How small is your small government?

[_sabotage_]

Bailing out the country's financial system was of detrimental use to me.

Are you suggesting that the rich minority don't already decide the direction of the country at the expense of the poor minority?

The differences would be:

It would be overt.

Those who do not benefit/support would not be forced into paying for what they don't approve. The military industrial complex could put all their tax dollars towards financing the military, and choose not to access roads, workers, education, etc if they wish. And I and millions upon millions could fund better education, infrastructure and technology.

If you are ignorant of the use of hemp, then providing a source will be of little use to you.

[khazalid]

hemp? bloody useless. not nearly enough d-9THC

[thegreekdog]

Sorry, joining late. Here's what I want out of my federal government (in no particular order):

(1) Public education funding (and some standardization).
(2) Intellectual property protection.
(3) National defense (a standing army, navy, and air force for defense purposes only).

Here's what I want out of my local government (in no particular order):

(1) Public education administration
(2) Police, fire
(3) Transportation maintenance (roads, commuter trains, etc.)

That's probably about it. I'm sure I'll think of other things, but not many more.

[mrswdk]

I was getting a little confused about how letting the rich decide where the vast majority of public money is spent relates to what you were saying earlier about democracy, but then you said that this new system of yours is 'overt' so I guess we're all square on that front. Top work!

How were the bailouts detrimental to you? How would you have been better off if the banks were left to collapse?

[thegreekdog]

I was getting a little confused about how letting the rich decide where the vast majority of public money is spent relates to that democracy malarkey you were talking about earlier, but then you said that this new system of yours is 'overt' so I guess we're all square on that front. Top work!

How were the bailouts detrimental to you? How would you have been better off if the banks were left to collapse?

Far be it from me to defend sabotage here, but it seems to me that bailing out a company for a failure encourages further failure, no? Failure with repurcussions forces folks to fix problems. Failure without repurcussions not only encourages further failure, but takes money from some people and gives it to the people who failed.

As a simpler example, bailing out home owners who paid too much for their homes encourages them to pay too much again in the anticipation of receiving a bail out. Of course, as you put it, the financial ruin of "the banks" would put the entire world in a worse financial crisis (I guess... the same people who predicted that no bailout meant disaster also failed to predict the "Great Recession" in the first place... and they also tend to be people who benefit, indirectly, from a bank bailout).

In any event, I look forward to the next round of bank bailouts and auto manufacturer bailouts in the name of protecting the economy. It will also be interesting to see what happens when younger people realize they will be paying for the lifestyles of the older generation in the near future.

[_sabotage_]

Far be it from me to require defending.

I was getting a little confused about how letting the rich decide where the vast majority of public money is spent relates to what you were saying earlier about democracy, but then you said that this new system of yours is 'overt' so I guess we're all square on that front. Top work!

How were the bailouts detrimental to you? How would you have been better off if the banks were left to collapse?

See all that money that I had saved up, that my family and friends saved up, became greatly reduced in value when the FED issued roughly 17 trillion in new currency to the failed banks. The full effects of the reduction in value have not yet been felt. But the growing disillusion with the US government grows more pronounced by the day. Had the US invested the money in infrastructure, funding new business, improving health care, improving energy independence, or in any way attempted to improve the lives of its citizens, the ones who both paid the taxes and are liable to the issue of debt, then I would be less appalled. Had the collapse happened, then the monopoly money that they continually print would be greatly devalued and my actual assets would reflect their true value.

As it is, a giant pyramid scheme was allowed to extort the entire country and, since the US dollar is the world reserve currency, the world.

Corporations have a vast arsenal in avoiding taxes, for example being able to hire the above tax attorney, move off shore, acquire assets during economic declines to offset profits. As Adam Smith said,
By preferring the support of domestick to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.

If you wish to access our markets, keep your money here. If the banks fail, they have no money, they have no taxes, and therefore they cannot "vote" with their taxes. At the moment, everyone is forced to join the system whether they want to or not. As such, large bodies are able to use their influence to secure your money for their ends and not benefit you in any way.

