Log in

View Full Version : Whats a fair share?



Pages : 1 [2]

Melonie
07-22-2008, 12:33 PM
If you're talking about speculative "bubbles" like the Clinton Dot.Com bubble; the Reagan-Bush S & L bubble; the housing bubble; the 1929 Stock Market bubble etc. they always burst sooner or later. How would you prevent it ?

^^^ abolish the Federal Reserve system, restore some fixed linkage between the US dollar's valuation and precious metals / global commodities, and actually enforce creditworthiness standards in regard to new mortgages / car loans / credit cards / investment margin loans !!!

Curious historical tidbit - JFK signed an executive order that would have done much of this ... had he not, by sheer coincidence, been assassinated before the order was enacted to any significant degree.

(snip)"On June 4, 1963, a little known attempt was made to strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the government at interest. On that day President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order No. 11110 that returned to the U.S. government the power to issue currency, without going through the Federal Reserve. Mr. Kennedy's order gave the Treasury the power "to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury." This meant that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury's vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation. In all, Kennedy brought nearly $4.3 billion in U.S. notes into circulation. The ramifications of this bill are enormous.

With the stroke of a pen, Mr. Kennedy was on his way to putting the Federal Reserve Bank of New York out of business. If enough of these silver certificats were to come into circulation they would have eliminated the demand for Federal Reserve notes. This is because the silver certificates are backed by silver and the Federal Reserve notes are not backed by anything. Executive Order 11110 could have prevented the national debt from reaching its current level, because it would have given the gevernment the ability to repay its debt without going to the Federal Reserve and being charged interest in order to create the new money. Executive Order 11110 gave the U.S. the ability to create its own money backed by silver.

After Mr. Kennedy was assassinated just five months later, no more silver certificates were issued. The Final Call has learned that the Executive Order was never repealed by any U.S. President through an Executive Order and is still valid. Why then has no president utilized it? Virtually all of the nearly $6 trillion in debt has been created since 1963, and if a U.S. president had utilized Executive Order 11110 the debt would be nowhere near the current level. Perhaps the assassination of JFK was a warning to future presidents who would think to eliminate the U.S. debt by eliminating the Federal Reserve's control over the creation of money. Mr. Kennedy challenged the government of money by challenging the two most successful vehicles that have ever been used to drive up debt - war and the creation of money by a privately-owned central bank. His efforts to have all troops out of Vietnam by 1965 and Executive Order 11110 would have severely cut into the profits and control of the New York banking establishment. "(snip)

from

Eric Stoner
07-22-2008, 12:55 PM
^^^ abolish the Federal Reserve system, restore some fixed linkage between the US dollar's valuation and precious metals / global commodities, and actually enforce creditworthiness standards in regard to new mortgages / car loans / credit cards / investment margin loans !!!

Curious historical tidbit - JFK signed an executive order that would have done much of this ... had he not, by sheer coincidence, been assassinated before the order was enacted to any significant degree.

(snip)"On June 4, 1963, a little known attempt was made to strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the government at interest. On that day President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order No. 11110 that returned to the U.S. government the power to issue currency, without going through the Federal Reserve. Mr. Kennedy's order gave the Treasury the power "to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury." This meant that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury's vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation. In all, Kennedy brought nearly $4.3 billion in U.S. notes into circulation. The ramifications of this bill are enormous.

With the stroke of a pen, Mr. Kennedy was on his way to putting the Federal Reserve Bank of New York out of business. If enough of these silver certificats were to come into circulation they would have eliminated the demand for Federal Reserve notes. This is because the silver certificates are backed by silver and the Federal Reserve notes are not backed by anything. Executive Order 11110 could have prevented the national debt from reaching its current level, because it would have given the gevernment the ability to repay its debt without going to the Federal Reserve and being charged interest in order to create the new money. Executive Order 11110 gave the U.S. the ability to create its own money backed by silver.

