Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 129

Thread: The broad method of taxation is not the problem

  1. #31

    Default

    Money is ment to be a convient form of exchange for things of value- not a store of value in itself.
    Please don't ding me for making, again, an overly simplistic statement, but this is at the heart of debates about monetary policy. IMV people using money as an investment is a big problem for economies. It's talked about in the Bible when Jesus had problems with money traders.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Member Zippyjuan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Hosting FEMA Party
    Posts
    20,017

    Default

    I don't think that the Bible is against investing. Jesus didn't like business being conducted in a house of worship but that does not mean he was against all business. Money and the Church were to be separated. Asked about taxes he said "Who's picture is on that coin?" "It is Cesars." "Well, give unto Cesar that which is Cesar's and give unto God that which is God's". Yes, there is also the bit about it being easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven but Jesus also sought money to help do good works. Alms and tything.

    Investment is what can help an economy grow. Growth means more jobs and better lives for people. Sure there can be good and bad investments- in Travlrs suggestions of putting money in a bank or buying land or buying gold. Those are not by themselves good or bad investments- it depends not on the money but on the conditions. If you bought gold in 1980, you saw the price fall for the next 20 years. If you bought in 2004, today you are doing pretty well. If you bought a home in 1990 you are doing fine on that as an investment, if you bought in 2007, not so good. If you are a company you can invest into more equipment and more labor to produce more goods. This means people can buy more goods and the workers you invested in have more money to spend on what you make along with what others make which can cause demand for more goods and jobs.

    Not intending to "ding" you on this.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 04-04-2012 at 04:18 PM.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this message. But you don't have to.

  4. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    You are forced to keep your money in a bank account paying zero percent?
    No, Federal Reserve Notes are forced into the economy with legal tender laws.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    So far I am seeing different returns on investment.
    Me too. False returns. 100 acres of land is now worth $10k per acre when before it was only worth $1k per acre. It is still 100 acres of land. The value of the land didn't change, but the taxes went up anyway. The only thing that changed was the Federal Reserve Notes lost value because the Fed printed so many of them. The same with my pickup truck. It is still a pickup truck, but it takes more FRN's to buy a truck because the Fed printed too many notes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    What you use for money does not guarantee that the prices of anything will stay the same forever. Money is meant to be a convenient form of exchange for things of value- not a store of value in itself.
    Why not? If I get paid $1000 on Friday the first day of the month, then shouldn't that $1000 still buy $1000 worth of goods on the 30th of that month? It doesn't but it should.

    Employers pay wages with Federal Reserve Notes, vendors use them because the legal requirements of accounting principles and taxation, banks use them because they have the advantage of fractional reserve banking and easy pilfering of money off the top of their customer's bank balance. Who could blame the bankers for taking easy money? Me.

    I would much rather be paid in silver for my work, which does maintain its value, and is virtually untraceable (freedom), but the legal tender laws virtually force everyone to use government defined (traceable) money which is not a store of value. It is quite the scam.
    "Everyone who believes in freedom must work diligently for sound money, fully redeemable. Nothing else is compatible with the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity." -- Ron Paul

    Brother Jonathan

  5. #34
    Member Zippyjuan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Hosting FEMA Party
    Posts
    20,017

    Default

    If you wish, you are free to take your Federal Reserve notes and convert them to silver as soon as you get them if that is how you would prefer to store money you don't need to exchange for something else today.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this message. But you don't have to.

  6. #35

    Default

    I don't think that the Bible is against investing.
    I'm not against investment, just the use of pure money as an investment. That's what banks like to do, make money on pure money because they got it and other people don't.

  7. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    If you wish, you are free to take your Federal Reserve notes and convert them to silver as soon as you get them if that is how you would prefer to store money you don't need to exchange for something else today.
    Right. But my point is that I shouldn't have to do that to protect myself from counterfeiters. I'd be fine with one of two scenarios. Either they stop their shenanigans, or else they let us all counterfeit without penalty. I'm good with either. But I'm not okay with them stealing my family's wealth for another 100 years. End The Fed ASAP.
    "Everyone who believes in freedom must work diligently for sound money, fully redeemable. Nothing else is compatible with the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity." -- Ron Paul

