Anti Federalist
03-31-2019, 12:37 AM
Replacement “Revenue”
https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2019/03/30/replacement-revenue/
By eric - March 30, 201930683
Do you remember when repeal Obamacare became repeal . . . and replace?
In other words, government managed and government-enforced “health care” is now a given.
The government will simply diddle with the particulars.
And diddle us.
It will be the same with speed-limited cars, once those are fatwa’d here – as is now all-but-inevitable given they have just been fatwa’d there – in Europe, where about a third of new cars sold here are made and so will be made with the same tech embedded in them and ready to go.
Think DRLs – the absurdly always-on headlights that almost all new cars have had since the ’90s, when GM began installing them in all its new cars because some of them were built (or sold) in Canada, which required them.
It will be the same with Intelligent Speed Assist – the euphemism for the EU-mandated electronic nanny which will force cars – force drivers – to obey all speed limits.
But this raises a practical problem.
Speed limits are designed to collect “revenue” – via selectively applied “fines” (a euphemism for taxes) applied to drivers who ignore them. Which is almost every driver.
On purpose.
For exactly that purpose – i.e., to collect as much “revenue” as possible by making almost every driver a de jure “speeder” ripe for a roadside mulcting. The fact that everyone who drives has received a “ticket” – that is to say, has been roadside taxed – is certain proof of a confected rather than moral offense.
The whole point of speed limits is to make everyone an “offender” – so that everyone can be made to pay. In principle and – eventually – in fact.
But if drivers can no longer “speed” because their cars won’t allow it, what about all that lost “revenue” – which is many millions of dollars and upon which many counties and cities depend for their various make-work/wealth-transfer schemes?
The answer comes easily enough.
The government will simply raise other taxes, which are applied generally – rather than selectively (as “speeding” fines – i.e., taxes – are). For example, they could just increase current registration “fees.”
Or, it could create new taxes.
How about a “carbon tax” or “green tax” on cars? This could be your “contribution” – and mine – to the Green New Deal. Does it seem fanciful that President AOC would impose such a thing?
The most likely route, however, is probably a simple mileage tax. These are already in use, so it’s not a hypothetical. And most new and probably all future new cars could very easily have their accrued mileage monitored – and their owners docked – in real time. Imagine a parking meter situation – except for driving.
Of course, the fly in the soup here is that speed limited cars will have less and less appeal, so people will buy and drive them less and less. Which is the macro goal of these things, in my opinion.
So there will need to be taxes on things unrelated to driving and cars.
Also easy enough.
Why not, for example, simply raise existing property taxes to account for the “lost revenue,” for the sake of “the children,” of course. “The schools” can’t be allowed to deteriorate – and those poor “teachers” (i.e., government drones who have “certifications” to impart government hagiography and cripple critical thinking skills in children, so as to render them, per George Carlin, into obedient workers) need a raise… .
The principle that your home is subject to endless – and in principle, unlimited -mulcting by the county or city in which you live has been cemented into the law as well as accepted by the majority of Americans who consider themselves, falsely, free men and women. It does not occur to them that political freedom cannot exist in the absence of economic freedom – that if one can never be free of having to make payments to the government in order to be allowed to continue living in one’s own home, then one does not own that home – no matter how many decades have passed since the last mortgage payment to the bank was sent in.
And that people who cannot legally own anything are not and can never be free.
These deluded, bamboozled people – having accepted a lien in perpetuity on their property – have no defense in law or in logic against increases in the payments demanded by the lien holder.
That will be one way the “revenue” could be recovered.
But here’s another – darker – source:
A federal tax on property.
Why not?
Most people already pay both federal and state taxes on their income. The principle of dual income taxation has already been established in law and so, in logic, there is no logical reason why the practice ought not to be expanded to encompass tiered taxation on property.
You pay a federal property tax in addition to the local county/state property tax – in order to be permitted to continue to reside in the home you paid off decades ago. Uncle becomes the second lien-holder on “your” property – just as he is already the primary claimant on your income.
Read your Karl Marx.
Most Americans, of course, have not and so remain cognitively dissonant – and, accordingly, defenseless.
There is no reason whatsoever that a federal tax on property could not be added to their already exorbitant burdens. The government – federal, state, county or city – merely need assert a “need” and then impose it. There is certainly nothing in principle, recognized in law, to prevent it.
The principled counter to it – that “taxation,” as it is styled, is merely theft euphemized and that it is a moral wrong to steal, irrespective of need – isn’t merely an abandoned principle, it is a forgotten one.
The people having been conditioned to forget it. This conditioning being the primary purpose of “the schools” which serve as the main pretext for taxes on property, nicely completing the circle and making a sick joke of Massa Tom’s comment about the odiousness of compelling a man to furnish money for the propagation of views he considers abhorrent.
It’s not just abhorrent views being propagated in “the schools.”
It is legions of well-conditioned useful idiots who never think to question government lien-holding of property but are conditioned to regard the disposition of every other person’s property (and thus, their own) as subject to considerations of “public good” – which sounds good, as a turn of phrase, but in practice simply means the money-grubbing and mulcting of the politically stronger at the expense of the politically weaker.
What H.L. Mencken called the “advance auction of stolen goods,” in reference to elections.
So, there is no sound, impregnable or even defensible argument – among those accepted for the disposition of “public” questions – to prevent the current, selective, Speed Tax being replaced by far more remunerative general taxes, either brand-new or expanded.
This, too, is likely part of the macro plan.
Observe that it all trends in the same direction, which cannot be accidental or coincidental. We are to be relieved of the burden of self-controlled mobility just as we are already relieved of a third to half or more of our income. Both being the mechanisms by which we are being systematically relieved of our freedom.
The free range cow is becoming the feed lot cow.
And we all know what comes next.
https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2019/03/30/replacement-revenue/
By eric - March 30, 201930683
Do you remember when repeal Obamacare became repeal . . . and replace?
In other words, government managed and government-enforced “health care” is now a given.
The government will simply diddle with the particulars.
And diddle us.
It will be the same with speed-limited cars, once those are fatwa’d here – as is now all-but-inevitable given they have just been fatwa’d there – in Europe, where about a third of new cars sold here are made and so will be made with the same tech embedded in them and ready to go.
Think DRLs – the absurdly always-on headlights that almost all new cars have had since the ’90s, when GM began installing them in all its new cars because some of them were built (or sold) in Canada, which required them.
It will be the same with Intelligent Speed Assist – the euphemism for the EU-mandated electronic nanny which will force cars – force drivers – to obey all speed limits.
But this raises a practical problem.
Speed limits are designed to collect “revenue” – via selectively applied “fines” (a euphemism for taxes) applied to drivers who ignore them. Which is almost every driver.
On purpose.
For exactly that purpose – i.e., to collect as much “revenue” as possible by making almost every driver a de jure “speeder” ripe for a roadside mulcting. The fact that everyone who drives has received a “ticket” – that is to say, has been roadside taxed – is certain proof of a confected rather than moral offense.
The whole point of speed limits is to make everyone an “offender” – so that everyone can be made to pay. In principle and – eventually – in fact.
But if drivers can no longer “speed” because their cars won’t allow it, what about all that lost “revenue” – which is many millions of dollars and upon which many counties and cities depend for their various make-work/wealth-transfer schemes?
The answer comes easily enough.
The government will simply raise other taxes, which are applied generally – rather than selectively (as “speeding” fines – i.e., taxes – are). For example, they could just increase current registration “fees.”
Or, it could create new taxes.
How about a “carbon tax” or “green tax” on cars? This could be your “contribution” – and mine – to the Green New Deal. Does it seem fanciful that President AOC would impose such a thing?
The most likely route, however, is probably a simple mileage tax. These are already in use, so it’s not a hypothetical. And most new and probably all future new cars could very easily have their accrued mileage monitored – and their owners docked – in real time. Imagine a parking meter situation – except for driving.
Of course, the fly in the soup here is that speed limited cars will have less and less appeal, so people will buy and drive them less and less. Which is the macro goal of these things, in my opinion.
So there will need to be taxes on things unrelated to driving and cars.
Also easy enough.
Why not, for example, simply raise existing property taxes to account for the “lost revenue,” for the sake of “the children,” of course. “The schools” can’t be allowed to deteriorate – and those poor “teachers” (i.e., government drones who have “certifications” to impart government hagiography and cripple critical thinking skills in children, so as to render them, per George Carlin, into obedient workers) need a raise… .
The principle that your home is subject to endless – and in principle, unlimited -mulcting by the county or city in which you live has been cemented into the law as well as accepted by the majority of Americans who consider themselves, falsely, free men and women. It does not occur to them that political freedom cannot exist in the absence of economic freedom – that if one can never be free of having to make payments to the government in order to be allowed to continue living in one’s own home, then one does not own that home – no matter how many decades have passed since the last mortgage payment to the bank was sent in.
And that people who cannot legally own anything are not and can never be free.
These deluded, bamboozled people – having accepted a lien in perpetuity on their property – have no defense in law or in logic against increases in the payments demanded by the lien holder.
That will be one way the “revenue” could be recovered.
But here’s another – darker – source:
A federal tax on property.
Why not?
Most people already pay both federal and state taxes on their income. The principle of dual income taxation has already been established in law and so, in logic, there is no logical reason why the practice ought not to be expanded to encompass tiered taxation on property.
You pay a federal property tax in addition to the local county/state property tax – in order to be permitted to continue to reside in the home you paid off decades ago. Uncle becomes the second lien-holder on “your” property – just as he is already the primary claimant on your income.
Read your Karl Marx.
Most Americans, of course, have not and so remain cognitively dissonant – and, accordingly, defenseless.
There is no reason whatsoever that a federal tax on property could not be added to their already exorbitant burdens. The government – federal, state, county or city – merely need assert a “need” and then impose it. There is certainly nothing in principle, recognized in law, to prevent it.
The principled counter to it – that “taxation,” as it is styled, is merely theft euphemized and that it is a moral wrong to steal, irrespective of need – isn’t merely an abandoned principle, it is a forgotten one.
The people having been conditioned to forget it. This conditioning being the primary purpose of “the schools” which serve as the main pretext for taxes on property, nicely completing the circle and making a sick joke of Massa Tom’s comment about the odiousness of compelling a man to furnish money for the propagation of views he considers abhorrent.
It’s not just abhorrent views being propagated in “the schools.”
It is legions of well-conditioned useful idiots who never think to question government lien-holding of property but are conditioned to regard the disposition of every other person’s property (and thus, their own) as subject to considerations of “public good” – which sounds good, as a turn of phrase, but in practice simply means the money-grubbing and mulcting of the politically stronger at the expense of the politically weaker.
What H.L. Mencken called the “advance auction of stolen goods,” in reference to elections.
So, there is no sound, impregnable or even defensible argument – among those accepted for the disposition of “public” questions – to prevent the current, selective, Speed Tax being replaced by far more remunerative general taxes, either brand-new or expanded.
This, too, is likely part of the macro plan.
Observe that it all trends in the same direction, which cannot be accidental or coincidental. We are to be relieved of the burden of self-controlled mobility just as we are already relieved of a third to half or more of our income. Both being the mechanisms by which we are being systematically relieved of our freedom.
The free range cow is becoming the feed lot cow.
And we all know what comes next.