After Mr. Kennedy was assassinated just five months later, no more silver certificates were issued. The Final Call has learned that the Executive Order was never repealed by any U.S. President through an Executive Order and is still valid. Why then has no president utilized it? Virtually all of the nearly $6 trillion in debt has been created since 1963, and if a U.S. president had utilized Executive Order 11110 the debt would be nowhere near the current level. Perhaps the assassination of JFK was a warning to future presidents who would think to eliminate the U.S. debt by eliminating the Federal Reserve's control over the creation of money. Mr. Kennedy challenged the government of money by challenging the two most successful vehicles that have ever been used to drive up debt - war and the creation of money by a privately-owned central bank. His efforts to have all troops out of Vietnam by 1965 and Executive Order 11110 would have severely cut into the profits and control of the New York banking establishment. "(snip)

from http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/executiveorder11110.htm

Melonie, Melonie, Melonie. You of all people ! Buying into this "gold standard" nonsense. In fact the example you cite involved SILVER ! Shades of William Jennings Bryan and his "Cross of Gold" !

The problem with a gold standard is 1. the currency would be subject to the vagaries of the price of gold AND 2. it's no guarantee against panics, recessions and depressions. We had plenty of them when we WERE on the gold standard and PRIOR to the establishment of the Fed.

I've posted before that I am in favor of abolishing the Fed and replacing it with a computer programmed to provide slow and steady monetary growth. Afaic, the banks ought to be free to set up their own consortium to inter alia bail out Bear Stearns; Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. I've gone further and said Bernanke ought to have let at least one of the big banks stew in its own pot and go bust as an object lesson to the rest of the financial industry. I'd restrict the FDIC to insuring deposits ONLY at banks that observe sound and basic banking practices.

Melonie
07-22-2008, 02:45 PM
^^^ you're probably right ! In today's world precious metals would limit growth potential. However the principle should be employed in some form or another to absolutely limit the growth rate of currency available to politicians. Your master computer could theoretically do that but ONLY if future politicians didn't vote to change the programming !!! Unfortunately, the 'bread and circuses' motive has remainied powerful for some 2000 years ... and the politicians have ALWAYS resorted to debasing the currency as a means of financing the 'bread and circuses' in the absence of a 'hard limit' such as precious metals linkage.

circling back on topic, the new IRS figures have just been released in regard to the percentage of income tax burden paid by various different income groups ... interesting reading !

minnow
07-22-2008, 03:59 PM
Haven't googled it yet (TH & laziness aside), but just how much gold/silver does USA have compared to rest of world. Would such a state of affairs be (dis??) advantageous to us in todays global economy?? If we're "short", wouldn't that devalue US currency, if long would it increase value enough to have a meaningful impact??

Melonie
07-22-2008, 04:15 PM
^^^ that's a very good question ... and coincidentally, a question that the US government has gone to great lengths to avoid answering !!!



(snip)"The Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee (GATA) is attempting to compel the US Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department to publicise the extent of the country’s gold reserves.

GATA is a non-profit making organization that seeks to prevent gold cartels controlling the price and supply of gold and its related financial securities.

The committee is demanding sight of all records in the possession or control of the Federal Government that contain mention of gold swaps involving the US Government from January 1, 1990, to December 6, 2007.

In addition, it is asking for documents identifying the legal authority for the swaps and will also request documents involving gold loans and leases “and any other possible impairments of the gold reserve.”

Bullion banks borrow gold from Central banks under leasing arrangements, while gold swaps are normally transacted between central banks, in exchange for currency.

According to GATA Chairman, William Murphy, the requests are “only the first we plan to make seeking a full accounting of the US gold reserve”.

The reserve has not been audited in 60 years and Mr Murphy believes that “investors have the right to know exactly what the US government is doing to affect what is supposed to be free markets”, especially as “intervention by governments in the currency and gold markets has been increasing dramatically”.

In late 2006, Blanchard and Company, the retail dealer in rare coins and precious metals, published a report in which it explained that “central banks are far and away the largest holders of gold bullion on the planet, making up roughly 18% of the available stock”.