    Brother Jonathan

  8. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    100 acres of land is now worth $10k per acre when before it was only worth $1k per acre. It is still 100 acres of land. The value of the land didn't change, but the taxes went up anyway.
    That is the kind of bald self-contradiction and lying that is invariably resorted to by apologists for landowner privilege.
    The only thing that changed was the Federal Reserve Notes lost value because the Fed printed so many of them.
    Wrong. The Fed prints almost none of the money supply. It is created by private commercial banks when they lend. And the real value of the land almost certainly rose more than inflation, as land value roughly tracks GDP, not inflation (though it is much more volatile than GDP).
    The same with my pickup truck. It is still a pickup truck, but it takes more FRN's to buy a truck because the Fed printed too many notes.
    Wrong again. Government and the community made the land more valuable even after inflation. If the truck is more valuable (in real terms), it is the manufacturer who made it more valuable, by making a better truck.
    Employers pay wages with Federal Reserve Notes,
    No, they do not. They pay wages with demand deposits created by private commercial banks.

  9. #38
    Member Zippyjuan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Hosting FEMA Party
    Posts
    20,017

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Right. But my point is that I shouldn't have to do that to protect myself from counterfeiters. I'd be fine with one of two scenarios. Either they stop their shenanigans, or else they let us all counterfeit without penalty. I'm good with either. But I'm not okay with them stealing my family's wealth for another 100 years. End The Fed ASAP.
    Are Federal Reserve notes counterfeit? What did they counterfeit off of? (they can and have been themselves counterfeited).

    coun·ter·feit/ˈkountərˌfit/

    Adjective:

    Made in exact imitation of something valuable or important with the intention to deceive or defraud.

    Noun:

    A fraudulent imitation of something else; a forgery.


    Verb:

    Imitate fraudulently.

    Synonyms:


    adjective. false - spurious - bogus - mock - sham - forged - phoney

    noun. forgery - fake - falsification - imitation - sham

    verb. forge - fake - falsify - imitate - simulate - feign
    I am Zippy and I approve of this message. But you don't have to.

  10. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by furface View Post
    Modern governments don't have revenue problems. They have spending problems. They spend too much money and offer way too little for the money they spend.
    True.

    They can print money out of thin air to cover their expenditures - thus, they have no constraint on spending.

    It boils down to competition. Governments violently enforce monopolies that are inefficient & predatory towards the liberty of private citizens.
    ...and the biggest monopoly - government, is the worse of all.


    All forms of taxation can be made just if you work on limiting the power and scope of government.
    Not true.

    All taxation is money taken from the productive part of society for the benefit of those who did not earn the money.

    Such a system can never be just.

    Such a system completely requires that the taking is broad, covering a vast majority of people, and the beneficiaries are small, special interest vast minority of people.

    Our current income tax system is fiercely corrupt, no sane person would argue with that.
    It can be nothing else as it is -at its core- immoral and evil.

    Current property tax systems are absurd because they tap the livelihood of private individuals for the main purpose of enriching useless government bureaucrats. Sales tax systems are similar and they have the added problem of suppressing economic activity.
    Taxation is a tool of economic manipulation.

    Government taxes that which is wishes to suppress or dissuade.

    Government grants tax breaks and credits upon that which it wishes to enhance or persuade.

    Thus, a sales tax - government wishes to suppress sales.
    Income tax - government wishes to suppress earners.

    Welfare (tax credit) - government wishes to reward non-workers
    SS (tax credit) - government wishes old people to be dependent and not independent.

    No government will overtly state these goals - but one merely needs to review their action to be aware of their real intent.

    As we agree government no longer requires taxation for its funding, the existence and expansion of taxation is done to increase economic manipulation of the market place.

  11. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by furface View Post
    As long as wages & social security keep up with inflation, it's irrelevant, and in a lot of senses desirable. It doesn't require invasive form filing and policing. US corporations now hold trillions of dollars in stagnant cash. That's a big problem for society. There should be a penalty for that, and it's called inflation.
    It is not irrelevant.

    Your review is short-sighted, no further then your next pay check.

    The damage of inflation: destroys savings and investments.
    The long term consequences: destruction of capital, no investment, no economic growth.

  12. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    I don't think that the Bible is against investing.
    Not at all - in fact, it demanded that it should be very well invested ...see Parable of the talents
    the first two servants explain that they have each put their money to work and doubled the value of the property they were entrusted with, and so they are each rewarded:

    His lord said to him, "Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a few things, I will set you over many things. Enter into the joy of your lord."


    Jesus didn't like business being conducted in a house of worship
    It wasn't that either - it was that these men were thieves and swindlers.
    ...but you have made it a den of robbers.

    Yes, there is also the bit about it being easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven but Jesus also sought money to help do good works. Alms and tything.
    The eye/camel story is not quite right either.

    He had challenged a young Prince -who wished to join Jesus as a disciple - to abandon all his wordily goods so to dedicate himself fully -like all the other disciples- to the task. The Prince would not - he had lived a leisurely life, and did not have the necessary dedication. This statement was directed to him, the Prince and those like him ...ie: Government workers and government beneficiaries who never really "worked" a day in their lives and lived off the efforts of others.

  13. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    Wrong. The Fed prints almost none of the money supply. It is created by private commercial banks when they lend. And the real value of the land almost certainly rose more than inflation, as land value roughly tracks GDP, not inflation (though it is much more volatile than GDP).
    Wrong.
    The FED creates 100% of the money supply.

    You consistently confuse IOU's to be the same as the money that the IOU's were traded for.


    Wrong again. Government and the community made the land more valuable even after inflation. If the truck is more valuable (in real terms), it is the manufacturer who made it more valuable, by making a better truck.

    Wrong.

    Government cannot make something "more valuable" ... it is a net destroyer of wealth.

    You confuse "effort" to be the same as "wealth" ... a typical Marxist point of view.... and is totally wrong.

    Digging a hole in the ocean is a lot of work and effort - but produces zero wealth - and should you steal my money to pay for your worker, destroys capital.

  14. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    That is the kind of bald self-contradiction and lying that is invariably resorted to by apologists for landowner privilege.

    Wrong. The Fed prints almost none of the money supply. It is created by private commercial banks when they lend. And the real value of the land almost certainly rose more than inflation, as land value roughly tracks GDP, not inflation (though it is much more volatile than GDP).

    Wrong again. Government and the community made the land more valuable even after inflation. If the truck is more valuable (in real terms), it is the manufacturer who made it more valuable, by making a better truck.

    No, they do not. They pay wages with demand deposits created by private commercial banks.
    I don't put any value on your posts Roy L. There is no need for you to quote me and respond. I've read enough of your nonsense. You are a socialist and I love individual liberty.

  15. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Are Federal Reserve notes counterfeit? What did they counterfeit off of? (they can and have been themselves counterfeited).
    At the time the Federal Reserve Act was passed into law they created 100% redeemable certificates. When they started printing less than 100% redeemable certificates, then that was the start of their counterfeiting operations. Eventually, yes, they counterfeited the counterfeit notes until there was no backing for the currency at all.

  16. #45
    Member Zippyjuan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Hosting FEMA Party
    Posts
    20,017

    Default

    So we should be able to buy gold from the government at fixed prices (which is what was happening- what you could convert your notes into)? As I pointed out, you can still convert FRNs into gold or silver- this time at a free market price not controlled by the government.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this message. But you don't have to.

  17. #46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    At the time the Federal Reserve Act was passed into law they created 100% redeemable certificates.
    True.
    Redeemable into what?
    Gold/silver mix.

    Gold/silver is redeemable into what?
    Itself.

    When they started printing less than 100% redeemable certificates, then that was the start of their counterfeiting operations.
    They never did that. All of them, 100% were always redeemable.

    FDR forced Americans to hand over their gold in exchange for $20.67, and when he had all the gold, raised the price to $35 ...but only to Americans doing international trade.

    So, an American who wished to buy a foreign good had to buy 1 oz. for $35 .... a massive 60% cost increase on foreign purchases for Americans!
    BUT a Frenchman buying an American good traded his $20.67 of US Dollars for... 1 oz of gold! ... which made US goods for export 60% cheaper!

    ...but the US$ was always 100% redeemable.
    Eventually, yes, they counterfeited the counterfeit notes until there was no backing for the currency at all.
    FRBN "backs" itself, like gold "backs" itself.

    There is no conceptual difference here.

  18. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    So we should be able to buy gold from the government at fixed prices (which is what was happening- what you could convert your notes into)? As I pointed out, you can still convert FRNs into gold or silver- this time at a free market price not controlled by the government.
    I don't see what business the government has in owning gold or setting the price. Their role is clearly defined with specific enumerated powers. Price fixing is not one of them. They were charged with setting the standard and they did that with the Coinage Act of 1792. An Eagle is 247.5 grains of pure gold. That's it.

    Ludwig von Mises said,
    "This is the function that the liberal doctrine assigns to the state: the protection of property, liberty, and peace."
    I agree with him.
    "Everyone who believes in freedom must work diligently for sound money, fully redeemable. Nothing else is compatible with the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity." -- Ron Paul

    Brother Jonathan

  19. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    I don't put any value on your posts Roy L.
    You have been demolished, you know it, and you have no answers. Simple.
    There is no need for you to quote me and respond. I've read enough of your nonsense.
    I refute your false claims for the benefit of others. Those who make such claims are rarely educable.
    You are a socialist and I love individual liberty.
    I am not a socialist, you are just objectively wrong on that claim; and I am a far more consistent champion of individual liberty than you. You seek to sacrifice individual liberty -- and millions of human lives every year -- on the altar of your Great God Property.

  20. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    They can print money out of thin air to cover their expenditures - thus, they have no constraint on spending.
    That's just asinine garbage. The fact that government can legally print money does not mean there is no constraint on spending: it has to account to voters for its inflation record.
    All taxation is money taken from the productive part of society for the benefit of those who did not earn the money.
    No, that's just objectively false. All taxes that fall on economic rent, such as a land value tax, take nothing whatever from the productive part of society, because they only recover value that government and society created in the first place. It is the private recipients of economic rent who did not earn the money.
    Such a system can never be just.
    It is indisputably just to recover publicly created value for public purposes and benefit rather than giving it away to privileged private interests in return for nothing.
    Such a system completely requires that the taking is broad, covering a vast majority of people, and the beneficiaries are small, special interest vast minority of people.
    Refuted above. You simply have no understanding whatever of taxation -- or probably any -- economics. None.
    It can be nothing else as it is -at its core- immoral and evil.
    Taking value without contributing commensurate value in return is indeed immoral and evil, whether governments do it or private interests. That is why taxation theory identifies "beneficiary pay" as a core fundamental principle of sound taxation policy: those who benefit by government spending (mostly landowners) should pay for it.
    Taxation is a tool of economic manipulation.

    Government taxes that which is wishes to suppress or dissuade.

    Government grants tax breaks and credits upon that which it wishes to enhance or persuade.

    Thus, a sales tax - government wishes to suppress sales.
    Income tax - government wishes to suppress earners.

    Welfare (tax credit) - government wishes to reward non-workers
    SS (tax credit) - government wishes old people to be dependent and not independent.
    Government taxes anything but land value - government wishes to provide a welfare subsidy giveaway to landowners.
    As we agree government no longer requires taxation for its funding, the existence and expansion of taxation is done to increase economic manipulation of the market place.
    "As 2 + 4 = 9, 7 - 6 = 3"

  21. #50
    Member Zippyjuan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Hosting FEMA Party
    Posts
    20,017

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    I don't see what business the government has in owning gold or setting the price. Their role is clearly defined with specific enumerated powers. Price fixing is not one of them. They were charged with setting the standard and they did that with the Coinage Act of 1792. An Eagle is 247.5 grains of pure gold. That's it.

    Ludwig von Mises said,
    I agree with him.
    If they don't own gold, you cant exchange your money for it (at least not through them) and money isn't backed by it . And if they don't own gold, they cannot produce any gold coinage either. If one dollar is defined as 247.7 grams or whatever of gold, that is setting the price.
    If you do define a dollar as a certain amount of gold then the inverse definition is also true that you are defining a price for gold in terms of dollars. If I am a vendor and want to sell gold at a price higher than this official exchange rate, people aren't going to get it from me when they can get it cheaper from the government. That basically fixes the price for the rest of the market.

    The Coinage Act of 1792 has been updated many times (as is allowable under the Constitution) to change what a dollar coin must be made of and to redefine a dollar. The Constitiution itself does not say what money must be or how many ounce of gold must be in a coin. It does give Congress:
    To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
    "To regulate the value thereof" allows them to change what is a dollar.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 04-04-2012 at 07:14 PM.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this message. But you don't have to.

