What the F**k Happened!?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by BUSTERHYMAN, Mar 13, 2011.

  1. BUSTERHYMAN

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    8,246
    Likes Received:
    584
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Chi-Town Hustler
    What the F**k Happened!?

    Isn't this amazing?



    TAXES
    Accounts Receivable Tax
    Building Permit Tax
    Capital Gains Tax
    CDL license Tax
    Cigarette Tax
    Corporate Income Tax
    Court Fines (indirect taxes)
    Dog License Tax
    Federal Income Tax
    Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
    Fishing License Tax
    Food License Tax
    Fuel permit tax
    Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)
    Hunting License Tax
    Inheritance Tax Interest expense (tax on the money)
    Inventory tax IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
    IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
    Liquor Tax
    Local Income Tax
    Luxury Taxes
    Marriage License Tax
    Medicare Tax
    Property Tax
    Real Estate Tax
    Septic Permit Tax
    Service Charge Taxes
    Social Security Tax
    Road Usage Taxes (Truckers)
    Sales Taxes
    Recreational Vehicle Tax
    Road Toll Booth Taxes
    School Tax
    State Income Tax
    State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
    Telephone federal excise tax
    Telephone federal universal service fee tax
    Telephone federal, state and
    local surcharge taxes
    Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax
    Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax
    Telephone state and local tax
    Telephone usage charge tax
    Toll Bridge Taxes
    Toll Tunnel Taxes
    Traffic Fines (indirect taxation)
    Trailer Registration Tax
    Utility Taxes
    Vehicle License Registration Tax
    Vehicle Sales Tax
    Watercraft Registration Tax
    Well Permit Tax
    Workers Compensation Tax

    COMMENTS:
    Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago and our nation was the most prosperous in the world, with little national debt, 50 years ago we had the largest middle class in the world and only one parent had to work to support the family.
    What the F**k Happened!?
     
  2. B_RedDude

    B_RedDude New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Messages:
    2,031
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    California
    Tell us, then, on what funds the government ran between 1789 and 1913.
     
  3. ThickMeatJacker

    ThickMeatJacker New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2009
    Messages:
    278
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    37
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest USA
    That's an easy one. The government lived off the proceeds from all the tea the original tea party threw in the water that they took from the British. You know in New Hampsire, where the shot heard around the world was fired.
     
  4. SilverTrain

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    Messages:
    4,582
    Albums:
    8
    Likes Received:
    404
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA
    Well, your math is showing, just a bit. 100 years ago, who needed taxes?
    We were still basking in the glow of CottonIsKing and such, when there were slaves to do a shitload of work for free so the rich could stay easily rich. Even when the slaves were "freed" in the 1860's, the bullshit that pervaded throughout "Radical Reconstruction" let the glorious effects of slavery endure for a good 50 to 100 years beyond "the end of slavery". (It's coincidental that the first income taxes were instituted in the 1860's, is it not?) Look it up in a book, or somewhere on the www.

    It was kinda funny how you said 100 years ago we had no taxes, but then you sorta slyly segued to 50 years ago for the big prosperity thing. Funny. Like, kinda a whole buncha dishonesty there. See, our country emerged from WWII with a strong economy due to the fact that the residents of the country all sacrificed BIG TIME for a LONG TIME, and they WORKED THEIR ASSES OFF for practically no pay, for years. So that we could win the war. That was considered patriotic. The not-making-much-money thing. THAT was patriotic.

    And then everyone realized that in order to sustain our infrastructure, we'd have to pay taxes. A goodly amount of taxes. WITH NO WHINING.

    THAT'S how we had a big, prosperous middle class. Hard work, taxes without whining, sacrifice (nowadays they call it socialism).

    Now, you want all the honey without the buzzing.

    You've been fed a doctrinaire feast of crap. And you think it tastes good. The joke's on you. Not anyone else.
     
  5. sargon20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,385
    Likes Received:
    2,123
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlantis
    Kudos SilverTrain :wink:
     
  6. Bbucko

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    Messages:
    7,413
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    58
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sunny SoFla
    Originally most bridges and roads were privately built and maintained by funds raised via tolls. Though I no longer have a copy, Whitehill's Boston: A Topographical History goes into quite a bit of detail regarding just such an arrangement when Boston's first bridge was built connecting it to Charlestown in the mid 17th century.

    I am unclear how it differs whether one pays a toll to a private corporation or a municipality; without funds for maintenance, a bridge/tunnel/road will quickly become unusable. We cannot survive without infrastructure.