This thread is actually quite interesting, because it is not far off of what paying taxes should be. We have a list of choices, and we can vote to pay for the ones we approve. This would need to be greatly extended, but someone could choose simply to put let's say 5k towards education, or go into the specific details of the proposed education spending and choose a specific kind of education related R+D to fund. Were I thinking of having children, then that would be my choice. In this system, the possibility of receiving funding greatly increases in some areas and decreases in others. Meaning, many smaller and potentially beneficially groups may access our tax dollars if they can sell us, and the US is not in the market for war.

[BigBallinStalin]

Far be it from me to require defending.

I was getting a little confused about how letting the rich decide where the vast majority of public money is spent relates to what you were saying earlier about democracy, but then you said that this new system of yours is 'overt' so I guess we're all square on that front. Top work!

How were the bailouts detrimental to you? How would you have been better off if the banks were left to collapse?

See all that money that I had saved up, that my family and friends saved up, became greatly reduced in value when the FED issued roughly 17 trillion in new currency to the failed banks. The full effects of the reduction in value have not yet been felt. But the growing disillusion with the US government grows more pronounced by the day. Had the US invested the money in infrastructure, funding new business, improving health care, improving energy independence, or in any way attempted to improve the lives of its citizens, the ones who both paid the taxes and are liable to the issue of debt, then I would be less appalled. Had the collapse happened, then the monopoly money that they continually print would be greatly devalued and my actual assets would reflect their true value.

In other words, would fiscal policy have been better? Either way, if the government dumps money into those sectors, then they're still dumping money in those markets--which drives up prices (since they'd be increasing the supply of USD in those sectors--more quickly than in other sectors).

You can't avoid inflation with fiscal policy either...

and then you'd have to weigh the benefits and costs of dumping money into banks or dumping money into particular industries. If more banks were to fail without the bailout, then how would that be counterbalanced by the alternative fiscal policy in infrastructure and so on?

If more large banks failed, how would that have affected people's savings? Would it have been cheaper for the FDIC to dole out its promised $250,000 or so to everyone who lost their money?

[thegreekdog]

My favorite part of the bank bailout was the implication/promise that there would be "tougher regulation" of banks to "prevent" these types of financial crises in the future.

[_sabotage_]

Banks do not need to lend the money out. In lending it they incur a loss. Better to use the money to acquire real wealth while people are panic selling. This is what any individual investor should do, and I wouldn't expect the banks to do otherwise. A recent report suggests that the property market has been artificially inflated through the withholding of foreclosures to the market. A failed bank would have made these available at "true" market value which would have dropped the capital requirement for consumers and provided a societal benefit.

You can avoid inflation by spending what you have and creating a larger resource bank to draw from. This has been continuously avoided and we act like this possibility does not exist. We are a world of scarce resources they maintain in speech and in policy.

Confidence is at the heart of markets. The government can promote confidence without saturating the market. Infrastructure was among a variety of possibilities. The counterbalance is quite simple, if you give a homeless man 5 bucks, then he will spend that $5. If you give me $5, I don't need to spend it. The banks don't need to spend the money and as such the argument that bailing them out fails to add funds to the market, and does not add confidence to a market so ravaged by the banks in the first place. Were the money vouched for other sectors, especially for the small guys in that sector, then both confidence and consumption would be up.

I don't think the government should dole out $250,000 to everyone, but instead could dole out $250,000 to every hundredth person who proposed a means of providing broad domestic benefits with the money, such as employeeing people with it, propping up domestic markets, and revitalizing local production. If the money is then lost, it is lost to other members of the same marketplace.

I believe it is that "local" money goes through the economy 7 times while foreign money circulates only 3 times.

There is no law requiring individuals to pay an income tax to the government, it is voluntary. If it is voluntary, why can't it be directed? Our politicians are supposed to recognize the needs and means of their constituents and direct the means towards the needs to the best of their ability. While a large portion of the population maintains their ongoing failure in this role is due to incompetence, I hold a more sinister view. What happens is what was intended. If we are voluntarily forfeiting a large portion of our market power then we should be purchasing some market influence, but we have given up on the market influence and just expect everything to be cool.

It won't be cool. Volunteer your taxes towards programs that you want, need, or would like to promote. Use the influence of the pool of funds to gain greater market power. Evaluate and allow great domestic competition in the sectors you support. Don't ask someone else to pay for your benefits.

[BigBallinStalin]

None of that addresses the problem of your previously held position about fiscal policy. You're just saying, "well, ignore the consequences of my favored position, and let's make the FDIC act contrary to how it was designed."

The banks don't need to spend the money and as such the argument that bailing them out fails to add funds to the market, and does not add confidence to a market so ravaged by the banks in the first place. Were the money vouched for other sectors, especially for the small guys in that sector, then both confidence and consumption would be up.

Sure, banks can be hesitant to lend, but that's one aspect of the monetary policy. The main purpose of the bailout was to prevent banks from becoming insolvent... [repeat problems of that v. benefits and costs of fiscal policy].

The underlined isn't true. You're still overlooking the failure of that approach during the 1930s in the US. You can't spend your way out of a recession, and on net the multiplier effect is zero--when incorporating the effects over 5 years (see: St. Louis equation, applies to the 1970s). The latest studies I've seen for more recent times is like 0.9 or 1.1--take your pick. It's either counter-productive or hardly productive--given the most dire times of an economy as well.

[BigBallinStalin]

There is no law requiring individuals to pay an income tax to the government, it is voluntary. If it is voluntary, why can't it be directed? Our politicians are supposed to recognize the needs and means of their constituents and direct the means towards the needs to the best of their ability. While a large portion of the population maintains their ongoing failure in this role is due to incompetence, I hold a more sinister view. What happens is what was intended. If we are voluntarily forfeiting a large portion of our market power then we should be purchasing some market influence, but we have given up on the market influence and just expect everything to be cool.

What are you talking about?

The federal tax laws are contained in the Internal Revenue Code, which was passed by the United States Congress. The Internal Revenue Code is also known as Title 26 of the United States Code, which is the compilation of all the laws passed by Congress.

The Internal Revenue Code is the law that requires people to pay taxes.

The most important statutory provision with regard to income taxes is the very first: section one of the tax code, 26 U.S.C. § 1. Section one imposes the income tax. If you are unmarried, the relevant provision is § 1(c), which states:

26 U.S.C. § 1
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual . . . who is not a married individual a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/ ... tNoLaw.htm

Even if you ignored the above, how can you explain that an exchange is magically voluntary when the group paying for whatever cannot choose what they want? If they couldn't get what they wanted in the exchange, then they wouldn't make the exchange, yet somehow the 'voluntary' exchange still occurs... That makes no sense--unless we remember that the exchange is involuntary since the threat of force is involved and that the exchange (income tax) is required by law...

[_sabotage_]

Issuing more currency and providing it to other sectors doesn't address the problem, it's true. The US is faced with a impossible problem: we've been getting our resources for nothing, other countries are aware of this and only through the threat of force are we able to prevent a devastating collapse. Issuing more currency according to the current trickle down model will not solve the US's problems. On the other hand, stimulating production will prevent the utter collapse of the US. If we can provide for ourselves, we will not face grave lack of resources when others decide that our "American Dream" is just a fantasy. Were we to produce things, we will have a real bargaining tool, but instead we cling ever more feebly to our traditional illusion. Wealth can be generated, but we choose to get it by fraud.

Speaking of fraud:

Steve Miller, former Director of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), admitted at a Congressional hearing that the taxes collected by the IRS are not mandatory – but voluntary.
When questioned at the House Ways and Means Committee (WMC) hearing last week, Miller told House Representative Devin Nunes that “America’s tax system is ‘voluntary’”. When Nunes remarked for clarification that the US tax code is a “voluntary system”, Miller said, “Agreed.”

I guess you know better than the former director of the IRS.

On the other hand, I do agree with you in that it should be voluntary in that the individual can freely allot their taxes to their desired arena and towards their specific benefit.