Some central banks report their purchases and sales of gold with a delay of up to nine months and there are suggestions from market analysts that governments are less than transparent about the extent of their gold purchases."(snip)

SecondChance
07-22-2008, 08:39 PM
If you liked tax avoidance with an Income Tax you're gonna love what you'll see with a National Sales Tax.

Please explain. The system providing the easiest means to avoid taxes is the current one. On paper it looks like the wealthy are paying their fair share, but they're getting it all back thru lobbying, subsidies, and massive tax breaks on pet projects. There would be no way to avoid a VAT tax. You buy something you pay your tax at checkout. But even given some unforeseen loophole that allows some to escape providing their fair share, that's no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water.


Clinton's Capital Gains Tax Cuts resulted in INCREASED revenue. So did Bush's. So did Reagan's. So did JFK's. So did Coolidge's.

That actually cannot be proven. For every source you find to back it up, I can find another to contradict it. What can be proven is that our debt increased under every one of those cases, and specifically, the ones like Reagan who looked at supply side economics like it was a religion caused increasing income gaps between the haves and have-nots, and not in an insignificant way. That by itself is a red flag that all is not as it seems on the surface. Trickle down economics is a sham. It never worked and it never will.


Since when is making money "sucking it OUT of the economy" ? What sucks money OUT of the economy is TAXES. What do you think people do with money ? Burn it ? Stuff it in a mattress ? No. They spend , save , invest and donate it and they PAY TAXES on it.

I'm not talking about people making money. I'm talking about people stealing money. White collar crime in this country has evolved into an art form and has been enabled by the unscrupulous coupling between our public representatives, the Federal Reserve, and Wall Street. It's no longer about some dude skimming off funds in the back office. It's now about major "too big to fail" investment institutions bilking hundreds of billions from an unsuspecting population, then getting bailed to the tune of more billions in free money from the Feds that we as taxpayers will have to pay for again thru more debt and devalued currency. All of the money that has been lost in housing, the banks, peoples' retirement accounts, and the devaluation of the dollar is not some cyclical coincidence. Deregulation, lack of oversight, greed, and sham laws like Sarbanes-Oxley allowed it to happen. Yeah, while Clinton was cutting capital gains, he was also quite busy removing the last vestiges of the Glass-Stiegel Act and the banks and investment houses went wild.


If you're talking about speculative "bubbles" like the Clinton Dot.Com bubble; the Reagan-Bush S & L bubble; the housing bubble; the 1929 Stock Market bubble etc. they always burst sooner or later. How would you prevent it ?

Those kind of bubbles can mostly be prevented if we have good people with integrity in place who have their eye on the ball. Unfortunately, in our case the foxes are guarding the hen house.

glambman
07-22-2008, 10:17 PM
Please explain. The system providing the easiest means to avoid taxes is the current one. On paper it looks like the wealthy are paying their fair share, but they're getting it all back thru lobbying, subsidies, and massive tax breaks on pet projects. There would be no way to avoid a VAT tax. You buy something you pay your tax at checkout. But even given some unforeseen loophole that allows some to escape providing their fair share, that's no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Who said anything about a VAT? It was about a national tax. Just because you pay for it at check out doesn't mean the government gets it. Sales taxes are easy to cheat, the mob takes hundred of millions in gas tax. Ohh, and the French sysytem is notorious for cheats, since the 50's, including their VAT.



That actually cannot be proven. For every source you find to back it up, I can find another to contradict it. What can be proven is that our debt increased under every one of those cases, and specifically, the ones like Reagan who looked at supply side economics like it was a religion caused increasing income gaps between the haves and have-nots, and not in an insignificant way. That by itself is a red flag that all is not as it seems on the surface. Trickle down economics is a sham. It never worked and it never will.

Debt increased because of increased spending, not tax cuts. And yes, the cuts did increase revenue.