    Besides, I'm not sure tolls count as taxes anyway. And within my lifetime, the tollbooths along Rt 95 both in Connecticut and Maine have come down (though the dreaded Hampton Toll in New Hampshire remains).
     
  7. alx

    alx
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2010
    Messages:
    1,065
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Think thats bad, try living in the UK. seriously.
    42 cents per gallon on gas? fuel duty is about $2.21 a gallon then 20 percent VAT is added as well.
     
  8. Jason

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Messages:
    9,933
    Likes Received:
    642
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    London (GB)
    The idea of "tax freedom day" is useful. In the USA about 27% of all the money earnt by all people working is paid in tax. In the UK the equivalent is around 41%. Many European nations - France and Germany included - have over 50%, around double the US levels. The Euro-socialist philosophy is that the state knows best!

    The debts faced by the USA suggest that tax must go up, a lot, a services must be cut, a lot. While I'm all in favour of low-tax economies the first priority (for the USA and others) is to service debts - and I don't see that this can be done in the USA by public spending cuts alone. Much the same logic applies to the UK, though in the UK the emphasis has to be on public service cuts as tax is way too high. France and Germany can only manage their taxes because wages are inflated, a consequence of the euro - in effect money is being diverted from the Eurozone south to support the French/German excesses. Their position is intrinsically unstable.
     
  9. D_stryhtfg

    D_stryhtfg New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2009
    Messages:
    237
    Likes Received:
    0
    No kidding.

    And sadly...some actually WANT that kind of government here. :eek13:
     
  10. phillyhangin

    phillyhangin New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Messages:
    211
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    One of the things that happened was that the banking lobby bought out Congress in order to get the Federal Reserve Act passed in 1913. (Hmm, bankers manipulating the system in order to pursue short-term profits at the expense of long-term stability...sounds very familiar.)

    Prior to 1913, Congress exercised its Constitutional power to create and regulate money by acquiring new reserves of gold: Congress imposed a variety of duties and tariffs on imports and exports - typically luxury items - and those were usually payable in gold (if they were paid by foreign import/export agents) or currency (if they were paid by domestic import/export agents or their clients). This allowed Congress to build up its gold reserves and issue new currecy against them, as well as to collect currency in the Treasury. The Treasury was also the lender of last resort, and the interest earned on those loans was deposited in the Treasury.

    Whenever Congress passed a spending bill, it would first use the currency in the Treasury to pay the mandated expenses; any unpaid expenses would be covered by issuing new currency against the gold reserves. If gold reserves were insufficient, Congress would then be forced to borrow.

    The US carried very few long-term debts under this system - usually the result of borrowing to fund wars (again, this sounds very familiar...) - and these were usually paid back in under a decade. All of that changed with the passing of the FRA.

    Under the FRA, Congress does not control the currency supply as the Constitution dictates; instead, whenever it passes a spending bill, it has to borrow the funds from the Federal Reserve (a system of private, for-profit corporations) at whatever interest rate they feel like charging. The FR then creates the money and lends it to the US, which is then obligated to pay that money back with interest. How does Congress get the money to pay back the loan? The only way it can: Taxes.

    Note: The only way Congress can pay off these loans is to raise taxes equal to 100% of the loan value. So every dollar that Congress spends needs to be recaptured through taxes and paid back to private bankers. Lovely, isn't it?

    The catch is that if Congress borrows $100 at 5% interest, the FR creates $100 in new currency, but expects Congress to pay back a total of $105. How does Congress get that extra $5 that it owes - well, there's the rub. That extra $5 doesn't exist anywhere in the system, so that means someone gets screwed: The US owes $105, which is divided between two tax payers, Alice and Bob. (Alice and Bob are each responsible for $52.50 of the national debt.) However, there is only $100 worth of currency in the system, so if Alice pays all of her taxes, then there's not enough currency left in the system for Bob to pay his taxes ($100 - $52.20 = $47.50); the private bank forecloses on Bob and seizes his assets, which it then sells for profit. It's like an extremely nasty game of musical chairs, the consequences of which are bankruptcy and personal ruin for taxpayers, and tidy profits for the bankers.

    In order to preserve some semblance of solvency (say that 5 times fast), Congress has to borrow another $5 to cover the interest. The problem is, that money needs to be paid back with interest too - and the FR only creates enough currency to cover the principal. Rinse and repeat.

    The only solution to the national debt is to freeze the assets of the Federal Reserve banks, repeal the FRA, transfer all of the core central bank functions (such as serving as a central clearing-house for checks) back to the Treasury where the Constitution says they belong, and then write off all of the unconstitutionally acquired debts that we've accumulated over the last nearly 100 years. (We shouldn't go back to the gold standard, however, because that artificially limits the currency supply; the currency supply needs to expand or contract as the needs of the economy change.) Yes, this would destablize a lot of other countries that are currently holding our debt, but they're going to take a hit whether we take a write off or go into default, so better to make it a controlled crash than wait for business as usual to make it something that catches everyone by surprise.

