Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 202

Thread: Income tax: Ever calculated how wealthy you'd be without it?

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by blustreeak View Post
    "Why would an employer be giving you (lower income workers) more money? Employers don't pay your income taxes (they do pay half of the Social Security taxes). They may withhold the taxes but don't pay them. Getting rid of income taxes doesn't give them any more money to pass along to workers (and this assumes that they won't keep any extra money if there was some in the first place for themselves or share holders)."

    A family member of mine makes around 500k net a year and runs a small business. He ends up paying around 120k in Income taxes every year. I asked him if he had to pay no income tax would he hire more workers. He said yes, he would also add an intern or two because he gets a lot of requests for that, but takes on only a few because of the costs. He also said he would give his employee's better holiday bonuses and likely hirer another young young worker and maybe a part time marketer to expand a little bit. Small businesses employ most of America. To say that those owners who run them would not pass along income they saved to their workers if income tax is eliminated is not true in my opinion. Without the income tax America grew to be the envy of the world with immigrants coming here non-stop to be a part of our way of life. Our economy is imploding for lots of reasons, but one of them is we are punishing the productive and discouraging hiring by taxing them out the wazoo.

    I strongly disagree that reducing the income tax would have no effect on low income workers income's. I think they would see a rise in their wealth with more opportunities for employment and businesses being able to be more liberal with their resources because they would be getting to keep more of their fruits of their labor.
    Good for him. That is not typical though. If he is making $500k a year, he is in the top one percent of all wage earners.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    You'd be nominally wealthier by 30-40%, but not necessarily materially wealthier.

    What happens to price of gas, food, housing, utilities and entertainment when your paycheck gets a 30% raise?

    Some people want to say "if I didn't have to pay income tax, I could use that to buy this, which would mean I didn't have to borrow money, and that saves me interest, and I can even get an insurance plan which would cover whatever accidents I run into...." all speculative. If you had more cash in hand, would you just hoard it? Or would you likely spend it? How is not paying income tax different than giving everybody a fat stimulus check (oh, we call that "tax return")?



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Nickels View Post
    You'd be nominally wealthier by 30-40%, but not necessarily materially wealthier.

    What happens to price of gas, food, housing, utilities and entertainment when your paycheck gets a 30% raise?

    Some people want to say "if I didn't have to pay income tax, I could use that to buy this, which would mean I didn't have to borrow money, and that saves me interest, and I can even get an insurance plan which would cover whatever accidents I run into...." all speculative. If you had more cash in hand, would you just hoard it? Or would you likely spend it? How is not paying income tax different than giving everybody a fat stimulus check (oh, we call that "tax return")?
    Not sure if you noticed, but we're pushing for smaller gov't, not a more indebted government that has to tax everything else higher so they can continue their bloated ways.

    What's wrong with speculating, just out of curiosity?
    Well, I got Rand started on his campaign (just search around here to see). I advised Thomas Massie before he ran for Congress. I am currently advising 2 liberty campaigns for the state legislature. I ran the war-room and won Minnesota for Ron Paul a few weeks back. There are other things I'm probably forgetting.
    Yet I can't afford $200 to go to a seminar--Matt Collins

  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by blustreeak View Post

    I strongly disagree that reducing the income tax would have no effect on low income workers income's. I think they would see a rise in their wealth with more opportunities for employment and businesses being able to be more liberal with their resources because they would be getting to keep more of their fruits of their labor.
    and I strongly disagree that income is everything. if it were, then having high minimum wage would make sense. if cash equals wealth, then printing money would always make sense. If higher wages always meant better living, then we'd be stupid to let the market decide on it. Income taxes, just like the rate of interest or rate of money printing (credit extension) affect prices of goods and services, so eliminating it altogether WOULD nominally change the prices, but not necessarily mean people would be wealthier, the only thing I can think of that's guaranteed, is leaving enforcers jobless.

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Kluge View Post
    Not sure if you noticed, but we're pushing for smaller gov't, not a more indebted government that has to tax everything else higher so they can continue their bloated ways.

    What's wrong with speculating, just out of curiosity?
    Oh, I am aware of reducing government. But I was asking, what difference would it be to you, whether you were giving a complete tax refund, or taxed, and then giving the same amount in a stimulus check on the government's credit loaned by the same people (taxpayers, yourself)? My answer is, the only difference is how efficient the government was at giving you the money you got. For you, you have the same amount to spend, and thus the result for consumer prices, your personal wealth, is the same, isn't it?