I'm not talking about people making money. I'm talking about people stealing money. White collar crime in this country has evolved into an art form and has been enabled by the unscrupulous coupling between our public representatives, the Federal Reserve, and Wall Street. It's no longer about some dude skimming off funds in the back office. It's now about major "too big to fail" investment institutions bilking hundreds of billions from an unsuspecting population, then getting bailed to the tune of more billions in free money from the Feds that we as taxpayers will have to pay for again thru more debt and devalued currency. All of the money that has been lost in housing, the banks, peoples' retirement accounts, and the devaluation of the dollar is not some cyclical coincidence. Deregulation, lack of oversight, greed, and sham laws like Sarbanes-Oxley allowed it to happen. Yeah, while Clinton was cutting capital gains, he was also quite busy removing the last vestiges of the Glass-Stiegel Act and the banks and investment houses vent wild.


lol get your tin foil hat f-f-f-f-folks.

Richard_Head
07-23-2008, 07:31 AM
And yes, the cuts did increase revenue. Really? Here's some READING (http://www.swordscrossed.org/node/1671) for you.

glambman
07-23-2008, 08:01 AM
Really? Here's some READING (http://www.swordscrossed.org/node/1671) for you.



hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm

Eric Stoner
07-23-2008, 08:34 AM
Really? Here's some READING (http://www.swordscrossed.org/node/1671) for you.

Richard. I could cite hundreds of economists who agree that tax cuts ( reductions in Tax Rates) ALWAYS result in INCREASED revenues. Your favorite President, Clinton and his Treasury Secretary Rubin certainly had no trouble claiming increased tax revenues resulted DIRECTLY from his Capital Gains Tax Cuts.

Where you do have a point, albeit obliquely, is that tax cuts do not reduce deficits by themselves. There MUST be concurrent spending restraint.

Eric Stoner
07-23-2008, 08:42 AM
^^^ you're probably right ! In today's world precious metals would limit growth potential. However the principle should be employed in some form or another to absolutely limit the growth rate of currency available to politicians. Your master computer could theoretically do that but ONLY if future politicians didn't vote to change the programming !!! Unfortunately, the 'bread and circuses' motive has remainied powerful for some 2000 years ... and the politicians have ALWAYS resorted to debasing the currency as a means of financing the 'bread and circuses' in the absence of a 'hard limit' such as precious metals linkage.

circling back on topic, the new IRS figures have just been released in regard to the percentage of income tax burden paid by various different income groups ... interesting reading !

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121659695380368965.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

If we have trillions of dollars in circulation then we'd need at least $700 to $800 billion in gold reserves and that would only be at a few cents on the dollar. That would require the Gov't to purchase gold at market rates driving up the price and increasing the necessary outlay. Still want a gold standard ?

As for my replacing the Fed with a computer it could be done rather easily and if we really wanted it to be effective, we could require a 2/3 Congressional vote to make any change.

You and I both remember the inflation loving Congress of the 70's. They actively promoted it to make past debts cheaper and to increase revenues with bracket creep. Don't be surprised if a Dem. Congress and Obama use the same exact policies.

Eric Stoner
07-23-2008, 09:20 AM
Please explain. The system providing the easiest means to avoid taxes is the current one. On paper it looks like the wealthy are paying their fair share, but they're getting it all back thru lobbying, subsidies, and massive tax breaks on pet projects. There would be no way to avoid a VAT tax. You buy something you pay your tax at checkout. But even given some unforeseen loophole that allows some to escape providing their fair share, that's no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water.



That actually cannot be proven. For every source you find to back it up, I can find another to contradict it. What can be proven is that our debt increased under every one of those cases, and specifically, the ones like Reagan who looked at supply side economics like it was a religion caused increasing income gaps between the haves and have-nots, and not in an insignificant way. That by itself is a red flag that all is not as it seems on the surface. Trickle down economics is a sham. It never worked and it never will.