I've said before, I think money is part of the problem. Until we can actually arrive at the point of kicking it out of the way, we should be allowed the freedom of consideration, which is a basic contractual requirement.

[thegreekdog]

Steve Miller, former Director of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), admitted at a Congressional hearing that the taxes collected by the IRS are not mandatory – but voluntary.
When questioned at the House Ways and Means Committee (WMC) hearing last week, Miller told House Representative Devin Nunes that “America’s tax system is ‘voluntary’”. When Nunes remarked for clarification that the US tax code is a “voluntary system”, Miller said, “Agreed.”

I guess you know better than the former director of the IRS.

Taxes are voluntary. You can pay them or go to jail.

[Phatscotty]

Far be it from me to require defending.

I was getting a little confused about how letting the rich decide where the vast majority of public money is spent relates to what you were saying earlier about democracy, but then you said that this new system of yours is 'overt' so I guess we're all square on that front. Top work!

How were the bailouts detrimental to you? How would you have been better off if the banks were left to collapse?

See all that money that I had saved up, that my family and friends saved up, became greatly reduced in value when the FED issued roughly 17 trillion in new currency to the failed banks. The full effects of the reduction in value have not yet been felt. But the growing disillusion with the US government grows more pronounced by the day. Had the US invested the money in infrastructure, funding new business, improving health care, improving energy independence, or in any way attempted to improve the lives of its citizens, the ones who both paid the taxes and are liable to the issue of debt, then I would be less appalled. Had the collapse happened, then the monopoly money that they continually print would be greatly devalued and my actual assets would reflect their true value.

In the last 5 years, the US has dumped over a trillion into infrastructure; remember 'shovel ready jobs' and there was a huge increase in bridge inspections after the 35W collapse (even though it was some dummy's fault and not the structure itself, never let a crisis go to waste) and here in Minnesota we are rebuilding all kinds of bridges, and I'm sure it;s the same all over the country. As per funding new business, there has been all kinds of new spending to encourage biz to hire vets, and also jobs bill 1 and jobs bill 2, even stimulus was aimed at 'helping' business. Businesses even got a 1 year exemption from Obamacare. The US also dumped a trillion, and it's looking like another trillion will be needed, to 'improve' healthcare. Hundreds of billions were spent on solar energy and wind energy companies, as well as some spent to close down/over regulate coal energy and oil energy (complete gulf shutdown of oil rigs when there was only a problem with 1 rig, also, Solyndra is just one of many solar companies that were actually a black hole slush fund). Even the department of education got a 100% increase in funding in a 2 year period, only to get same to worse results. All this was supposed to improve lives.

You should still be appalled, not because we didn't spend trillions on all that stuff, but because we DID spend trillions on all that stuff and don't have anything to show for it except another 7 trillion in debt (unless you count the 6 people that enrolled in Obamacare)

[Phatscotty]

I was getting a little confused about how letting the rich decide where the vast majority of public money is spent relates to that democracy malarkey you were talking about earlier, but then you said that this new system of yours is 'overt' so I guess we're all square on that front. Top work!

How were the bailouts detrimental to you? How would you have been better off if the banks were left to collapse?

Far be it from me to defend sabotage here, but it seems to me that bailing out a company for a failure encourages further failure, no? Failure with repurcussions forces folks to fix problems. Failure without repurcussions not only encourages further failure, but takes money from some people and gives it to the people who failed.

As a simpler example, bailing out home owners who paid too much for their homes encourages them to pay too much again in the anticipation of receiving a bail out. Of course, as you put it, the financial ruin of "the banks" would put the entire world in a worse financial crisis (I guess... the same people who predicted that no bailout meant disaster also failed to predict the "Great Recession" in the first place... and they also tend to be people who benefit, indirectly, from a bank bailout).

In any event, I look forward to the next round of bank bailouts and auto manufacturer bailouts in the name of protecting the economy. It will also be interesting to see what happens when younger people realize they will be paying for the lifestyles of the older generation in the near future.

Moral hazard - In economic theory, a moral hazard is a situation where a party will have a tendency to take risks because the costs that could incur will not be felt by the party taking the risk. In other words, it is a tendency to be more willing to take a risk, knowing that the potential costs or burdens of taking such risk will be borne, in whole or in part, by others. A moral hazard may occur where the actions of one party may change to the detriment of another after a financial transaction has taken place.

Moral hazard arises because an individual or institution does not take the full consequences and responsibilities of its actions, and therefore has a tendency to act less carefully than it otherwise would, leaving another party to hold some responsibility for the consequences of those actions.

[thegreekdog]

I was getting a little confused about how letting the rich decide where the vast majority of public money is spent relates to that democracy malarkey you were talking about earlier, but then you said that this new system of yours is 'overt' so I guess we're all square on that front. Top work!

How were the bailouts detrimental to you? How would you have been better off if the banks were left to collapse?

Far be it from me to defend sabotage here, but it seems to me that bailing out a company for a failure encourages further failure, no? Failure with repurcussions forces folks to fix problems. Failure without repurcussions not only encourages further failure, but takes money from some people and gives it to the people who failed.

As a simpler example, bailing out home owners who paid too much for their homes encourages them to pay too much again in the anticipation of receiving a bail out. Of course, as you put it, the financial ruin of "the banks" would put the entire world in a worse financial crisis (I guess... the same people who predicted that no bailout meant disaster also failed to predict the "Great Recession" in the first place... and they also tend to be people who benefit, indirectly, from a bank bailout).

In any event, I look forward to the next round of bank bailouts and auto manufacturer bailouts in the name of protecting the economy. It will also be interesting to see what happens when younger people realize they will be paying for the lifestyles of the older generation in the near future.

Moral hazard - In economic theory, a moral hazard is a situation where a party will have a tendency to take risks because the costs that could incur will not be felt by the party taking the risk. In other words, it is a tendency to be more willing to take a risk, knowing that the potential costs or burdens of taking such risk will be borne, in whole or in part, by others. A moral hazard may occur where the actions of one party may change to the detriment of another after a financial transaction has taken place.

Moral hazard arises because an individual or institution does not take the full consequences and responsibilities of its actions, and therefore has a tendency to act less carefully than it otherwise would, leaving another party to hold some responsibility for the consequences of those actions.

Thanks. That's what I was going for.

[_sabotage_]

Far be it from me to require defending.

I was getting a little confused about how letting the rich decide where the vast majority of public money is spent relates to what you were saying earlier about democracy, but then you said that this new system of yours is 'overt' so I guess we're all square on that front. Top work!

How were the bailouts detrimental to you? How would you have been better off if the banks were left to collapse?

See all that money that I had saved up, that my family and friends saved up, became greatly reduced in value when the FED issued roughly 17 trillion in new currency to the failed banks. The full effects of the reduction in value have not yet been felt. But the growing disillusion with the US government grows more pronounced by the day. Had the US invested the money in infrastructure, funding new business, improving health care, improving energy independence, or in any way attempted to improve the lives of its citizens, the ones who both paid the taxes and are liable to the issue of debt, then I would be less appalled. Had the collapse happened, then the monopoly money that they continually print would be greatly devalued and my actual assets would reflect their true value.

In the last 5 years, the US has dumped over a trillion into infrastructure; remember 'shovel ready jobs' and there was a huge increase in bridge inspections after the 35W collapse (even though it was some dummy's fault and not the structure itself, never let a crisis go to waste) and here in Minnesota we are rebuilding all kinds of bridges, and I'm sure it;s the same all over the country. As per funding new business, there has been all kinds of new spending to encourage biz to hire vets, and also jobs bill 1 and jobs bill 2, even stimulus was aimed at 'helping' business. Businesses even got a 1 year exemption from Obamacare. The US also dumped a trillion, and it's looking like another trillion will be needed, to 'improve' healthcare. Hundreds of billions were spent on solar energy and wind energy companies, as well as some spent to close down/over regulate coal energy and oil energy (complete gulf shutdown of oil rigs when there was only a problem with 1 rig, also, Solyndra is just one of many solar companies that were actually a black hole slush fund). Even the department of education got a 100% increase in funding in a 2 year period, only to get same to worse results. All this was supposed to improve lives.

You should still be appalled, not because we didn't spend trillions on all that stuff, but because we DID spend trillions on all that stuff and don't have anything to show for it except another 7 trillion in debt (unless you count the 6 people that enrolled in Obamacare)

Trillions of dollars of monopoly money that the US can't and won't pay back. Just be thankful that there are still a few resources that can be stolen or defrauded out of neighbouring countries.

The US needed to take a hit to get us back on track, to reflect international resources and to break our obsessive military intervention. When the chance for the economy to fall was ripe, we let it fester and now we stink internationally.

We are fucked over a barrel. The Fed denied Germany it's gold, and we've been outed tapping Merkels phone by Merkel. It's not like they didn't know, so why are 40 nations all speaking out now as they dump the dollar as a reserve currency? Yeah, we spent money on infrastructure. Some lucky producer got a contract for 5 million coffin like boxes and another for 1.2b rounds, and Obama's position on it is that he is just keeping up with the population. The US is utterly fucked.

On the bright side, maybe the elite will jump this sinking ship and we can get back to being a country.

And TGD, you're a tax attorney, do you really think I would expect you to say "my job is completely redundant". As the jury asked the judge, if the guy broke the law and he says there is none, just show it and we'll find him guilty.

The federal income tax was requested during WWII and people just kept paying out of habit.

[Metsfanmax]

And TGD, you're a tax attorney, do you really think I would expect you to say "my job is completely redundant". As the jury asked the judge, if the guy broke the law and he says there is none, just show it and we'll find him guilty.

The federal income tax was requested during WWII and people just kept paying out of habit.

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/ ... tNoLaw.htm

[BigBallinStalin]

And TGD, you're a tax attorney, do you really think I would expect you to say "my job is completely redundant". As the jury asked the judge, if the guy broke the law and he says there is none, just show it and we'll find him guilty.

The federal income tax was requested during WWII and people just kept paying out of habit.

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/ ... tNoLaw.htm

That doesn't work on him.

[_sabotage_]

Guess these IRS agents and lawyers don't know as much as you.

[thegreekdog]

And TGD, you're a tax attorney, do you really think I would expect you to say "my job is completely redundant". As the jury asked the judge, if the guy broke the law and he says there is none, just show it and we'll find him guilty.

Great point. Clearly I'm biased. It's a good thing all my clients don't think tax is voluntary. But I recommend that you send a strongly worded letter to the Fortune 500.

[_sabotage_]

Either:

That roster of IRS agents in the in the video are lying, or you are lying/ignorant. The agents quit because of it, you get payed to uphold it. Nothing personal, but when your mother is a lawyer, you start to look at results rather than fancy wordplay.

[thegreekdog]

Either:

That roster of IRS agents in the in the video are lying, or you are lying/ignorant. The agents quit because of it, you get payed to uphold it. Nothing personal, but when your mother is a lawyer, you start to look at results rather than fancy wordplay.

I told you that taxes are voluntary - you pay them or you go to jail. I'm not lying about that certainly.

Again, please send letters to the Fortune 500. You can find their addresses pretty easily. And feel free to carbon copy me; I would like to see their responses.

In all seriousness, I think you're confusing the voluntary nature of the income tax with the layperson use of the term "voluntary." You should check around a bit and think about whether if tax was voluntary (i.e. you can not pay without repurcussions) why people who are much more intelligent and savvy than you or me, continue to pay taxes.

[_sabotage_]

http://www.livefreenow.org/about-us/$30 ... eward.html

They are offering a $300,000 dollar reward if you can prove its a law. Best of luck.

[Metsfanmax]

I find the parallel interesting between this thread and the Obamacare thread.

In this thread, sabotage argues that the income tax is voluntary despite government agents coming to collect if you refuse to pay.

In that thread, sabotage argues that Obamacare is mandatory because government agents come to collect if you refuse to purchase health insurance.