    Nothing wrong with speculating as long as you know you are.

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Nickels View Post
    Oh, I am aware of reducing government. But I was asking, what difference would it be to you, whether you were giving a complete tax refund, or taxed, and then giving the same amount in a stimulus check on the government's credit loaned by the same people (taxpayers, yourself)? My answer is, the only difference is how efficient the government was at giving you the money you got. For you, you have the same amount to spend, and thus the result for consumer prices, your personal wealth, is the same, isn't it?

    Nothing wrong with speculating as long as you know you are.
    So what you're saying is that there's no difference between there not being an income tax, and me being forced to pay the gov't, then have that money circulate through the gov't and eventually come back to me? Really? IRS agents aren't volunteers.

    Are you arguing that all people who file income taxes get all of their money back?
    Well, I got Rand started on his campaign (just search around here to see). I advised Thomas Massie before he ran for Congress. I am currently advising 2 liberty campaigns for the state legislature. I ran the war-room and won Minnesota for Ron Paul a few weeks back. There are other things I'm probably forgetting.
    Yet I can't afford $200 to go to a seminar--Matt Collins

  9. #37
    I wouldn't be just nominally wealthier, I would be actually wealthier. Out of the income taxes I pay, I see very very little of that. Roads/infrastructure makes up 3% of income taxes, and that's basically the only thing I use. The other 97% is sent down a drain as far as I know.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Kluge View Post
    So what you're saying is that there's no difference between there not being an income tax, and me being forced to pay the gov't, then have that money circulate through the gov't and eventually come back to me? Really? IRS agents aren't volunteers.

    Are you arguing that all people who file income taxes get all of their money back?
    I am not arguing all people who file income taxes get anything back, but when they do, we call it a tax return, tax refund, tax credit. Yes, I am aware IRS isn't working for free, and I acknowledged that that would be one difference in the grand scheme, but for YOUR purposes, what difference does it make if you make $100K gross, paid $30K in taxes, and then $30K showed up in your bank account? What difference does it make to you, as long as you never pay it back and was fully legal, where it came from?

  11. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by bxm042 View Post
    I wouldn't be just nominally wealthier, I would be actually wealthier. Out of the income taxes I pay, I see very very little of that. Roads/infrastructure makes up 3% of income taxes, and that's basically the only thing I use. The other 97% is sent down a drain as far as I know.
    if that was in your hands, where would it be spent and why wouldn't the prices of it go up due to more money from you and other consumers?

  12. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Nickels View Post
    I am not arguing all people who file income taxes get anything back, but when they do, we call it a tax return, tax refund, tax credit. Yes, I am aware IRS isn't working for free, and I acknowledged that that would be one difference in the grand scheme, but for YOUR purposes, what difference does it make if you make $100K gross, paid $30K in taxes, and then $30K showed up in your bank account? What difference does it make to you, as long as you never pay it back and was fully legal, where it came from?
    Because that's not the way it works, and it's never been the way it worked. People who make that kind of money don't get that 30k back. Not to mention that the 30k can be used in investments and earn returns in the time period that it's tied up by the bureaucracy.

    I'm really not sure what you're arguing here, except that you're defending the existence of the IRS and like paperwork and paying people to do bull$#@! "work."
    Well, I got Rand started on his campaign (just search around here to see). I advised Thomas Massie before he ran for Congress. I am currently advising 2 liberty campaigns for the state legislature. I ran the war-room and won Minnesota for Ron Paul a few weeks back. There are other things I'm probably forgetting.
    Yet I can't afford $200 to go to a seminar--Matt Collins



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Nickels View Post
    if that was in your hands, where would it be spent and why wouldn't the prices of it go up due to more money from you and other consumers?
    Look at it this way.

    Of income taxes:
    24.9% gets literally blown up
    23.7% goes towards making health care more expensive
    19.1% goes towards making sure people don't work
    8.1% goes towards the interest on the above expenditures
    24.2% towards $#@! if I know

    That's a $#@! load of waste. If I were an apple farmer, it would be equivalent to taking 30% of my apples and letting them rot. If every apple farmer had 30% more apples... everyone is wealthier, in real terms.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  15. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Kluge View Post
    Because that's not the way it works, and it's never been the way it worked. People who make that kind of money don't get that 30k back.
    Oh, sorry, I thought we were talking about 'HYPOTHETICALLY IF THEY DID'.