I'm not talking about people making money. I'm talking about people stealing money. White collar crime in this country has evolved into an art form and has been enabled by the unscrupulous coupling between our public representatives, the Federal Reserve, and Wall Street. It's no longer about some dude skimming off funds in the back office. It's now about major "too big to fail" investment institutions bilking hundreds of billions from an unsuspecting population, then getting bailed to the tune of more billions in free money from the Feds that we as taxpayers will have to pay for again thru more debt and devalued currency. All of the money that has been lost in housing, the banks, peoples' retirement accounts, and the devaluation of the dollar is not some cyclical coincidence. Deregulation, lack of oversight, greed, and sham laws like Sarbanes-Oxley allowed it to happen. Yeah, while Clinton was cutting capital gains, he was also quite busy removing the last vestiges of the Glass-Stiegel Act and the banks and investment houses went wild.



Those kind of bubbles can mostly be prevented if we have good people with integrity in place who have their eye on the ball. Unfortunately, in our case the foxes are guarding the hen house.

Are you serious ? The underground economy would have a field day avoiding
a National Sales Tax. The super rich would pay an even lower % of taxes with a NST than they do now because they have far greater control over their discretionary spending and greater influence on getting Congress would would and would not be exempt. You recognize their lobbying clout vis a vis the current system yet seriously think they won't use it to avoid taxes under a NST ?

Our debt increased because of SPENDING. The economy roared as a result of JFK's tax cuts and was roughly balanced. It was LBJ trying to fight the Vietnam War AND launch the Great Society without a tax increase that led to the Nixon/Ford deficits and inflation. It was Reagan having to bribe Congress into supporting his tax cuts with this subsidy and that spending program that resulted in record deficits. It's Bush fighting two wars; and NCLB and Medicare Drug Benefits and Homeland Security spending in Fairbanks, Alaska and Murfreesboro,
Tennessee and corn ethanol subsidies and paying for millions of illegal immigrants
etc.etc. that are giving us our high deficits today. Clinton cut Capital Gains and we had budget SURPLUSES because the Republicans forced him to sign Gramm -Rudman and we had serious spending restraint for the first time since Truman !

Let me ask you something :According to you, how is wealth created ? Where do you think jobs come from ? From your posts it appears that you might be some sort of crypto-socialist and possibly have a serious case of class envy. According to you, anyone who's "rich" either stole it or obtained it "unfairly".

This is why I continually argue for a flat or flatter tax. Many super-rich are paying effective rates of 15 to 20% on their Federal Income Taxes and I'd like to see them pay at least 20 % WITHOUT all the credits and deductions they currently enjoy. I don't know about you but hedge fund managers making hundreds of millions and then paying only 10 to 15% is not my idea of "fair".

as for what the Fed's been doing lately, I AGREE with you. It's inflationary and uncalled for. We're so paranoid about going through a long overdue correction that the Fed. has been scrambling to prop up financial institutions that gambled
and LOST . Where is the bank in Vegas or A.C. where high rollers can go to "borrow" to cover their losses at the gaming tables ? What bank or lender would even think of covering their losses ? But that is effectively what the Fed has been doing.

Melonie
07-23-2008, 02:36 PM
Are you serious ? The underground economy would have a field day avoiding a National Sales Tax. The super rich would pay an even lower % of taxes with a NST than they do now because they have far greater control over their discretionary spending and greater influence on getting Congress would would and would not be exempt.

In fact there is already documented proof of this being the case ... i.e. the ill-fated 'luxury tax' of the 1990's. Fortunately this 10% additional 'sales tax' on high priced items was rescinded after tens of thousands of US jobs were lost and hundreds of thousands of US jobs were threatened !!!



(snip)" KWAME HOLMAN: Joe Dockery is, in a word, rich, on this particular day, rich enough to take delivery on this 72-foot sailing yacht, custom-designed and built by Alden Yachts of Portsmouth, Rhode Island. Cost: $2 1/2 million.

JOE DOCKERY: I'm very content. It looks just super.

