From: Nate Nagel on 26 Jun 2010 08:43
On 06/26/2010 07:47 AM, Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 22:35:06 -0400, lil abner<@daisy.mae> wrote:
>> Remember in 1870 when 30,000.00 bought a nice home?
> I'm not that old. But I remember when my dad spent less than that in
> $$ to buy a nice home.
It might have been 10 years ago when a guy I know bought a fixer-upper
in Pittsburgh for about that.
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
From: Brent on 26 Jun 2010 13:06
On 2010-06-26, Dave Head <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 04:25:45 +0000 (UTC), Brent
>>The income tax came in with the federal reserve. Neither is needed. We
>>had government before 1913.
> Yep. It ran mostly on consumption taxes, which is what the Fair Tax
No, the federal government did not run on consumption taxes. We don't
need a national sales tax and haven't had one in the past. We will end
up with both national sales tax _AND_ income tax should this 'fair tax'
be passed. Eliminate taxation and get the monkey off people's backs.
>>Also the income tax elimination only takes
>>the federal government back to roughly 1998 funding levels.
> I don't understand that. Most of our revenue comes from the income
Government has grown dramatically.
>>Do we really
>>need government sucking up such a giantanic amount of GDP as it does
> Nope. If we look at the Federal spending as a bar graph, there are 3
> very large bars that are social security, medicare, and the defense
> All we have to do is get rid of social security and medicare. The
> Defense Department is in the Constitution, and so that's what we
> SHOULD be doing, but phase out the other two. Buy your own health
> care, and either save up the money to retire on, or don't retire.
There shouldn't be a world wide empire. The charts typically neglect the
cost of the war operations, which is really what sends 'defense' over
>>the bigger the government, the poorer the people no matter how
>>you collect the tax.
> Well, yeah, but that's another challenge. Why not just get rid of the
> tax that is chasing all our jobs overseas as a first step? That would
> eventually solve the illegal alien problem because we'd eventually
> have so much economic activity that we could employ 'em all... and tax
> them too... and after that our economy would just keep growing. We
> could throw open the gates to immigration again, and eventuallly we'd
> have so many of those - immigrants - that we could employ them too and
> tax them too.
The illegal alien problem won't be solved until welfare is no longer
better than a first job and the minimum wage is done away with. With the
minimum wage so high there are lots of jobs that simply aren't worth
hiring someone for. The illegal aliens come in to fill that void, at
least to start.
>>Plus keep in mind it is through inflation that so many have to pay
>>income tax today.
> But it has worked out to be the opposite. Only 47% of US houselholds
> pay income tax now. That's one of the reasons its so high.
That's because of the patches applied. I understand everything against
the income tax. I believe the federal income tax to be unconstitutional
and illegal based on a variety of facts and court decisions, however it
comes down to who has the guns. It's a shakedown.
> I was
> ramming around the IRS website last year and ran across their
> informatiuon that if everyone paid all the taxes that they owed,
> without any cheating, all the rest of our taxes would be 30% less.
> IOW, I paid $14,000 last year, but it should have been $8,800 but due
> to tax cheats, its $14,000.
They have no clue what they aren't collecting. They want to manipulate
people into accepting more power in their hands, hence that angle. This
is fixed by getting rid of the income tax. Period.
> If we had the Fair Tax, it is waaaaay
> more difficult to not pay taxes on - you have to have 2 people being
> criminals to do it, the seller and the buyer. With the income tax,
> you can do it all by yourself, just don't send in the forms. How
> stupid is that as a tax collection scheme?
We don't need to support a welfare-warfare state. We don't need to be
taxed at this level regardless of the means. You'll end up with both
high income and consumption taxes if the federal government is given the
power to tax sales, or put in a VAT, or a carbon tax, or whatever. We
end up with both in the long run no matter what.
>> When started the income tax only applied to a very
>>very very tiny percentage of the population and then the rate was very
> Yeah, they all start that way, usually. At least the Fair Tax is
> upfront about taxing absolutely everybody. The only thing is that it
> has a "prebate" that sends you enough money every month to pay the
> Fair Tax on all your spending up to the poverty level. So, if you're
> only making poverty level wages, and you spend it all on taxable stuff
> (newly manufactured goods, and services), then you don't pay a penny
> of Fair Tax. It gets paid for you via the prebate. If you go and
> spend some of that money on non-taxable stuff, such as used stuff,
> then the prebate actually becomes a small subsidy. But of course,
> there aren't going to be all that many really poor people after the
> Fair Tax is around for a while, 'cuz they're mostly going to get good
> (factory) jobs and not be poor any more.
And soon such and such will be exempt or at a lower rate or this or that
and it will quickly become very complicated. Then the income tax will
come back and we'll be paying an effective 85-100% tax rate to support
the welfare-warfare state which will still run deficits.
From: Brent on 26 Jun 2010 13:20
On 2010-06-26, Nate Nagel <njnagel(a)roosters.net> wrote:
> On 06/25/2010 11:31 PM, Brent wrote:
>> On 2010-06-26, Nate Nagel<njnagel(a)roosters.net> wrote:
>>> Honestly, a significant devaluation of the dollar would go a long way
>>> towards solving a lot of these problems, but it would be painful.
>>> Unfortunately I (NB: I am not an economist) can't think of any likely
>>> unfolding of things that doesn't involve economic pain.
>> That's inflation. We need deflation now. Deflation is bad for bankers
>> and debtors but it will allow the economy to recover for the long term.
>> All lowering the value of the dollar accomplishes is to wipe out savers
>> and add to the problems.
> How would deflation help the problem of foreign workers willing to work
> for half or less than that of American workers? Devaluing the dollar
> with respect to foreign currencies will give us less purchasing power
What exactly will I be buying when my savings can't buy a loaf of bread?
deflation resets the system from the damage in the boom phase of the
boom-bust cycle. Inflation just papers over the problem but no real
capitial is created. It punishes savings. Without savings, without
restored capitial, the economy goes nowhere. The inflation boosts things
for a short time and then the economy crashes again and crashes harder.
> The only downside that I can see is that it would make American
> corporations more open to being taken over by foreign interests... but
> then again I haven't worked for a company for which that hadn't already
> happened for 10 years or so?
Inflation is how this mess was created. It will only make it worse.
If inflation was good, Zimbabwe's economy would be the best in the
From: Ray Fischer on 26 Jun 2010 13:31
Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 2010-06-26, Dave Head <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 04:25:45 +0000 (UTC), Brent
>>>The income tax came in with the federal reserve. Neither is needed. We
>>>had government before 1913.
>> Yep. It ran mostly on consumption taxes, which is what the Fair Tax
>No, the federal government did not run on consumption taxes. We don't
>need a national sales tax and haven't had one in the past. We will end
>up with both national sales tax _AND_ income tax should this 'fair tax'
>be passed. Eliminate taxation and get the monkey off people's backs.
Because we don't need a federal government.
>>>Also the income tax elimination only takes
>>>the federal government back to roughly 1998 funding levels.
>> I don't understand that. Most of our revenue comes from the income
>Government has grown dramatically.
People are a lot better off.
From: Don Kirkman on 26 Jun 2010 14:12
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 11:41:40 -0400, lil abner <@daisy.mae> wrote:
>Howard Brazee wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 22:35:06 -0400, lil abner <@daisy.mae> wrote:
>>> Remember in 1870 when 30,000.00 bought a nice home?
>> I'm not that old. But I remember when my dad spent less than that in
>> $$ to buy a nice home.
>oh er ah how about 1970?
September, 1970 - brand new 2400 sq. ft. for about $33K on about
$1500/mo. income. 8.25% interest, 30 yrs.