    Not to mention that the 30k can be used in investments and earn returns in the time period that it's tied up by the bureaucracy.
    You assume investments only make money, keep speculating. Also, what if everybody had no income taxes? Wouldn't more people be investing, and therefore decrease the return on investment profits? (the same way prices go up when more people are buying the same thing, until demand increases accordingly)

    I'm really not sure what you're arguing here, except that you're defending the existence of the IRS and like paperwork and paying people to do bull$#@! "work."
    Read it again. I was saying that, the effect on the economy, and on the consumer, is the same whether they got a complete tax free paycheck, or got a stimulust check for the same amount they paid in taxes. What goes on behind the scenes is never his concern.

  16. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Nickels View Post
    Oh, sorry, I thought we were talking about 'HYPOTHETICALLY IF THEY DID'.



    You assume investments only make money, keep speculating. Also, what if everybody had no income taxes? Wouldn't more people be investing, and therefore decrease the return on investment profits? (the same way prices go up when more people are buying the same thing, until demand increases accordingly)



    Read it again. I was saying that, the effect on the economy, and on the consumer, is the same whether they got a complete tax free paycheck, or got a stimulust check for the same amount they paid in taxes. What goes on behind the scenes is never his concern.
    But that's a ridiculous hypothetical. Until you have an all-volunteer IRS along with productive businesses donating all of the equipment and supplies that they'd use it will cost something and that will be paid by taxpayers.

    I'm just looking for a shred of realistic ideas in your HYPOTHESIS and I have yet to find one.
    Well, I got Rand started on his campaign (just search around here to see). I advised Thomas Massie before he ran for Congress. I am currently advising 2 liberty campaigns for the state legislature. I ran the war-room and won Minnesota for Ron Paul a few weeks back. There are other things I'm probably forgetting.
    Yet I can't afford $200 to go to a seminar--Matt Collins

  17. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by bxm042 View Post
    Look at it this way.

    Of income taxes:
    24.9% gets literally blown up
    23.7% goes towards making health care more expensive
    19.1% goes towards making sure people don't work
    8.1% goes towards the interest on the above expenditures
    24.2% towards $#@! if I know

    That's a $#@! load of waste. If I were an apple farmer, it would be equivalent to taking 30% of my apples and letting them rot. If every apple farmer had 30% more apples... everyone is wealthier, in real terms.
    No, not unless everybody valued apples. I take it you've never seen crops being in abundance, as in, having so much they literally had to GIVE AWAY, THROW AWAY, BURY AS FERTILIZER OR BURN. (I've seen it, not often, and rarely in this country, but I've seen it) One would think that if there's abundance of fruit, it must be great, that's only until you have too much, or do not have the resources to can it up. What happens when you can it up? Picky spoiled Americans think they're too good for preserved foods and only buy "fresh". This could all be bad planning, and whether you have more apples, less apples does not matter until the market responds with it.

    Why did you say apples? Not avocados or olives? Why didn't you say whale blubber? Because you know not all fruits and produce are equal to the market. Having more apples usually beats having less (burning and burying sure beats planting them), but it does not automatically mean each apple retains its value as before taxes. Unless there's a shortage of apples, don't you think having double the amount of apples today will decrease its value by close to a half? How is that "real wealth"?

    You may have noticed, certain industries are purging their products because it's no longer in demand.

  18. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Kluge View Post
    But that's a ridiculous hypothetical. Until you have an all-volunteer IRS along with productive businesses donating all of the equipment and supplies that they'd use it will cost something and that will be paid by taxpayers.

    I'm just looking for a shred of realistic ideas in your HYPOTHESIS and I have yet to find one.
    No, I never ONCE said the IRS can or should work for free, I just said their costs are not your concern.

  19. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Nickels View Post
    No, I never ONCE said the IRS can or should work for free, I just said their costs are not your concern.
    lol!

    Yes, they most certainly are. ALL the costs of the government are my, and every other citizen's, concern.

    Seriously?
    Well, I got Rand started on his campaign (just search around here to see). I advised Thomas Massie before he ran for Congress. I am currently advising 2 liberty campaigns for the state legislature. I ran the war-room and won Minnesota for Ron Paul a few weeks back. There are other things I'm probably forgetting.
    Yet I can't afford $200 to go to a seminar--Matt Collins

  20. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Kluge View Post
    lol!

    Yes, they most certainly are. ALL the costs of the government are my, and every other citizen's, concern.