KWAME HOLMAN: These are the carpenters, fiberglass, and metal workers, electricians who actually did the work. Most are first and second generation Portuguese, skilled craftsmen with a specialty in boat-building. They are not rich, but their glad Joe Dockery is. His one order alone kept 20 workers employed full-time at Alden for two and a half years. And that's not counting the subcontractors who built the 100-foot carbon-fiber mast, molded the lightweight high-tech hull, and sewed the sails. Tony Abreau made all the customized stainless steel pieces.

TONY ABREAU, Metal Worker: This big piece over there cost between five and six thousand dollars.

KWAME HOLMAN: Joe Dockery, who owns a string of successful car dealerships in New Jersey, didn't hesitate to choose Alden to build his boat. In fact, this is his second Alden. That's his first, a 54-footer now for sale. But Dockery wouldn't even consider having his new boat built here or anywhere else in the United States until Congress repealed the federal luxury tax on boats. That tax would have cost him about $240,000, a bill he could afford but refused to pay.

JOE DOCKERY: You're being chosen as a special person to pay extra, and I didn't see the logic behind it. I found it insulting. I was very close to building a boat in Finland, I mean, very close.

KWAME HOLMAN: According to David MacFarlane, president of Alden Yachts, Dockery's order brought the company back from the brink of collapse. MacFarlane thinks back to November 1990, when President Bush and the Democratic majority in Congress agreed to levy the luxury tax. He says he still can't believe they did it.

DAVE MacFARLANE, Alden Yachts: I don't know anybody in the Marine industry that didn't know that there was a total disaster to start, and it's still amazing to think how somebody could come up with an idea that would shut off a business, and everybody that was in the business knew this would happen, and yet it floated right through.

KWAME HOLMAN: The theory behind the luxury tax sounded simple enough. Congress believed anyone willing to spend $100,000 or more on a new boat surely would be willing to pay an additional 10 percent to the federal government. But that didn't happen. Rather than pay the tax, many people in the market to buy a boat either didn't buy one, or bought one overseas. As a result, the luxury tax didn't bring in much money at all, and the customers' reluctance to buy [ in America - sic ]put the boat-building business, particularly here in Rhode Island, out of business. We first visited Rhode Island in June of 1992. The luxury tax had been in effect for 18 months. Tens of thousands of jobs had been lost across the country, thousands in Rhode Island alone.

WALTER SCHULZ, Boat Builder: (1992) When that tax came down, I mean, it was just as if, I know the metaphor sounds exaggerated, as if someone turned the faucet off.

KWAME HOLMAN: At that time we talked with Walter Schulz, founder and president of Shannon Yachts. After 17 years of building boats, his company did collapse. Schulz was forced to declare bankruptcy. "(snip)


like international banking to avoid US income taxes, the 'very rich' are also eminently capable of 'international shopping' to avoid US sales taxes. Jacking up the US sales tax rate sky high when purchasing expensive products in America simply provides more motivation for the 'very rich' to buy there expensive products elsewhere in the world ... which not only results in a total loss of sales tax revenue to the US gov't but also the loss of US business profits / jobs !!!



Many super-rich are paying effective rates of 15 to 20% on their Federal Income Taxes and I'd like to see them pay at least 20 % WITHOUT all the credits and deductions they currently enjoy. I don't know about you but hedge fund managers making hundreds of millions and then paying only 10 to 15% is not my idea of "fair".

not wanting to turn overtly political on this point, but for a fact this is the ultimate 'dirty little secret' of the Democratic politicians and their uber-rich supporters. In essence, lobbying and political survival instinct have resulted in a de-facto partnership between government and the very rich to use the gov'ts power to selectively tax and grant subsidies financed by tax money to guarantee profits and/or de-facto low (<20% tax rates) for the uber-rich ... PROVIDING that they invest in the businesses and industries that the gov't wants them to !!! On that list would be Fannie and Freddie, corn farming, ethanol refining, solar, alternate fuels, gov't and municipal bonds, and a host of other possibilities where the US gov't has legislated a 'guaranteed market', where the US gov't subsidizes the sale price / rate of return / production tax credits to guarantee a profit, where the US gov't restricts lower cost foreign competition via enacting quotas and tariffs etc.