee]

I posted a topic concerning direct taxation some time back, it seems to have no support, but i beleive that systems such as PAYE are undemocratic, this was a wartime measure in the Uk and should be abolished. governments should be made to justify their expeiditure to debate and work hard for funding and not assume they have an open cheque from the electorate.

It is also a given that governemnts mistrust the electorate to the degree that they will introduce laws that assume guilt and introduce measures to stifle protest, you only have to examine the raft of legislation from NU Labour over the last ten years, they have introduced thousands of petty new laws for criminalising the electorate.

Come on. We elected a nanny state style of political party and now your complaining when they act all parental to get you to do things you dont want to do and vice versa.

If you dont like the current Government, then vote for someone else. It is your democratic right and it should IMO be exercised regulary.

The Tories spent too long in power and dropped the ball all the time and now Labour has spent to long in power. 5 years maximum term is as long as we really want any party in power for.

[Injin]

Come on. We elected a nanny state style of political party and now your complaining when they act all parental to get you to do things you dont want to do and vice versa.

If you dont like the current Government, then vote for someone else. It is your democratic right and it should IMO be exercised regulary.

The Tories spent too long in power and dropped the ball all the time and now Labour has spent to long in power. 5 years maximum term is as long as we really want any party in power for.

[Mick Dundee]

Except Ron Paul, right?

Who ???

[Injin]

Who ???

The politician of choice for the gold bug crowd.

[Stars]

Taxation is evil, when direct.

...and when indirect

The distinction that has some economic and moral relevance is taxation on production vs taxation on monoply power

Edited August 27, 2009 by Stars

[Mick Dundee]

The politician of choice for the gold bug crowd.

Never heard of him.

[lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!)]

The politician of choice for the gold bug crowd.

you mean the one who wants to abolish the IRS

end the central bank

and have competing currencies

http://www.reasontofreedom.com/free_compet...p_ron_paul.html

Free Competition in Currency Act, by US Rep. Ron Paul

Submitted by Staff on Thu, 2007-12-13 01:00.

Madame Speaker, I rise to introduce the Free Competition in Currency Act. This act would eliminate two sections of US Code that, although ostensibly intended to punish counterfeiters, have instead been used by the government to shut down private mints. As anti-counterfeiting measures, these sections are superfluous, as 18 USC 485, 490, and 491 already grant sufficient authority to punish counterfeiters.

The two sections this bill repeals, 18 USC 486 and 489, are so broadly written as to effectively restrict any form of private coinage from competing with the products of the United States Mint. Allowing such statutes to remain in force as a catch-all provision merely encourages prosecutorial abuse. One particular egregious recent example is that of the Liberty Dollar, in which federal agents seized millions of dollars worth of private currency held by a private mint on behalf of thousands of people across the country.

Due to nearly a century of inflationary monetary policy on the part of the Federal Reserve, the US dollar stands at historically low levels. Investors around the world are shunning the dollar, and millions of Americans see their salaries, savings accounts, and pensions eroded away by rising inflation. We stand on the precipice of an unprecedented monetary collapse, and as a result many people have begun to look for alternatives to the dollar.

As a proponent of competition in currencies, I believe that the American people should be free to choose the type of currency they prefer to use. The ability of consumers to adopt alternative currencies can help to keep the government and the Federal Reserve honest, as the threat that further inflation will cause more and more people to opt out of using the dollar may restrain the government from debasing the currency. As monopolists, however, the Federal Reserve and the Mint fear competition, and would rather force competitors out using the federal court system and the threat of asset forfeiture than compete in the market.

A free society should shun this type of strong-arm action, and the Free Competition in Currency Act would take the necessary first steps to freeing the market for competing currencies. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Edited August 27, 2009 by lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!)

[Guest happy?]

worth a read

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19122474/The-Tru...cate-Wealth-809

Taxation is evil, when direct. It was wisely outlawed by the Founders who knew their history.

Ah The Founders - weren't they a Merseybeat group back in the day?

[Injin]

you mean the one who wants to abolish the IRS

end the central bank

and have competing currencies

and collects his salary every month

and wants to tell you what to do at gunpoint

and supports the military

he's the same as the rest, he just wants to point the guns in different places, at different people.

[lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!)]

and collects his salary every month does he claim the pension

and wants to tell you what to do at gunpoint evidence

and supports the military - to come home

he's the same as the rest, he just wants to point the guns in different places, at different people.

well he's the most free market, limited government candidate at the moment - unless you are about to stand

edit to add

http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press97/prjan30.htm

WASHINGTON, DC - US Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) today reaffirmed his opposition to what he calls the "immoral" congressional pension system by refusing to participate in it. While serving in Congress from 1976 to 1984, Paul chose not to participate in the system, despite a taxpayer-funded pay-out which is more lucrative than any private system. He said high-dollar perks like the pension are areas that could be safely cut immediately, without hurting a single American taxpayer.

"The situation is even worse today than it was before," Paul said. "When I served in the late '70s and early '80s, the congressman had to actually write a letter to enter the program, I simply chose not to sign-up. Today, however, everyone is automatically placed in the system and house members are required to write a letter requesting that they not be included in the program."

After five years of service, a Member of Congress becomes vested in the system, with pay-off beginning at age 62, or pay-off begins at any age after 25 years of service. The five years can be either all in Congress, or added with other federal service, such as time in the military. If someone had 26 years of service, and depending on which of two systems they were under, a Member of Congress leaving office in 1994 could expect a yearly pension of between $52,800 and $86,000.

"This is one reason why so many politicians stay in Washington so long: they get a better retirement plan from the government than they could ever get from an honest job back home. We need to cut perks like this pension system completely; it is immoral that someone spend so much time in Congress that they even should think about getting retirement benefits. And then to expect those benefits to be paid by taxpayers at rates no citizen can ever hope to actually earn is even more unreasonable," said Paul. "There is a lot of talk about term limits, which I completely support, but if we are to seriously reform Congress, and return it to being a 'citizen-legislature,' then we must address these issues. Even the most strict term limits package currently being bandied about restricts members to six years in office, which of course vests them in the retirement system."

The Sufside, Texas, physician said that during a time when Congress is discussing ways to balance the budget and cut taxes, "a good place to start is right here on Capitol Hill, where we can help the taxpayers by not enriching ourselves at their expense."

"Members of Congress are elected by the people to handle the affairs of this nation in a responsible, efficient manner, not to enrich themselves for a lifetime," he said. "To participate in a pension plan at taxpayers expense would for me be hypocritical and immoral. I hope everyone in the 105th Congress will do as I have done: reject the pension and prepare for retirement without burdening the taxpayers for decades to come. To do any less is to perpetuate what is at it's most basic level an arrogant insult to the people we were elected to represent."

Edited August 27, 2009 by lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!)

[Stars]

The direct vs indirect taxation argument is moraly and pragmatically hollow

By laying an 'indirect tax' on consumption, you may as well be directly penalising producers for being productive.

[lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!)]

The direct vs indirect taxation argument is moraly and pragmatically hollow

By laying an 'indirect tax' on consumption, you may as well be directly penalising producers for being productive.

if they tax non essentials people can have a choice if they wish to pay them

[Stars]

if they tax non essentials people can have a choice if they wish to pay them

Which is why the tax falls on the producer

[lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!)]

Which is why the tax falls on the producer

yep

but if he chose to produce consumption items it is his choice

Edited August 27, 2009 by lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!)

[Stars]

yep

but if he chose to produce consumption items it is his choice

It is a tax on productive behaviour. If he is foolish enough to be productive, you will penalise him.

[Injin]

yep

but if he chose to produce consumption items it is his choice

Eh?

Makes no sense.

[lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!)]

QUOTE (Stars @ Aug 27 2009, 05:24 PM) *

The direct vs indirect taxation argument is moraly and pragmatically hollow

By laying an 'indirect tax' on consumption, you may as well be directly penalising producers for being productive.

if they tax non essentials people can have a choice if they wish to pay them

QUOTE (lowrentyieldmakessense(honest @ Aug 27 2009, 05:30 PM) *

yep

but if he chose to produce consumption items it is his choice

Eh?

Makes no sense.

he could produce something else - an essential item

[Injin]

he could produce something else - an essential item

No, the bit where you are saying he's chosen to be taxed makes no sense.

It assumes that taxing isn't an entirely voluntary act on the part of the taxman and therefore the taxmans responsibility, not his victim.

It's classic older brother thinking, to be honest. Create some arbitary nonsense as the basis for hitting the younger brother and when the younger can't avoid it, then blame him for getting pummeled. Pure abuse of power, nothing more.

[Stars]

he could produce something else - an essential item

Similarly, somebody who is taxed directly on their income could choose a lower paid job.

If the rewards of a particular production are good, wouldn't you say that was a natural signal from the market to engage in it and this production is also essential to healthy economy?

But you want to penalise this activity, blunt the signal and create distortions, because you feel it isn't 'as essential'?

[lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!)]

No, the bit where you are saying he's chosen to be taxed makes no sense.

It assumes that taxing isn't an entirely voluntary act on the part of the taxman and therefore the taxmans responsibility, not his victim.

It's classic older brother thinking, to be honest. Create some arbitary nonsense as the basis for hitting the younger brother and when the younger can't avoid it, then blame him for getting pummeled. Pure abuse of power, nothing more.

thats not what i meant

i meant if he has chosen to produce an item that attracts a sales tax

rather than producing an item that doesn't

not that im a fan of taxation

[Stars]

thats not what i meant

i meant if he has chosen to produce an item that attracts a sales tax

rather than producing an item that doesn't

not that im a fan of taxation

But that's daft - using the same argument, you may as well say, because he has chosen to produce then he has chosen to be taxed.

Edited August 27, 2009 by Stars