    Seriously?
    there is a 3rd option though, the IRS is paid by somebody else, just not you, and not now. so until that changes, it's not your concern, this would be no different if there were no taxes, there is no guarantee that 100,000 IRS employees now unemployed, will not cause other problems that may be of your concern.

  21. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Nickels View Post
    No, not unless everybody valued apples. I take it you've never seen crops being in abundance, as in, having so much they literally had to GIVE AWAY, THROW AWAY, BURY AS FERTILIZER OR BURN. (I've seen it, not often, and rarely in this country, but I've seen it) One would think that if there's abundance of fruit, it must be great, that's only until you have too much, or do not have the resources to can it up. What happens when you can it up? Picky spoiled Americans think they're too good for preserved foods and only buy "fresh". This could all be bad planning, and whether you have more apples, less apples does not matter until the market responds with it.

    Why did you say apples? Not avocados or olives? Why didn't you say whale blubber? Because you know not all fruits and produce are equal to the market. Having more apples usually beats having less (burning and burying sure beats planting them), but it does not automatically mean each apple retains its value as before taxes. Unless there's a shortage of apples, don't you think having double the amount of apples today will decrease its value by close to a half? How is that "real wealth"?

    You may have noticed, certain industries are purging their products because it's no longer in demand.
    lol -rep for being intentionally stupid
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by bxm042 View Post
    lol -rep for being intentionally stupid
    What do you mean?

    You're the one who said more apples means more wealth, and I'm not allowed to correct you?

  24. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Nickels View Post
    there is a 3rd option though, the IRS is paid by somebody else, just not you, and not now. so until that changes, it's not your concern, this would be no different if there were no taxes, there is no guarantee that 100,000 IRS employees now unemployed, will not cause other problems that may be of your concern.
    Who are they paid by? Magic fairies? I didn't realize that legitimate hypotheses involved the existence of bins of gold at the end of rainbows. I'm going to have to go with bxm042--I think you're being intentionally ridiculous and perhaps trolling.
    Well, I got Rand started on his campaign (just search around here to see). I advised Thomas Massie before he ran for Congress. I am currently advising 2 liberty campaigns for the state legislature. I ran the war-room and won Minnesota for Ron Paul a few weeks back. There are other things I'm probably forgetting.
    Yet I can't afford $200 to go to a seminar--Matt Collins

  25. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Kluge View Post
    Who are they paid by? Magic fairies? I didn't realize that legitimate hypotheses involved the existence of bins of gold at the end of rainbows. I'm going to have to go with bxm042--I think you're being intentionally ridiculous and perhaps trolling.
    How about printed money? Which is not a cost to you, other than by inflation. How would more money in your hands and no taxes collected not cause the same thing? Do you admit or not that having more dollars and less taxes will make prices go up, investments depreciate, and apples depreciate if there were more grown?

  26. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Nickels View Post
    How about printed money? Which is not a cost to you, other than by inflation. How would more money in your hands and no taxes collected not cause the same thing? Do you admit or not that having more dollars and less taxes will make prices go up, investments depreciate, and apples depreciate if there were more grown?
    You say it's not a cost, but it is a cost--to everyone, and it hurts the poorest people the most.

    Are you a "tax the rich" person? Is that why this has become so ridiculous? Is all you know about economics basic "supply and demand?"
    Well, I got Rand started on his campaign (just search around here to see). I advised Thomas Massie before he ran for Congress. I am currently advising 2 liberty campaigns for the state legislature. I ran the war-room and won Minnesota for Ron Paul a few weeks back. There are other things I'm probably forgetting.
    Yet I can't afford $200 to go to a seminar--Matt Collins

  27. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Kluge View Post
    You say it's not a cost, but it is a cost--to everyone, and it hurts the poorest people the most.

    Are you a "tax the rich" person? Is that why this has become so ridiculous? Is all you know about economics basic "supply and demand?"
    Yes I know supply and demand, and it really looks like you don't.

    I would agree with you the IRS is performing useless work and is a waste of money. Now you tell me, what do we do with them when they're unemployed? I can say I don't care, because they are not my problem, are you so certain they do not incur greater costs than the cost of employing them today?

    I am not a tax the rich person. I keep asking you the same question and you avoid answering, How would more money in your hands and no taxes collected not cause the same thing? Do you admit or not that having more dollars and less taxes will make prices go up, investments depreciate, and apples depreciate if there were more grown?

    If you understand the broken window fallacy, you should know darn well that more jobs, or more cash does not equal more wealth. Nor does less jobs, less waste equate to it.
    Last edited by Nickels; 08-09-2012 at 06:43 PM.

  28. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by Nickels View Post
    Yes I know supply and demand, and it really looks like you don't.

    I would agree with you the IRS is performing useless work and is a waste of money. Now you tell me, what do we do with them when they're unemployed? I can say I don't care, because they are not my problem, are you so certain they do not incur greater costs than the cost of employing them today?

    I am not a tax the rich person. I keep asking you the same question and you avoid answering, How would more money in your hands and no taxes collected not cause the same thing? Do you admit or not that having more dollars and less taxes will make prices go up, investments depreciate, and apples depreciate if there were more grown?

    If you understand the broken window fallacy, you should know darn well that more jobs, or more cash does not equal more wealth. Nor does less jobs, less waste equate to it.
    WHO pays the IRS? Answer that first.

    I never said anything about supply and demand, you're the one who's trying to divert to it in order to feebly try to "win."
    Last edited by Kluge; 08-09-2012 at 06:49 PM.
    Well, I got Rand started on his campaign (just search around here to see). I advised Thomas Massie before he ran for Congress. I am currently advising 2 liberty campaigns for the state legislature. I ran the war-room and won Minnesota for Ron Paul a few weeks back. There are other things I'm probably forgetting.
    Yet I can't afford $200 to go to a seminar--Matt Collins

  29. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Kluge View Post
    WHO pays the IRS? Answer that first.
    I already gave you possible answers, but I'm with you on abolishing them and leaving them jobless. So let's do that, now answer mine.

    I never said anything about supply and demand,
    Your lack of it speaks more.

    you're the one who's trying to divert to it in order to feebly try to "win."
    No, I ask you a simple question you obviously are unable to comprehend. Now, my question, please. Or if you answer this one, it'll be easier : Do you agree that we will only be nominally wealthier, and there is no guarantee we'd be wealthier materially or productively? Also, if you have a smart way of telling me how 100,000 or more government employees unemployed makes us wealthier, I'm listening.

  30. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Nickels View Post
    I already gave you possible answers, but I'm with you on abolishing them and leaving them jobless. So let's do that, now answer mine.



    Your lack of it speaks more.



    No, I ask you a simple question you obviously are unable to comprehend. Now, my question, please. Or if you answer this one, it'll be easier : Do you agree that we will only be nominally wealthier, and there is no guarantee we'd be wealthier materially or productively? Also, if you have a smart way of telling me how 100,000 or more government employees unemployed makes us wealthier, I'm listening.
    Quit being an $#@! and try to stick with the subject we were actually talking about. You were arguing supply and demand with bxm.

    And, of course there's no guarantee that we'd be wealthier, but it's a hell of a lot more likely if we had the money to spend. Whereas your idea of running the printing press makes everyone who holds any wealth in dollars POORER--and that's guaranteed.

    You better stop trying to imply other people are stupid when you've made such an ass of yourself--and I'm being kind.
    Well, I got Rand started on his campaign (just search around here to see). I advised Thomas Massie before he ran for Congress. I am currently advising 2 liberty campaigns for the state legislature. I ran the war-room and won Minnesota for Ron Paul a few weeks back. There are other things I'm probably forgetting.
    Yet I can't afford $200 to go to a seminar--Matt Collins



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by bxm042 View Post
    Look at it this way.

    Of income taxes:
    24.9% gets literally blown up
    23.7% goes towards making health care more expensive
    19.1% goes towards making sure people don't work
    8.1% goes towards the interest on the above expenditures
    24.2% towards $#@! if I know
    It's my understanding that it's more like 20% that goes toward servicing the interest on the national debt. From the GPO (.PDF file):

    According to Obama (from that same report, emphasis mine):

    Quote Originally Posted by President Obama
    That is why, working with the Congress, we will establish a bipartisan fiscal commission charged with identifying additional policies to put our country on a fiscally sustainable path—balancing the Budget, excluding interest payments on the debt, by 2015.
    Why do you suppose that President Obama explicitly excluded interest on the debt as a budget consideration? Is it because "deficits don't matter", or could it be that it's just too staggering to even think about?

    From that same report? Historical and projected interest (billions):

    2009 187
    2010 188
    2011 251
    2012 343
    2013 436
    2014 510
    2015 571
    2016 627
    2017 681
    2018 733
    2019 786
    2020 840

    See that? A doubling rate for interest in just around four years, and more than a quadrupling of the interest projected in just a decade, as it goes from $188 Billion in 2010 to $840 Billion in 2020. That's the interest due in 2010 TIMES 4.64 in 2020. It's no wonder they don't project anything beyond that, because it hits a TRILLION (in interest only) shortly thereafter. In total, more than 5 Trillion will be paid out over the next decade.

    Here's a piece CNN did on this recently, with projections going to 2022, just ten short years from now.




    May you live in other than exponential times, and not surrounded by exponential growth-believing lunatics.

  33. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by Kluge View Post
    Quit being an $#@! and try to stick with the subject we were actually talking about. You were arguing supply and demand with bxm.
    Yep, still am. And if you're going to tell me I'm wrong, ANSWER ME.

    And, of course there's no guarantee that we'd be wealthier, but it's a hell of a lot more likely if we had the money to spend. Whereas your idea of running the printing press makes everyone who holds any wealth in dollars POORER--and that's guaranteed.
    No. Having more money to spend means having more money to spend, it doesn't matter where it comes from. Let's try this one, let's say starting tomorrow, each and every American decided that they'll work 1 extra hour per week. Does that make each American 1 hour of wage wealthier? NO. Not other than on paying saying so. It'll lead to each hour of work worth LESS because of supply and demand. What if each and every American decided to STOP buying TVs and cars? Does that mean the $30,000 they were going to spend makes them now $30,000 richer? NO. It means whereever else they spend their money, will now cost them more.

    You better stop trying to imply other people are stupid when you've made such an ass of yourself--and I'm being kind.
    I won't need to imply it anymore if you keep dodging my question.
    Last edited by Nickels; 08-09-2012 at 07:17 PM.

  34. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Nickels View Post
    Yep, still am. And if you're going to tell me I'm wrong, ANSWER ME.



    No. Having more money to spend means having more money to spend, it doesn't matter where it comes from.



    I won't need to imply it anymore if you keep dodging my question.
    I said you were WRONG in regards to the comments where you said:

    It's reasonable to hypothesize about the IRS's costs being, essentially, zero to me and other Americans. Then you said the costs are none of my concern. THEN you said that the Fed should just print up money to pay for the costs of the IRS.

    After it was incredibly obvious how ridiculous all of that was , you started in on supply and demand to try to get me to drop your ridiculous hypothesis of a cost-free IRS. And I think it's obvious why.

    Having more money to spend means having more money to spend, it doesn't matter where it comes from.
    Yes it does. If those dollars come from a printing press with nothing backing it, the value of the dollar goes down. I can't even believe I'm arguing this on this forum.

    But by all means, keep blathering. It's getting funnier.
    Well, I got Rand started on his campaign (just search around here to see). I advised Thomas Massie before he ran for Congress. I am currently advising 2 liberty campaigns for the state legislature. I ran the war-room and won Minnesota for Ron Paul a few weeks back. There are other things I'm probably forgetting.
    Yet I can't afford $200 to go to a seminar--Matt Collins

  35. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Kluge View Post
    I said you were WRONG in regards to the comments where you said:

    It's reasonable to hypothesize about the IRS's costs being, essentially, zero to me and other Americans.
    It is, in proportion to how much you pay goes to them.

    Then you said the costs are none of my concern.
    Which is basically the same thing

    THEN you said that the Fed should just print up money to pay for the costs of the IRS.
    I said that'd be one way without taxing you, and since you know inflation is a cost, then you should know having more money isn't wealth.

    After it was incredibly obvious how ridiculous all of that was , you started in on supply and demand to try to get me to drop your ridiculous hypothesis of a cost-free IRS. And I think it's obvious why.
    I was answering you because you insisted on knowing how the IRS can be paid.

    Yes it does. If those dollars come from a printing press with nothing backing it, the value of the dollar goes down. I can't even believe I'm arguing this on this forum.
    And letting people keep money that was originally taken from them...is backed by what? Labor?

    But by all means, keep blathering. It's getting funnier.

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 48
    Last Post: 05-31-2014, 05:32 PM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-16-2014, 06:24 AM
  3. Elite Wordplay Exposed: Mutualization is Calculated Theft
    By AuH20 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-25-2012, 01:01 PM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-22-2010, 05:44 PM
  5. How is mortgage interest rate calculated?
    By Josh_LA in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 04-09-2009, 12:18 AM

Posting Permissions

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