  22. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    That's just asinine garbage. The fact that government can legally print money does not mean there is no constraint on spending: it has to account to voters for its inflation record.
    *cough*

    "Accounting" is not a constraint ...it is merely a restraint... and you do not understand the difference.

    The mining of gold is a constraint on its production - you have to find it before you can mine it, no matter how much you want gold.

    The printing of money has no constraint on its production - you merely have to "trust" the Powers even care about "votes" (which they do not), nor do they care about destruction of wealth by inflation (given they care little about the destruction of wealth via war)


    As typical, you lack core conceptual understanding of the topic, and of the comments.
    Last edited by Black Flag; 04-04-2012 at 07:16 PM.

  23. #52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    No, that's just objectively false. All taxes that fall on economic rent, such as a land value tax, take nothing whatever from the productive part of society, because they only recover value that government and society created in the first place. It is the private recipients of economic rent who did not earn the money.
    Government produces no wealth - it takes from the production of society.

    Therefore, it cannot recover from what it does not produce.

    Refuted above. You simply have no understanding whatever of taxation -- or probably any -- economics. None.
    You have no concept nor principle from which to organize your position.

    You pull all of it out of your ass and its a different shit depending on the flavor of the day.
    Last edited by Black Flag; 04-04-2012 at 07:25 PM.

  24. #53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    You have been demolished, you know it, and you have no answers. Simple.
    Interesting claim. Heh.. heh. Demolished eh? Me or my ideas? I don't yet feel demolished or destroyed. Try try again. Maybe I don't have answers. But I have plenty of questions.

    Why should Ben Bernanke and his friends be able to go to their basement (laptop) and make all the money they want out-of-nothing (before breakfast) without penalty while I have to hire employees, buy equipment, cultivate the field, sew the seed, water the plants, protect my plants against predators, harvest the fruits, pay my employees health insurance, unemployment insurance, mandated wages, defend against lawsuits, and find a buyer for my crops when those jerks can make money out-of-nothing? No offense, but I want to do nothing and make $Billions upon $Billions like Ben and his D.C. friends. How did he get the privilege?

  25. #54
    Member Zippyjuan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Hosting FEMA Party
    Posts
    20,017

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Interesting claim. Heh.. heh. Demolished eh? Me or my ideas? I don't yet feel demolished or destroyed. Try try again. Maybe I don't have answers. But I have plenty of questions.
    Questions are good. It allows one to learn.

    Why should Ben Bernanke and his friends be able to go to their basement (laptop) and make all the money they want out-of-nothing (before breakfast) without penalty while I have to hire employees, buy equipment, cultivate the field, sew the seed, water the plants, protect my plants against predators, harvest the fruits, pay my employees health insurance, unemployment insurance, mandated wages, defend against lawsuits, and find a buyer for my crops when those jerks can make money out-of-nothing? No offense, but I want to do nothing and make $Billions upon $Billions like Ben and his D.C. friends. How did he get the privilege?[/
    Which brings us back to the original question- do we have a taxation problem? First we need to define what the problem is we are looking at. If it is a deficit, it is not due to taxes OR spending, it is due to taxes AND spending- spending more than we take in in taxes. The problem we have set up is now so big that the solution is also not OR but AND. If you want to get rid of the debt you need to BOTH reduce spending and cut taxes. Not popular options on either side but the only honest options out there. Ron Paul said we should not cut taxes until the debt is gone and first you have to balance the budget which I agree with. To do otherwise only adds to the problem. He also said he would not touch Social Security or Medicare expenditures but we also have to look at that too for ways to reduce the size and scope of government spending.

    Based on the 2010 budget, if you want to balance the budget, not touch SSI or Medicare and not raise taxes you must cut ever single thing left in the budget (can't cut interest on the debt either). Everything. By 100%. Since that is not realistic they the other choices must come into play. Agruing and refusing to consider accepting the pain of higher taxes along with cuts only puts it off and allows the debt to grow even more. Unwilling to compromise adds to the deficits and debt.

    And that is only to try to balance a budget. To get rid of the debt you must have more coming in from taxes than you are spending if you want actually reduce the debt itself. Everybody is going to have to give something up to reduce the impact that government and taxes have on the country.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 04-04-2012 at 08:12 PM.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this message. But you don't have to.