    Of course, that only addresses the national debt; there would still be taxes in some form, but mainly as a way of controlling the currency supply: Too much currency is just as bad economically as too little, so taxes would be one tool Congress could use to reduce the supply; raising the interest rate on Treasury loans would be another. The problem with creating too much currency could be avoided if Congress were actually required to limit its spending to public goods and core services only, but that's another can of worms...
     
  11. sargon20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,385
    Likes Received:
    2,123
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlantis
    Kinda like it is in the rest of the industrialized world. I'm sure it's one reason why the US which makes up 5% of the world's population but consumes 25% of it's oil. How long can that last? Fuel economy standards the US government hoists on carmakers is useless as long as the populace treats the low price of fuel as a 'right' and purchases trucks, SUVs and turbo V8's to drive to the supermarket.

    Carmakers lean toward higher gas tax to fuel small-car sales
     
    #11 sargon20, Mar 14, 2011
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2011
  12. D_Davy_Downspout

    D_Davy_Downspout Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,144
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you're looking to the 50's/60's as a time with a lower tax rate, lol. I don't think you know your taxes.

    This is true, but the taxes aren't what did that.

    Movement conservatism and the decline of labor.

    I mean shit, if you're complaining about not being able to support a family on one income, you better be all for unions.
     
  13. B_RedDude

    B_RedDude New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Messages:
    2,031
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    California
    Don't forget the export of well-paid manufacturing jobs.

     
  14. hammer87

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2010
    Messages:
    420
    Albums:
    4
    Likes Received:
    99
    Gender:
    Male
    Verified:
    Photo

    That is huge in the area I live in. Luckly the tanker contract will bring some back.
     
  15. itsthepopei

    itsthepopei Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2010
    Messages:
    330
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    176
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlanta
    thats a big part of the conservative movement. By creating an unrestricted market american workers who have to be paid a minimum wage and have nice cozy labor-laws prohibiting sweatshops become far less desirable than 3rd world workers who have none of the benefits and will work for pennies on the dollar. But hey thats free market economics its the great equalizer. In theory over time the global standard of living would average out, for some this would be less than desirable ( the developed world ) as it would mean a reduction of the standard of living. For others it is the best thing sense sliced bread (the developing world). and for the chosen few at the tops of large multinationals its the next best thing to god as it ultimately provides them with a vast reserve of abundant cheep labor racing for the bottom in order to secure jobs.
     
  16. SilverTrain

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    Messages:
    4,582
    Albums:
    8
    Likes Received:
    404
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA
    The "conservative" response to this accurate assessment is to pretend the statement was unheard and to proceed directly to mindless reiteration of the-free-market-is-the-ultimate-panacea talking points.
     
  17. D_Davy_Downspout

    D_Davy_Downspout Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,144
    Likes Received:
    0
    Free movement of capital without free movement of labor is simply exploitation of developing countries.

    If you want to use immigrant labor, let them become citizens and get our benefits....oh wait, that would cut into profits, which is pretty much the only reason to offshore.
     
  18. B_RedDude

    B_RedDude New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Messages:
    2,031
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    California
    Maybe that's part of the reason that even Democrats are pussies about standing up to corporations. They fear the global mobility of capital.

    I don't know. Just a thought.

     
  19. phillyhangin

    phillyhangin New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Messages:
    211
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    Mostly it's fear (on both sides of the political aisle) of losing campaign contributions.

    If anyone actually stood up to corporations, such as holding them accountable for the consequences of their actions - hey, they want the same rights as natural persons, let them accept the same responsibilities - some corporations would, in fact, leave. But they would also leave a gap where another company could jump in and replace them. To make absolutely sure that that happened, the same legislation that holds them accountable would also hold them accountable for abandoning ship by barring them from doing business in the country for a period of time - long enough that replacement companies could get a foothold.

    Sadly, not likely to happen, because of the whole corporate-financed elections thing.
     
  20. legionking

    legionking New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA
    have you guys heard about the so called carbon tax that many governements are willingly to implement?

    everything in this world produces carbon. basically the world government wants to tax people for breathing and living.

    the carbon tax is pushed on by agendas such as global warming and saving the enivorment. when in reality the governments wants people to become scared of whats happening to the enviroment and then implement the carbon tax as a solution that everyone must pay.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted