Is taxation obsolete?

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Is taxation obsolete?

Postby Gloominary » Sat Mar 17, 2018 2:07 am

What's the point of taxing people?
If government needs a billion dollars, it should be able to just print it.
either way it's going to inflate prices.
And inflating prices isn't so bad when you have a proportionate amount of new money circulating in the economy, it's only bad when it's debt money, and ultimately has to returned to the central banks.

In the old days, currency was based on physical things, like gold and silver, if government wanted it to make itself wealthy, or fund its social projects, it had to take it from people, or pay someone to mine it, or gradually generate surplus revenue from whatever corporations it owned, but for a long time now currency has been based on paper, not backed by gold and silver, and increasingly it's switching over to electronic, which's virtually infinite.
So what's the point?
Cut out the middle man, the tax collector, and all the bullshit that goes along with it.

And another thing, why does government have to borrow money?
We all know by now this makes government and all of us debt slaves of the central banks.
If people were to kill all the men behind the central banks, no one would shed a tear, except for perhaps tears of joy.
User avatar
Gloominary
Thinker
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

Re: Is taxation obsolete?

Postby Zero_Sum » Sat Mar 17, 2018 5:02 am

That's an excellent question, if governments can print money or create currency assets out of thin air, why does anybody pay taxes at all? Also, if corporations can get bailed out by the government with showers of free money, why can't everybody else be bailed out? (Well technically it isn't free as the money comes from people's taxes of course behind the mantra of too big to fail.)

In short the reason none of that happens is because of financial and debt enslavement utilized as shackles on the greater population enforcing a system of total control. To be clear here I'm not against socialized forms of taxation because at least with that there are prospects that everybody has access to much needed public services that benefits all of society as a whole but taxation under a capitalist system doesn't even pretend to even care about the well being of public society. In the United States frequently you will always hear institutional or military segments of government losing track of billions of dollars on their balance sheets when an audit occurs that is from tax payers which magically disappears overnight, I always imagine some individuals within government laughing themselves to a bank.
The temple mount will be rebuilt in Jerusalem and all the nations of the world will be ruled from there. All races, cultures, leaders, and nations will come to bow before the new messiah yet to come. All will come to know the chosen of God who refer themselves as Jews. For every Jew there will be a thousand goyim that will be their slaves as it was ordained by God. Every man, woman, and child will convert to Zionism.
User avatar
Zero_Sum
New World Order Enthusiast
 
Posts: 1722
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Greater Israel

Re: Is taxation obsolete?

Postby Gloominary » Sun Mar 18, 2018 11:46 pm

Zero_Sum wrote:That's an excellent question, if governments can print money or create currency assets out of thin air, why does anybody pay taxes at all? Also, if corporations can get bailed out by the government with showers of free money, why can't everybody else be bailed out? (Well technically it isn't free as the money comes from people's taxes of course behind the mantra of too big to fail.)

In short the reason none of that happens is because of financial and debt enslavement utilized as shackles on the greater population enforcing a system of total control. To be clear here I'm not against socialized forms of taxation because at least with that there are prospects that everybody has access to much needed public services that benefits all of society as a whole but taxation under a capitalist system doesn't even pretend to even care about the well being of public society. In the United States frequently you will always hear institutional or military segments of government losing track of billions of dollars on their balance sheets when an audit occurs that is from tax payers which magically disappears overnight, I always imagine some individuals within government laughing themselves to a bank.

Agreed, corporate welfare is another way they screw us in addition to government having to borrow debt money from central banks who create it out of nothing, our economy is totally rigged.
There shouldn't be corporate welfare, unless government immediately and completely unionizes or nationalizes the corporation it's bailing out, and runs it to primarily to benefit workers and customers, not primarily to benefit capitalists and itself, the way things are being done now.
User avatar
Gloominary
Thinker
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

Re: Is taxation obsolete?

Postby Serendipper » Tue Mar 20, 2018 1:22 am

Gloominary wrote:What's the point of taxing people?

To redistribute wealth.

If government needs a billion dollars, it should be able to just print it. either way it's going to inflate prices.

No, prices are determined by supply of product and demand for product. The amount of money in circulation has no direct effect on that. The indirect effect is the wealth-effect which causes more demand for products and causes prices to rise.

Redistributed money will have the same inflationary effect without changing the money supply since there will be more demand for products. That is why central banks strive to keep inflation up since it's a gauge of demand which is a gauge of wages and economic health. However that doesn't take automation into account nor competition when products are under great demand, which actually lowers prices instead of raising them.

A quick example is the price of memory for older machines. I was surprised to find the price of DDR2 (maybe 3, I forgot) was higher today than when I bought the pc in 2011 and it's because there is not enough demand to justify production and no competition to sell that style memory. Another example is the price of tillers are higher today than 12 yrs ago which can only mean that people arent' gardening as much as I thought or else competition would have brought prices down. So, sometimes increasing demand can lower prices and it's more complicated than merely setting a 2% inflation target by giving money to rich people in an effort to raise prices.

And inflating prices isn't so bad when you have a proportionate amount of new money circulating in the economy, it's only bad when it's debt money, and ultimately has to returned to the central banks.

The money can't be returned or else it wouldn't exist anymore and there would be a shortage of money. New money must be printed to pay the interest on outstanding money.

In the old days, currency was based on physical things, like gold and silver, if government wanted it to make itself wealthy, or fund its social projects, it had to take it from people, or pay someone to mine it, or gradually generate surplus revenue from whatever corporations it owned, but for a long time now currency has been based on paper, not backed by gold and silver, and increasingly it's switching over to electronic, which's virtually infinite.

Yes, those days sucked. A gold standard is the absolute worst method. A silver standard is somewhat better. The best way is to eliminate the fed and have the treasury issue money. The fed is simply a middle man skimming off the top.

So what's the point?
Cut out the middle man, the tax collector, and all the bullshit that goes along with it.

The tax collector has to work too. The gov is an important source of jobs for the economy. We're going to need more bs jobs in the future because "people must suffer for money". So, they need to dig holes and fill them back in or something just so they aren't getting handouts.

And another thing, why does government have to borrow money?

https://www.federalreservehistory.org/e ... conference

If the treasury would issue its own money, it wouldn't have to borrow.

We all know by now this makes government and all of us debt slaves of the central banks.

We are but the gov is not. The gov gets the interest refunded.

If people were to kill all the men behind the central banks, no one would shed a tear, except for perhaps tears of joy.

Yup

Probably not shot in hell you'd watch this 3hr video, but it should be mandatory in all schools:



Money was the cause of the revolutionary and civil wars, contrary to popular belief. The civil war had almost nothing to do with slavery and it was a moot point by the time the first shots were fired at Ft Sumter.

There is so much bullshit being promulgated that people think the truth is ridiculous. I'm pissed that so much of my education was garbage :angry-cussingblack:
Serendipper
Thinker
 
Posts: 908
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Is taxation obsolete?

Postby Serendipper » Tue Mar 20, 2018 1:58 am

While I'm on the subject, the 2% inflation target set by the fed begs the question of what the heck inflation even is; what is inflating?

There are two classes of assets: investment and consumable. Either you're buying something for consumption or you're buying an investment (you hope to get a return).

The BLS calculates a measure of inflation as follows:

Image

As we can see, housing is 42% of the price index and housing is mostly an investment (except rent prices). The problem with conflating consumable prices with investment prices is in a healthy economy we want investments to go up and consumables to go down.

So the fed is half-right in goosing the housing market to drive up prices, but on the other hand all that money is going into automation in competition to lower prices of consumables which works against the fed's goal. The proper way to measure inflation then would be simply an index of stocks, house prices, art, etc and leave toilet paper out of it since raising the price of TP is an impossible goal, but that's unpalatable to the ignorant masses who would have a cow thinking the fed were targeting stock prices to make bankers rich, so we're stuck with this.

That is why the stock market is going wild because in an effort to raise the price of toilet paper, the global central banks are printing hand over fist and will never accomplish their goal. We should want the prices of medical, tuition, energy, food and recreation to go down while the prices of stocks, housing, art to go up as that would be an ideal economy. At least, this should be true in terms of hours-worked, not necessarily in terms of dollars. So even though the price of TP is constant, if wages are rising, then the effective price is falling. Nominal amounts don't matter; what counts is how long one has to work to buy something.
Serendipper
Thinker
 
Posts: 908
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm


Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]

cron