  26. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    This statement was directed to him, the Prince and those like him ...ie: Government workers and government beneficiaries who never really "worked" a day in their lives and lived off the efforts of others.
    It takes a particular sort of lying ass to claim that people like firemen, police officers, water and sewer workers, teachers, etc. are not working but living off the efforts of others, and truly idle parasites like landowners are the "productive part of society."

  27. #56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    Government produces no wealth - it takes from the production of society.
    Such claims are false, absurd, and dishonest. When government builds a road, a subway line, a water supply system, a dam, or any other infrastructure, that is production of wealth -- which also increases the value of privately owned land.
    Therefore, it cannot recover from what it does not produce.
    See above. Land value is the measure of the economic advantage created by the services and infrastructure government provides, the opportunities and amenities the community provides, and the physical qualities nature provides. As the latter are not changing, and have usually been the same since the land's value was zero, it is the former that create increases in land value.

    Your claims are just absurd and puerile "meeza hatesa gubmint" nonsense with no basis in fact.
    You have no concept nor principle from which to organize your position.
    ROTFL!! Wrong, dumpling. You are just spewing stupid garbage, and have already proved you are unable to comprehend my position -- which is far better organized than yours, and unlike yours is based on principles of logical reasoning and self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality.
    You pull all of it out of your ass and its a different shit depending on the flavor of the day.
    >yawn> No, that actually describes YOUR absurd anti-economic ravings.

  28. #57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    It takes a particular sort of lying ass to claim that people like firemen, police officers, water and sewer workers, teachers, etc. are not working but living off the efforts of others, and truly idle parasites like landowners are the "productive part of society."
    You truly are a moron.

    Palestine, 1st Century
    There was a very large disparity between rich and poor.

    The upper class was made up of the temple priests and priestly aristocracy (including the Sadducees – a Jewish sect)

    The middle class was comprised of traders and merchants, artisans (stonecutters, masons, sculptors) and craftsman (metal, wood, cloth dye). The Pharisees (another Jewish sect), sages, scribes, and teachers were also a part of the middle class.

    The lower class was made of laborers (weavers, stone carriers, slaves (non-Jewish person taken into slavery because of debt), and the unemployable (lepers, blind, insane, crippled, etc.)

    The Roman government required heavy taxation of its people. Tax collectors were local employees considered to be outcasts and traitors.

  29. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    Such claims are false, absurd, and dishonest. When government builds a road,
    With the money from the productive part of society.

    that is production of wealth -- which also increases the value of privately owned land.
    It is consumption of wealth.

    To build House A, identical to House B for twice the cost is a destruction of wealth .. not an increase of it.

    As already noted, you have no conceptual understanding of wealth, nor its creation.

  30. #59

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Why should Ben Bernanke and his friends be able to go to their basement (laptop) and make all the money they want out-of-nothing (before breakfast) without penalty
    I am not defending the debt money system. But you need to understand how it works, and you don't.
    while I have to hire employees, buy equipment, cultivate the field, sew the seed, water the plants, protect my plants against predators, harvest the fruits, pay my employees health insurance, unemployment insurance, mandated wages, defend against lawsuits, and find a buyer for my crops when those jerks can make money out-of-nothing?
    If you own the land, you don't have to do any of those things. You can just charge a tenant for the mere opportunity to do them.
    No offense, but I want to do nothing and make $Billions upon $Billions like Ben and his D.C. friends. How did he get the privilege?
    Landowners considered a debt money system to be in their interest. And they were right, as the increase in the real value of land in the USA over the last 100 years proves. Creditors (lenders) lose by inflation, but landowners gain, especially if they have borrowed to buy land.

  31. #60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    It takes a particular sort of lying ass to claim that people like firemen, police officers, water and sewer workers, teachers, etc. are not working but living off the efforts of others, and truly idle parasites like landowners are the "productive part of society."
    But they are. If they are government employees, they obtain 100% of their living from the production of others.

    IF such services were valued, people would voluntarily buy them.
    Since it requires force and violence to seize funds to feed government employees, their services are not valued.

    Because they demand no competition, thus remain the only lousy providers of such services also does not render such service as "valued", but merely "required".

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast




« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •