|
Reduce your debt!! ... I'm curious.
I am from Canada and have had a satellite radio for almost a year now. In the last few months there have been a lot of ads from more and more companies telling consumers they have a "legal right to reduce their debt" and if you call their number they may be able to reduce your debt by more than half.
I am assuming this is primarily in the U.S.A. Can someone give me a brief explanation in layman's terms what this is all about? I understand that Credit companies would rather get "some" money than lose it all to the person going bankrupt but is there more to it than this? |
(I live in the US but am in no way a professional on this subject or extremely knowledgeable about it)
As I understand it, they basically tell the credit card companies that the person won't be able to pay their debt off and that the person will pay a portion instead of none at all. AFAIK there's not much more to it than this. |
[quote=Mini-Geek;157045](I live in the US but am in no way a professional on this subject or extremely knowledgeable about it)
As I understand it, they basically tell the credit card companies that the person won't be able to pay their debt off and that the person will pay a portion instead of none at all. AFAIK there's not much more to it than this.[/quote] There are some legal things. They say by simply sending you the credit card there is no legal contract and so you don´t have to pay this. Anyway - our money system creates new money by creating a new credit so on a global economic scale it isn´t possible to reduce the debt. If the debt would be reduced to zero all the investors wouldn´t have new investments and the economy would plunge into a depression. |
[quote=joblack;157049]There are some legal things. They say by simply sending you the credit card there is no legal contract and so you don´t have to pay this.[/quote]Who is "they"?
Every credit card I've seen was accompanied by a contract that included a provision saying something like, "any use of this card implies acceptance of this contract". So ... it's true that "by simply sending you the credit card there is no legal contract", but ... [I]as soon as you use that card[/I], there [U]is[/U] a legal contract that you have accepted and agreed-to! Thus the statement that "you don´t have to pay this" (if "this" refers to ones credit card account balance resulting from ones own use of the credit card) is false. If some credit-repair agency tells you that, they're lying (since such an agency must know better, it's deliberate deception). It's true that if you receive a credit card, do _not_ use it, and someone else subsequently, say, fishes it out of your trash and uses it, then you have no legal obligation to pay the resulting debt ... because you did not agree to or accept the contract by the act of using the card yourself. [quote]Anyway - our money system creates new money by creating a new credit so on a global economic scale it isn´t possible to reduce the debt. If the debt would be reduced to zero all the investors wouldn´t have new investments and the economy would plunge into a depression.[/quote]... but none of that global stuff is relevant to the case of a particular person's credit card debt. What applies there is the contract between that person and the card-issuing company. |
[quote=cheesehead;157113]Who is "they"?
Every credit card I've seen was accompanied by a contract that included a provision saying something like, "any use of this card implies acceptance of this contract". So ... it's true that "by simply sending you the credit card there is no legal contract", but ... [I]as soon as you use that card[/I], there [U]is[/U] a legal contract that you have accepted and agreed-to![/quote] [quote=cheesehead;157113] ... but none of that global stuff is relevant to the case of a particular person's credit card debt. What applies there is the contract between that person and the card-issuing company.[/quote] Thats my understanding, too. I´m not a layer and I have never checked that further (I have seen some pretty interesting presentations on youtube). As far as I know in the USA the income tax isn't legal as well (source: America - From Freedom to Fascism - [url]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173[/url] ) but the government gets it anyway. |
[quote=cheesehead;157113]
... but none of that global stuff is relevant to the case of a particular person's credit card debt. What applies there is the contract between that person and the card-issuing company.[/quote] Yes for a business it isn´t relevant. But on a country scale or even worldwide most of the monetary systems have to expand because of the interest system (exponential growth). Where would the ultra rich clique put there millions interest profits if there wouldn´t be a lot of idiots who increase their credit limit even further? |
[QUOTE=petrw1;157044]I am from Canada and have had a satellite radio for almost a year now. In the last few months there have been a lot of ads from more and more companies telling consumers they have a "legal right to reduce their debt" and if you call their number they may be able to reduce your debt by more than half.
I am assuming this is primarily in the U.S.A. Can someone give me a brief explanation in layman's terms what this is all about? I understand that Credit companies would rather get "some" money than lose it all to the person going bankrupt but is there more to it than this?[/QUOTE]There are actually several different types of "debt reduction"/"credit repair" available. The ones that run ads like you hear are probably the type that counsel you by advising to you stop paying on all of your debt in a bid to get your creditors to bargain away some of the debt in exchange for resuming payment. Downside: destroys your credit rating (negative information stays for 7 years); no [b]guarantee[/b] of debt reduction from creditors; "counseling" agencies get a fee from you up front. Another type out there is the "instant credit repair" people. The credit reporting agencies have really cracked down on this. Basically, people with great credit scores are paid fees to allow people with bad credit to "piggyback" on their credit reports (obtaining a credit card with a low limit using the great credit score person as a "sort of" co-signer.) Downside: credit agencies caught on to this and want to outlaw it; person with great score runs a risk of getting their score lowered; agencies want a fee up front. The last segment out there are the non-profit consumer credit couseling organizations. CCCS affiliates provide couseling services to help people in over their heads learn to budget and work on setting up a repayment schedule, and trying to get the interest frozen on current accounts so the balances don't become any larger. This has been made mandatory before you can file for bankruptcy. Downsides: no "instant repair" of your credit score; your credit limits are frozen where they are currently (no more big screen TV...) Upside: no up front fees, you pay as you go; for people that care, a clear conscience wrt to paying their debts. |
[quote=joblack;157122]As far as I know in the USA the income tax isn't legal as well[/quote]
Reality check: Do you actually think that if the income tax weren't legal, it would still be enforced this many decades after it was instituted? How many tax-protesters/nonpayers who actually argued in court that the income tax was illegal do you want to interview in their federal prison visiting rooms? (See below for Sherry Peel Jackson) The Internet allows people to broadcast to the world any old unfounded idea they have, whereas they used to be limited to having pamphlets printed up and handed out to folks passing by. For more reality, see [URL="http://www.keytlaw.com/irs/taxarguments.htm"]http://www.keytlaw.com/irs/taxarguments.htm [/URL] [quote][FONT=Times New Roman]The IRS responds in depth to some of the more common frivolous “legal arguments” made by individuals and groups who oppose compliance with the federal tax laws. The first section groups these arguments under six general categories, with variations within each category. Each contention is briefly explained, followed by a discussion of the legal authority that rejects the contention. The second section responds to some of the more common frivolous arguments made in collection due process cases brought pursuant to sections 6320 or 6330. These arguments are grouped under ten general categories and contain a brief description of each contention followed by a discussion of the correct legal authority. A final section explains the penalties that the courts may impose on those who pursue tax cases on frivolous grounds. It should be noted that the cases cited as relevant legal authority are illustrative and are not intended to provide an all-inclusive list relating to frivolous tax arguments [/FONT]< followed by detailed legal replies to a number of contentions about the federal income tax >[/quote]... or "The Tax Protester FAQ" at [URL]http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html[/URL] [quote=joblack](source: America - From Freedom to Fascism - [URL]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173[/URL] )[/quote]Reply from [URL]http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080116084856AA4vfoo[/URL] (Edit: that page now says the question has been deleted (?!). However, the link to evans-legal.com does work.) "You can ignore Internet conspiracy theory videos like "America: Freedom to Fascism" and "Zeitgeist". They are full of inaccuracies, erroneous information, and out-of-context quotes. Go to [URL]http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html[/URL] and look up almost all income tax related arguments brought forth in those films and see that they are wrong. BTW, Sherry Peel Jackson, one of the people interviewed in Freedom to Fascism was recently CONVICTED of failing to file income tax returns. The trial lasted two days and the jury only needed 45 minutes to convict her on all counts. The stuff on the Federal Reserve in both of those films is also wrong." - - - [quote=joblack;157123]Yes for a business it isn´t relevant. But on a country scale or even worldwide most of the monetary systems have to expand because of the interest system (exponential growth).[/quote]From the OP [my emphasis]: "... companies telling [B]consumers[/B] ... ... Credit companies would rather get "some" money ... [from] the [B]person[/B] going bankrupt ..." |
CORRECTIONS to two of my URL links
[quote=cheesehead;157214]For more reality, see [URL]http://www.keytlaw.com/irs/taxarguments.htm:[/URL][/quote]Unfortunately, I failed to notice in time that this forum's software had included the trailing colon in two URL links above. That one should have been:
[URL]http://www.keytlaw.com/irs/taxarguments.htm[/URL] and another one [quote][URL="http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080116084856AA4vfoo:"]http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...084856AA4vfoo:[/URL][/quote]should have been: [URL]http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080116084856AA4vfoo[/URL][URL="http://www.keytlaw.com/irs/taxarguments.htm:"] [/URL] |
The other legal means [which I haven't yet seen mentioned here] for "reducing one`s debt" - more accurately of reducing the cost of servicing one's debt - is to consolidate various high-interest-rate balances under the umbrella of a single lower-interest-rate form of debt, whether it be credit-card-based or other.
Many of the "credit repair" and other too-good-to-be-true-sounding schemes in this area are flat-out scams. But can you really blame people for falling prey to these, when they see Wall Street CEOs and sundry crooks from the world of big business getting *their* debt reduced "for free" (i.e. at taxpayer expense)? It's a corrosive mentality which has permeated every level of society and which our government is busily helping to foster. The irony that this spate of "socialism for the rich and connected", the largest example of its kind in history, was a direct result of decades of Reagan-Republican-style "deregulated free market" economics is just so rich. But that is for any one of several other threads. But the upshot of this Bailout Nation mentality for the big players is: The best way to "Get out of debt free!" is to accumulate so much of it in such a reckless fashion than the alternative to your getting bailed out becomes unpalatable to the Powers That Be. If you're gonna leverage up, do it right and proper, I say, and that means do it big. |
1 Attachment(s)
It took me a few years to shed any doubt that people [B]are[/B] the same in the countries on both sides of the curtain. If it is any consolation, now that U.S.of A. mentality turned close to communistic ("I was misled by vultures, so I deserve to keep my grab and everyone else must help me, bail me, bail me, reduce my debt!" ~= "From each according to ability, to each according to his needs"), the ex-U.S.S.R. spiraled beyond capitalism into complete lawlessness (because common people stopped thinking for 70 years and now they have no idea how to count money on any level, this muscle is atrophied there). This see-saw will bounce for a while, I guess... Wild West in Russia, socialism in America, and back... I am exaggerating, of course, for simplicity.
|
[quote=Batalov;157274]It took me a few years to shed any doubt that people [B]are[/B] the same in the countries on both sides of the curtain. If it is any consolation, now that U.S.of A. mentality turned close to communistic ("I was misled by vultures, so I deserve to keep my grab and everyone else must help me, bail me, bail me, reduce my debt!" ~= "From each according to ability, to each according to his needs"), the ex-U.S.S.R. spiraled beyond capitalism into complete lawlessness (because common people stopped thinking for 70 years and now they have no idea how to count money on any level, this muscle is atrophied there). This see-saw will bounce for a while, I guess... Wild West in Russia, socialism in America, and back... I am exaggerating, of course, for simplicity.[/quote]
And what in Russia all so is bad??? |
[quote=cheesehead;157214]Reality check: Do you actually think that if the income tax weren't legal, it would still be enforced this many decades after it was instituted?
How many tax-protesters/nonpayers who actually argued in court that the income tax was illegal do you want to interview in their federal prison visiting rooms? (See below for Sherry Peel Jackson) The Internet allows people to broadcast to the world any old unfounded idea they have, whereas they used to be limited to having pamphlets printed up and handed out to folks passing by. For more reality, see [URL]http://www.keytlaw.com/irs/taxarguments.htm:[/URL] ... or "The Tax Protester FAQ" at [URL]http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html[/URL] [/quote] Check out the documentation ... your 'argument' that it couldn´t be illegal because it is used so many years is flaud. In Germany we had laws which were prosecuted until somebody tried to stop it with the help of the 'Bundesverfassungsgericht' (equivalent to the Supreme Court). [quote=cheesehead;157214] Reply from [URL]http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080116084856AA4vfoo:[/URL] (Edit: that page now says the question has been deleted (?!). However, the link to evans-legal.com does work.) "You can ignore Internet conspiracy theory videos like "America: Freedom to Fascism" and "Zeitgeist". They are full of inaccuracies, erroneous information, and out-of-context quotes. Go to [URL]http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html[/URL] and look up almost all income tax related arguments brought forth in those films and see that they are wrong. BTW, Sherry Peel Jackson, one of the people interviewed in Freedom to Fascism was recently CONVICTED of failing to file income tax returns. The trial lasted two days and the jury only needed 45 minutes to convict her on all counts. The stuff on the Federal Reserve in both of those films is also wrong." - - - From the OP [my emphasis]: "... companies telling [B]consumers[/B] ... ... Credit companies would rather get "some" money ... [from] the [B]person[/B] going bankrupt ..."[/quote] I didn't say that everything is true in 'From Freedom to Fascism' but I'm in the business long enough that I know that 'generic conspiracy bashing' doesn't help to find more accurate information. |
[quote=joblack;157277]Check out the documentation[/quote]I have. See below.
But you give no sign that you have yet followed the links I provided (I apologize for the erroneous trailing colons on two of the URLs, but I have since posted corrections) to where you could find corroboration of my position. [quote]your 'argument' that it couldn´t be illegal because it is used so many years is flaud.[/quote]I presented that argument as a lead-off reality check, not claiming that it was either my only argument or was a clincher. I then referred you to places where you could read more substantial answers yourself. [quote]In Germany we had laws which were prosecuted until somebody tried to stop it with the help of the 'Bundesverfassungsgericht' (equivalent to the Supreme Court).[/quote]... and you don't think that there have been any challenges to the income tax law in U.S. federal courts, even though I specifically referred to convictions of folks who had done so? You don't think that, in a country where many far-less-consequential laws have been challenged all the way to the national Supreme Court in widely publicized efforts, the law on which the [I]income tax[/I] is based has somehow never been similarly challenged? Yes, indeed -- [U]do[/U], by all means, [U]check out the documentation[/U] ... [I]on the federal side as well[/I]. You can find, as indicated in the reply I quoted from answers.yahoo.com, that each of the income-tax-is-illegal arguments is countered by available legal evidence and shown to be incomplete, out-of-context, or just plain wrong. I [I]have[/I] followed the trail of those anti-income-tax arguments myself, a few years ago. I spent some time reading through several anti-income-tax sites to see what arguments they had. I knew immediately from my previous knowledge that some of their arguments were flawed, and I looked up the evidence that countered the arguments I hadn't seen before. (BTW, while i was composing my previous reply, I consciously recalled such situations as what you referred to in Germany. Since I gave you links to where you could find counters to the anti-tax arguments, which I expected you to investigate, I didn't bother mentioning that thought. There have been numerous U.S. federal court decisions, including of the U.S. Supreme Court, confirming the validity of the federal income tax.) [quote]I didn't say that everything is true in 'From Freedom to Fascism' but I'm in the business long enough that I know that 'generic conspiracy bashing' doesn't help to find more accurate information.[/quote]Did you, as advocated in the answers.yahoo.com quote, "Go to [URL]http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html[/URL] and look up almost all income tax related arguments brought forth in those films and see that they are wrong", [I]in accordance with your own admonition to check out the documentation[/I]? I warn you: one of my pet peeves is having people instruct me to do something ("Check out ...") they themselves will not do! If you continue to fail to show that you have examined the evidence on the federal side to which you have been guided by links I provided, I may not be gentle in my responses. OTOH, if, after genuinely tracking down what they provide, you find the answers at the links I gave above to be insufficient, I will dig through my past bookmarks collections to find other sites that I read during my earlier investigation of the income tax protesters' arguments. - - - - - BTW, in case you wish to challenge me, in return, to view videos like "America - From Freedom to Fascism": I currently have a dialup connection that makes it impractical to view videos unless they're quite short (which I suppose those are not), but I am willing to review textual anti-tax sites you recommend. |
[quote=miklin;157276]And what in Russia all so is bad???[/quote]
Did I say something about all being bad? Is Wild West = bad? I guess I was trying to understand why people don't take all this radio spam for what it is - and I think it is because of the mentality shift which is induced by the travesty at the very top of the pyramid. Surely, there are legitimate debt reductions. They must be played out on the verge of bancruptcy, because if you go bancrupt they won't get anything at all. So you have to play convincingly. Ah well, that's been said here already. So if the agency will help you defraud the lenders then it's no good, and if you are really almost bancrupt then you most likely don't need them. To use those sharks' services when you are as much ok as your neighbor (which I hope you are) is a disservice to yourself - you will get in more trouble. [SIZE=1]P.S. That reminds me that when this thread was still 2 messages long I was tempted to respond "Yeah! Reduce you debt and increase your ..... - all in one place! all by the same people" but I chuckled and thought that this was too obvious and didn't do it. For me spam is spam, I don't discriminate. Radio spam? It's older than our parents![/SIZE] |
[quote=cheesehead;157305] If you continue to fail to show that you have examined the evidence on the federal side to which you have been guided by links I provided, I may not be gentle in my responses.
[/quote] Don´t patronize me! I´m not your little pal nor I´m here to 'legally proof' it. If you want to be an a'hole there a many other places to be that. That the Supreme Court decided against it so far is right, but in my opinion that doesn´t mean it´s legal. The Supreme Court decides differently in every epoch - how can that be the absolute last instance whats legal and whats not? The flip-flop strategy can be seen by other topics like abortion or same sex mariage. The Income Tax came with the FED act from the December 13th, 1913. If you read the constitution you will see that the money (=coins) have to be released by the government. The FED as a semi-private organization had gone around it by releasing dollar bills (not coins). That was never intended by The Founders. If the Supreme Court would decide against an income tax the USA would most probably go bancrupt. |
[quote=joblack;157317]I´m not your little pal nor I´m here to 'legally proof' it.[/quote]... nor have you yet shown that you have followed your own "Check out ..." admonition by reading and digesting the information at the links I gave you!
[quote]That the Supreme Court decided against it so far is right, but in my opinion that doesn´t mean it´s legal.[/quote]... which is why the links I gave you lead to refutations of a multitude of anti-tax arguments, not just one ... but you haven't discovered that, yet, have you? (BTW, it's a little odd that you write that after having previously posted, "In Germany we had laws which were prosecuted until somebody tried to stop it with the help of the 'Bundesverfassungsgericht' (equivalent to the Supreme Court)". Are you trying to say that the Bundesverfassungsgericht was/is more ... ([I]some adjective[/I]) ... in Germany than the U.S. Supreme Court is in the U.S.? Or what?) [quote]The Income Tax came with the FED act from the December 13th, 1913. If you read the constitution you will see that the money (=coins) have to be released by the government. The FED as a semi-private organization had gone around it by releasing dollar bills (not coins). That was never intended by The Founders.[/quote]... and [I]if [U]you[/U] had actually read the stuff in the "Tax Protester FAQ" to which I linked[/I], you would have found [URL]http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#FRNs[/URL] [quote][B]Receipt of Federal Reserve Notes is not “income” because Federal Reserve Notes are not lawful money (“coins in gold or silver”) within the meaning of the constitution. [/B] Although tax protesters and other critics of modern banking like to claim only gold and silver can be “money,” there is no such limitation in the Constitution. Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution states that “No State shall ... coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts ...,” but Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 states that Congress shall have the power “To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin,” with no mention of any restriction to gold or silver. This difference has been clearly recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court:[INDENT]“The constitutional authority of Congress to provide a currency for the whole countryis now firmly established ... By the constitution of the United States, the several states are prohibited from coining money, emitting bills of credit, or making anything but gold or silver a tender of payment of debts. But no intention can be inferred from these to deny to Congress either of these powers.... Under the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States, and to issue circulating notes for the money borrowed, its powers to define the quality and force of those notes as currency is as broad as the like power over a metallic currency under the power to coin money and to regulate the value thereof. Under the two powers, taken together, Congress is authorized to established a national currency, either in coin or in paper and to make the currency lawful money for all purposes, as regards the national government or private individuals.”[/INDENT][I]Juilliard v. Greenman,[/I] 110 U.S. 421, 446 (1884). How do courts respond when taxpayers claim that the receipt of federal reserve notes is not “income”?[INDENT]“Plaintiffs further seek an injunction against the Internal Revenue Service (‘IRS’) to prevent tax collection activities on federal reserve notes, contending that federal reserve notes are not lawful money of the United States ‘as defined and intended by the spirit of the Constitution’ and that Congress has violated the separation of powers doctrine by issuing federal reserve notes which are not redeemable in coin, thereby rendering federal reserve notes ‘counterfeit securities.’ ... Plaintiffs are incorrect. “The contention that paper money is illegal has been consistently rejected. [Citations omitted.] “Congress has exercised this power [to establish a national currency] by delegation to the federal reserve system. 12 U.S.C. section 411. Federal reserve notes are legal tender for all debts, including taxes. 31 U.S.C. section 392; [I]Milam v. U.S.[/I] 524 F.2d 629 (9th Cir. 1974). The United States Constitution, art. 1, section 10, ‘prohibits the states from declaring legal tender anything other than gold or silver, but does not limit Congress’ power to declare what shall be legal tender for all debts.’ [I]U.S. v. Rifen,[/I] 577 F.2d 1111,1112 (8th Cir. 1978). Since Congress has done so, there can be no valid challenge to the legality of federal reserve notes. [I]United States v. Anderson,[/I] 584 F.2d 369, 374 (10th Cir. 1978).”[/INDENT][I]Wilson v. United States of America,[/I] 81 AFTR2d ¶98-785 (D.Col. 1998). In [I]United States v. Daly[/I], 481 F.2d 28 (8th Cir. 1973), the court affirmed a conviction for willfully failing to file income tax returns, describing the argument that “the only ‘Legal Tender Dollars’ are those which contain a mixture of gold and silver and that only those dollars may be constitutionally taxed” as “clearly frivolous.” See also, [I]Guaranty Trust Co. v. Henwood,[/I] 307 U.S. 247 (1939); [I]Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co.,[/I] 294 U.S. 240 (1935); [I]United States v. Kelley[/I], 539 F.2d 1199 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. den. 429 U.S. 963 (1976); [I]United States v. Wangrud[/I], 533 F.2d 495 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. den. 429 U.S. 818; [I]United States v. Daly[/I], 481 F.2d 28 (8th Cir. 1937), cert den. 414 U.S. 1064 (1973); [I]Cupp v. Commissioner[/I], 65 T.C. 68 (1975), aff’d 559 F.2d 1207 (3rd Cir. 1975); [I]United State v. Porth[/I], 426 F.2d 519 (10th Cir. 1970), cert. den. 400 U.S. 824 (1970); See also, [I]United States v. Condo[/I], 741 F.2d 238, 239 (9th Cir. 1984) (affirming criminal conviction for tax fraud and rejecting as “frivolous” the argument that Federal Reserve Notes are not valid currency, cannot be taxed, and are merely “debts”); [I]United States v. Rickman[/I], 638 F.2d 182, 184 (10th Cir. 1980) (affirming criminal conviction for willfully failing to file a return and rejecting the taxpayer’s argument that “the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, section 8, United States Constitution”). For more information on the federal reserve system, see [URL="http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Embassy/1154/flaherty.html"]Debunking the Federal Reserve Conspiracy Theories[/URL] by [URL="http://home.earthlink.net/%7Eflahertyhsd/"]Edward Flaherty[/URL]. The claim that “Federal Reserve Notes are not taxable income when paid to a taxpayer because they are not gold or silver and may not be redeemed for gold or silver” has been identified by the IRS as a “frivolous position” that can result in a penalty of $5,000 when asserted in a tax return or included in certain collection-related submissions. [URL="http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-irbs/irb07-14.pdf"]Notice 2007-30, 2007-14 I.R.B. 883[/URL]. [/quote]... [U]but you haven't actually checked out that documentation yet, have you[/U]? (Or else you wouldn't have set forth that faulty "coins" argument in this latest posting of yours, would you?) Re-read my "pet peeve" warning in my previous posting. I'll stop patronizing you after you actually show us that you practice what you preach! I'm familiar with the common bluffing game played in online forums wherein each poster postures as an authority countering the arguments presented by the other side, but has/will not actually done/do the work of looking up what's available on the Internet even when links are handily provided. I will continue to call your bluffs on this matter, joblack, [I]so that every other reader of this thread will see[/I] which side actually has the valid arguments and which does not. I will continue to demonstrate, when necessary, that the links I post actually have pertinent information and refute the shallow anti-tax arguments you present, just as I have actually shown, not merely bluffed, in this posting. |
[quote=cheesehead;157323]
Re-read my "pet peeve" warning in my previous posting. I'll stop patronizing you after you actually show us that you practice what you preach! I'm familiar with the common bluffing game played in online forums wherein each poster postures as an authority countering the arguments presented by the other side, but has/will not actually do the work of looking up what's available on the Internet even when links are handily provided. I will continue to call your bluffs on this matter, joblack, so that every other reader of this thread will see which side actually has the valid arguments and which does not. I will continue to demonstrate that the links I post actually have pertinent information and refute the shallow anti-tax arguments you present, just as I have actually shown, not merely bluffed on my part.[/quote] At first: preaching has to be left in the church. In scientific argumentation it has no practical effect and people who are talking in that manner are normally (religious) nuts ... Your link about the myths of the FED ( [URL]http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Embassy/1154/flaherty.html[/URL] - Debunking Federal Reserve) is partly not correct. [B][SIZE=2][B]Myth #1: The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was crafted by Wall Street bankers and a few senators in a secret meeting.[/B][/SIZE][/B] [URL]http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3616/flaherty1.html[/URL] The author [B][SIZE=2]G. Edward Griffin [/SIZE][/B] from the book [I]The Creature from Jekyll Island[/I] proofed the secret meetings. [B]Myth #8: If it were not for the Federal Reserve charging the government interest, the budget would be balanced and we would have no national debt.[/B] If the Government would create their own money they couldn´t be in debt to their own people (they could be in debt to foreign countries but this is a different topic). The actual monetary system is flaud per se because it needs exponential growth to exist - this problem wouldn´t be solved by just letting the government create the money. --- The other claims of Mr. Evans haven´t been double checked by me yet. As you know everybody can open a site in the internet and links are as worthy as the person who stand behind it. I can´t see a bluff on my side - you have skipped my other arguments so far but demanding instant answers for your hudge link material. My suggestion is that you adjust your behaviour and don´t play the 'typical lawer' ... |
[quote=joblack;157326]At first: preaching has to be left in the church. In scientific argumentation it has no practical effect and people who are talking in that manner are normally (religious) nuts ...[/quote]There are also secular definitions.
From Webster's Third New International Dictionary: "[sup]1[/sup][B]preach[/B] ... [I]vi[/I] ... [B]2 :[/B] to urge acceptance or abandonment of an idea or course of action ... [i]vt[/i] ... [b]2[/b] to advocate earnestly" By "preach" I referred to your "Check out the documentation" imperative phrase directed to me. [quote]Your link about the myths of the FED ( [URL]http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Embassy/1154/flaherty.html[/URL] - Debunking Federal Reserve) is partly not correct. [B][SIZE=2][B]Myth #1: The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was crafted by Wall Street bankers and a few senators in a secret meeting.[/B][/SIZE][/B] [URL]http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3616/flaherty1.html[/URL] The author [B][SIZE=2]G. Edward Griffin [/SIZE][/B] from the book [I]The Creature from Jekyll Island[/I] proofed the secret meetings. [B]Myth #8: If it were not for the Federal Reserve charging the government interest, the budget would be balanced and we would have no national debt.[/B] If the Government would create their own money they couldn´t be in debt to their own people (they could be in debt to foreign countries but this is a different topic). The actual monetary system is flaud per se because it needs exponential growth to exist - this problem wouldn´t be solved by just letting the government create the money.[/quote]I can't tell what you quoted from one source, what you quoted from another, which part is your own words, and what it is that is partly not correct. Will you please clarify this? |
joblack, please keep the discussion civil. Name calling "a'hole" is not permitted on the forums.
|
But I need to apologize for being too belligerent.
Stuff like claiming the income tax is illegal, or similar schemes in which some people have been manipulated by others into passing on bogus stuff (stuff that[I] the manipulators[/I] know is bogus, but try to deceive others into believing), on the Internet or elsewhere, are hot-buttons with me. I hate it when I see manipulative people persuade others to believe bogus claims, and thus lead them to join in spreading the deception. (joblack is [I]not[/I] on the manipulative side of this. I'm not so much angry at joblack -- other than the relatively minor matter of do-as-I-say checking out of references -- as I am at the tactics of the tax-protesting movement leaders who by now know very well what the law is and means in regard to legality of the income tax.) I'll try (once again) to remember that as soon as I realize that I'm reacting to a hot-button issue, I need to take a break to settle down. - - - Footnote about a similar case: Some leaders of the creationist (creation science, intelligent design, teach-the-controversy, ...) movement are manipulative rather than sincere, since by now they've been informed many times over many years about their misquotations and out-of-context quotations of statements by scientists about evolution, and misuse of scientific principles, but keep publishing their distortions over and over. I'm thinking of Michael Behe in particular -- I've seen the correspondence some leading (evolutionary) scientists have sent him about this. |
[quote=cheesehead;157330]There are also secular definitions.
From Webster's Third New International Dictionary: "[sup]1[/sup][B]preach[/B] ... [I]vi[/I] ... [B]2 :[/B] to urge acceptance or abandonment of an idea or course of action ... [I]vt[/I] ... [B]2[/B] to advocate earnestly" By "preach" I referred to your "Check out the documentation" imperative phrase directed to me. I can't tell what you quoted from one source, what you quoted from another, which part is your own words, and what it is that is partly not correct. Will you please clarify this?[/quote] It´s a link from your link [url]http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#FRNs[/url] The bold sentences are from your source, the answers are from myself and are the corrections. |
[quote=cheesehead;157580]But I need to apologize for being too belligerent.
Stuff like claiming the income tax is illegal, or similar schemes in which some people have been manipulated by others into passing on bogus stuff (stuff that[I] the manipulators[/I] know is bogus, but try to deceive others into believing), on the Internet or elsewhere, are hot-buttons with me. I hate it when I see manipulative people persuade others to believe bogus claims, and thus lead them to join in spreading the deception. (joblack is [I]not[/I] on the manipulative side of this. I'm not so much angry at joblack -- other than the relatively minor matter of do-as-I-say checking out of references -- as I am at the tactics of the tax-protesting movement leaders who by now know very well what the law is and means in regard to legality of the income tax.) I'll try (once again) to remember that as soon as I realize that I'm reacting to a hot-button issue, I need to take a break to settle down. - - - Footnote about a similar case: Some leaders of the creationist (creation science, intelligent design, teach-the-controversy, ...) movement are manipulative rather than sincere, since by now they've been informed many times over many years about their misquotations and out-of-context quotations of statements by scientists about evolution, and misuse of scientific principles, but keep publishing their distortions over and over. I'm thinking of Michael Behe in particular -- I've seen the correspondence some leading (evolutionary) scientists have sent him about this.[/quote] Well, I also know a lot of people who are claiming things they have never rechecked for themselves. In conspiracies and other topics a lot of people are half-informed. I´ve studied the monetary system and the central banks (fed, ecb, ...) behind for a long time and the creation of the FED could be seen as a conspiracy (more background information is in the book I´ve noted before). In the documentation 'From freedom to fascism' they have shown at least one trial where the 'tax protester' has won the trial. The world 'legal' is also a little bit flaud. If you check the court decisions in the Third Reich they were all legal but were they right? Twenty years later the court decided completely different. That means Supreme Court decisions are dependend on the time they were made. We will see that the FED and the Income tax will be abolished in the future. |
[quote=joblack;157594]In the documentation 'From freedom to fascism' they have shown at least one trial where the 'tax protester' has won the trial.[/quote]So what? That win wasn't based on some court concession that the income tax was illegal. There are lots of technical legal points on which any sort of trial can be won by a defender who obviously committed the act with which he is charged, and this doesn't mean that the defender's act (or, in this case, a claim that the income tax is illegal, and a refusal to obey tax law on that basis) is now acceptable, or unpunishable in any other case.
There was a famous trial in the US several years ago in which the defendant charged with murder was acquitted by the jury because his defense lawyers succeeded in showing that there had been errors in police handling of evidence, not that he didn't commit the murder. Did that win mean that murder was legal? No. Did it even mean that the defendant had not committed the murder? No. (Indeed, a few years later, he lost a case in which the family of the murder victim sued him for civil damages -- he could have lost only if he actually did commit the murder, as determined at that civil trial, which had different standards for evidence and conviction than the criminal trial.) [quote]The world 'legal' is also a little bit flaud. If you check the court decisions in the Third Reich they were all legal but were they right? Twenty years later the court decided completely different.[/quote]Cases in which there are controversial social issues can change course over generations, but that doesn't apply to tax protests. (Furthermore, treating the past or present legal environment in the United States as though it were comparable to the legal environment of Third Reich Germany is not going to convince anyone!!! The US is not, and never has been, a fascist dictatorship.) When I traced the tax-protesters arguments, I kept coming to places where they had misinterpreted, misapplied, or just plain made false statements about the law. _Nowhere_ have I seen any of their basic arguments (such as whichever-amendment-it-was not having been ratified correctly) hold up under scrutiny. The false "coins" argument that you presented is an illustration of the lack of legal basis for their income-tax-is-illegal arguments -- one finds that the "coins" argument is invalid after making only a simple examination of the U.S. constitution's actual wording (contrasted with the protesters' rewording and out-of-context wording). [I]The fact that this false argument keeps getting trotted out over and over and over on tax-protesting sites is characteristic of the lack of basic legal foundation for the whole movement.[/I] If it actually had a sound legal basis, it would promulgate [U]sound[/U] arguments, not unsound ones like the "coins" argument! Furthermore, the court cases' history shows that the same invalid arguments keep getting used (and failing) over and over despite the fact that their legal invalidity has been well-established!!! This is _not_ a sign of a movement that has a sound legal basis for its protests. [quote]That means Supreme Court decisions are dependend on the time they were made.[/quote]... [B]WHEN[/B] the issues involved are sufficiently controversial in society at large. This is simply not the case in tax protests -- society knows taxes are necessary for governmental operation, even if it quarrels about details. There is no fundamental split between large portions of the populations as there is for issues like abortion (or, in the past, slavery). The fundamental basis of the income tax is NOT the sort of volatile social issue that might lead to court reversals! There is recurring U.S. public discussion about making changes in the income tax law. There are proposals to replace part or all of it with some other type of tax. [U]But none of those widespread public discussions takes as a basis the idea that the current income tax is [I]illegal[/I]![/U] [quote]We will see that the FED and the Income tax will be abolished in the future.[/quote]Bull. You don't know what you're talking about. You have presented no evidence whatsoever that either of those is controversial in society or that their legal bases are unstable except in the imaginations of a few people. In fact, it looks to me like you've formed your opinions after viewing only one video made by an extremist fringe group. Have you bothered investigating any other opinions about the issues of income tax or the Federal Reserve? Can you give us a basic description of what the Federal Reserve System is or does? (Admittedly, the vast majority of U.S. citizens couldn't pass that last test -- but anyone who has no understanding of what the Federal Reserve System [U]is[/U] has no business, or credibility, insisting that it is illegal.) Neither you nor the tax protesters have yet shown me any valid legal basis for proving that the income tax is illegal! (I regret that it is not practical for me to view directly the video which apparently impressed you. Can you find either a transcript, or some other site on which the protesters' legal arguments are stated?) Show me a fundamental constitutional (U.S.) principle that could invalidate the Federal Reserve (why do you use the all-caps "FED"? "Fed" is the customary nickname here) or the income tax. That's a challenge. Show us WHY either the Federal Reserve or the income tax necessarily will be abolished, rather than just asserting a prediction with no logical basis. |
CORRECTION to preceding post
joblack,
I temporarily overlooked part of your last posting, and that led me to mistakenly charge: [quote=cheesehead;157605]In fact, it looks to me like you've formed your opinions after viewing only one video made by an extremist fringe group. Have you bothered investigating any other opinions about the issues of income tax or the Federal Reserve? Can you give us a basic description of what the Federal Reserve System is or does? (Admittedly, the vast majority of U.S. citizens couldn't pass that last test -- but anyone who has no understanding of what the Federal Reserve System [U]is[/U] has no business, or credibility, insisting that it is illegal.)[/quote]Now, I see that you wrote: [quote=joblack;157594]I´ve studied the monetary system and the central banks (fed, ecb, ...) behind for a long time and the creation of the FED could be seen as a conspiracy (more background information is in the book I´ve noted before).[/quote]So, I correct myself -- you do know something about the Federal Reserve System. Okay, but have you read any history of the Federal Reserve System that was written by an author who was NOT presenting a conspiracy theory? - - - Earlier, you wrote, "you ... demanding instant answers for your hudge link material." No, I have never demanded any instant answers. At no time have I ever demanded, requested or implied that I required your answers to be posted within any (short or long) period of time. As for the length of the link material, I requested only that when you made further posts, you demonstrate that you had read and comprehended at least some of the linked material that was relevant to our discussion. (And that was because [I]you[/I] had previously admonished [I]me[/I] to "check out the documentation", so I was asking only that you apply the same standard to yourself.) I never mentioned or implied any time interval associated with that. - - - I note that you posted a link [URL]http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3616/flaherty1.html[/URL] to a site linked from the evans-legal.com site I referred you to. However, you seem not to have noticed that that page said: [quote]G. Edward Griffin lays out this conspiratorial version of history in his book The Creature from Jekyll Island. His amateurish take on history is highly suspect, however. Gerry Rough, in a series of well- researched essays on U.S. banking history, reveals many historical inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and even contradictions in Griffin's book and others of its genre. Instead of reproducing Rough's work here, I offer the reader a substantially more accurate view of the events leading up to the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913.[/quote]... or that it lays out a description of events that [U][I]contradicts[/I][/U] your conspiracy theory, (my boldfaced emphasis in the following quote) [quote]Also in 1910, Senator Nelson Aldrich, Frank Vanderlip of National City (today know as Citibank), Henry Davison of Morgan Bank, and Paul Warburg of the Kuhn, Loeb Investment House met secretly at Jeckyll Island, a resort island off the coast of Georgia, to discuss and formulate banking reform, including plans for a form of central banking. The meeting was held in secret because the participants knew that any plan they generated would be rejected automatically in the House of Representatives if it were associated with Wall Street. Because it was secret and because it involved Wall Street, the Jekyll Island affair has always been a favorite source of conspiracy theories. However, the movement toward significant banking and monetary reform was well-known. It is hardly surprising that given the real possibility of substantial reform, the banking industry would want some sort of input into the nature of the reforms. [B]The Aldrich Plan which the secret meeting produced was even defeated in the House, so even if the Jekyll Island affair was a genuine conspiracy, it clearly failed.[/B][/quote]ending with: [quote]Conspiracy theorists have long viewed the Federal Reserve Act as a means of giving control of the banking system to the money trusts, when in reality the intent and effect was to wrestle control away from them. History clearly demonstrates that in the decades prior to the Federal Reserve Act the decisions of a few large New York banks had, at times, enormous repercussions for banks throughout the country and the economy in general. Following the return to central banking, at least some measure of control was removed from them and placed with the Federal Reserve.[/quote]Where, in all that, is there any basis for claiming that either (a) the Federal Reserve System is illegal, (b) the Federal Reserve System will be abolished, or (c) there is some good reason to abolish the Federal Reserve System? Why do you want the Federal Reserve System to go out of existence? (Or do I misunderstand you on that?) What good would that do? |
joblack,
I'm sorry I griped about the "instant answers" comment. That's not relevant to the topic. |
[quote=cheesehead;157611]
Okay, but have you read any history of the Federal Reserve System that was written by an author who was NOT presenting a conspiracy theory? [/quote] Just to label an author as conspiracy theorist isn´t very scientific - in my experience that is used to fight people on a an emotional level without going deeper in the material. [quote=cheesehead;157611] - - - I note that you posted a link [URL]http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3616/flaherty1.html[/URL] to a site linked from the evans-legal.com site I referred you to. However, you seem not to have noticed that that page said: ... or that it lays out a description of events that [U][I]contradicts[/I][/U] your conspiracy theory, (my boldfaced emphasis in the following quote) ending with: Where, in all that, is there any basis for claiming that either (a) the Federal Reserve System is illegal, (b) the Federal Reserve System will be abolished, or (c) there is some good reason to abolish the Federal Reserve System? Why do you want the Federal Reserve System to go out of existence? (Or do I misunderstand you on that?) What good would that do? ... " [B]The Aldrich Plan which the secret meeting produced was even defeated in the House, so even if the Jekyll Island affair was a genuine conspiracy, it clearly failed."[/B][/quote] The Aldrich Plan was the prequel of the Federal Reserve Act and it failed because of the Name Aldrich. Of course both acts have to go to the house for approval. The creation of the Federal Reserve Act was conspiratorial - not the approval in the House. a) I´m not sure if it is legal or not. It depends on the interpretation of the Constitution (I´m not going into this even further). b) Is a 'prophecy' on my part - the economy will decline further up to a depression. No proof - it's a mathematical truth (the symptoms of the exponental debt growth ...) c) Yes, the creation of money shouldn´t be in the hand of (semi-) private organizations. The idea is that the government is allowed to create new money (under the control of the public and laws to prevent a possible hyperinflation). |
[QUOTE=cheesehead;157611]Where, in all that, is there any basis for claiming that either (a) the Federal Reserve System is illegal, (b) the Federal Reserve System will be abolished, or (c) there is some good reason to abolish the Federal Reserve System?[/QUOTE]
Mike Shedlock has written extensively on at least the (c) option - here is just a sampler plate: [url]http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/04/fed-uncertainty-principle.html[/url] [url]http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/10/treasury-to-take-ownership-stake-in.html[/url] [url]http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/12/fiscal-insanity-virus-rapidly-spreading.html[/url] |
[QUOTE=petrw1;157044]I am from Canada and have had a satellite radio for almost a year now. In the last few months there have been a lot of ads from more and more companies telling consumers they have a "legal right to reduce their debt" and if you call their number they may be able to reduce your debt by more than half.
I am assuming this is primarily in the U.S.A. Can someone give me a brief explanation in layman's terms what this is all about? I understand that Credit companies would rather get "some" money than lose it all to the person going bankrupt but is there more to it than this?[/QUOTE] I just read an article on Yahoo Finance a few days ago (but can't seem to find it now) that indicated that some of these radio ads that "sound too good to be true" consolidate debts AND raid retirement accounts to reduce the principle on the the consolidated loans. They may also reduce future contributions to retirement accounts to zero, so their customer has more liquidity to pay off the loan. Some of the more unscrupulous companies don't inform the customers for these products about the tax penalties they will accrue by raiding their 401k/403b. I have heard one such radio ad where someone claims to have payed off their 30 year mortgage in 2.5 years. I suppose if he worked for 10 years and had no clue about his retirement account's worth (all too common, I am finding), he might have enough of a nest egg to significantly speed up the paying off of his mortgage. At the same time, I wonder if he knew what he was giving up in his future retirement income to achieve this reduction in debt. |
[quote=joblack;157716]Just to label an author as conspiracy theorist isn´t very scientific[/quote]What I had in mind, but did not convey, was that an author who was not a conspiracy theorist would accept and describe the current existence and operation of the Federal Reserve System in a reasonably objective manner without contending that there is an [I]ongoing[/I] conspiracy of some sort, aside from giving an account of pre-creation conspiracies, theoretical or not. Griffin does not seem to meet that definition, nor do the folks who created the video you've referenced.
[quote]in my experience that is used to fight people on a an emotional level without going deeper in the material.[/quote]The comments on G. Edward Griffin's historical accuracy at [URL]http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3616/flaherty1.html[/URL] lead me to consider "conspiracy theorist" an accurate label. Furthermore, from what you've written so far, it seems to me that you consider the Fed to be an ongoing invalidity ("The FED as a semi-private organization had gone around it by releasing dollar bills (not coins). That was never intended by The Founders.") and you endorse Griffin without qualification ("The author [B][SIZE=2]G. Edward Griffin [/SIZE][/B]from the book [I]The Creature from Jekyll Island[/I] proofed the secret meetings."). I see no acknowledgment by you that legislation can be legitimate even if discussions preceding its public creation are conducted in a private and/or conspiratorial manner. Lots of legislation is conceived in private discussions all the time, but any conspiratorial aspect of such discussion does not taint the resulting legislation (passed in legitimate manner by the legislature) unless the resulting legislation itself has a conspiratorial aspect. I don't see any proof of the latter in the Fed case; your "coins" complaint is adequately countered in a quote I posted. [quote]a) I´m not sure if it is legal or not. It depends on the interpretation of the Constitution[/quote] ... and there has been plenty of time to challenge the constitutionality of the Fed in courts, but the courts continue to find it constitutional. The "coins" argument, as I said, is (and has been) easily revealed to be a misunderstanding (or deliberate distortion) of what the constitution says -- so it, at least, is not a matter of interpretation; it's a matter of [I]understanding[/I] or [I]comprehension[/I] or [I]knowledge[/I] (or honesty, depending on the proponent's intention). [quote]b) Is a 'prophecy' on my part - the economy will decline further up to a depression.[/quote]You have plenty of company there. We'll see. [quote]The idea is that the government is allowed to create new money (under the control of the public and laws to prevent a possible hyperinflation).[/quote]... and the Federal Reserve System is a legitimate part of the government's means of doing so, regardless of the nature of any discussions leading up to its introduction and passage. It has its flaws, and it may well be that there is a better idea out there that could lead to replacing the Fed with something else, but the argument that the Fed is actually [I]illegal[/I] is not supportable and is not a sound basis for proposing abolishment or replacement. |
[quote=cheesehead;157936]
You have plenty of company there. We'll see. ... and the Federal Reserve System is a legitimate part of the government's means of doing so, regardless of the nature of any discussions leading up to its introduction and passage. It has its flaws, and it may well be that there is a better idea out there that could lead to replacing the Fed with something else, but the argument that the Fed is actually [I]illegal[/I] is not supportable and is not a sound basis for proposing abolishment or replacement.[/quote] I didn't say the FED is illegal. I said the FED is a flawed and exploitative system and supports inflation. Check out the national debt graph of the USA [URL]http://eh.net/graphics/encyclopedia/noll.publicdebt_html_21e5b9fc.gif[/URL] and [URL="http://www.cedarcomm.com/%7Estevelm1/usdebt.htm"]http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm[/URL] and you can see that the inflation and national debt exploded since 1913. Coincidence or the exploitation from a (semi-) private central bank (=FED)??? |
[quote=joblack;158059]the inflation and national debt exploded since 1913.[/quote]Actually, there was a sharp upturn about 1917, not 1913. Neither graph shows any change in the debt line at 1913.
[quote]Coincidence or the exploitation from a (semi-) private central bank (=FED)???[/quote]Does the year 1917 ring a bell? World War I? The onsets of preparation for war have always been accompanied by sharply increased government expenditures, and, thus, sharply increased deficits and debt. The 1917 upturn timing is clearly more coincident with the onset of World War I than with the 1913 founding of the Federal Reserve. Similar upturns occurred at the onsets of the American Civil War and World War II, even though those dates had nothing to do with the Federal Reserve. So, the answer is (a) not coincidence, (b) not Fed "exploitation", either, but (c) causal relationship to the onset of war spending. It looks to me like your desire to blame the Fed was so strong that it overrode what your eyes actually saw on the graphs. I don't have particularly good vision, but it is very clear to me that there was no upturn at 1913 (the 1915 mark at the bottom clearly occurs prior to the upturn, not after it), but there was at 1917 and the other two war onset years. |
P.S. By "onset of World War I", I was referring to the onset of [I]U.S. participation in[/I] World War I, which is what would affect [I]U.S.[/I] federal debt. U.S. expenditures didn't immediately rise just because a war started in Europe.
|
[quote=cheesehead;158097]Actually, there was a sharp upturn about 1917, not 1913. Neither graph shows any change in the debt line at 1913.
Does the year 1917 ring a bell? World War I? The onsets of preparation for war have always been accompanied by sharply increased government expenditures, and, thus, sharply increased deficits and debt.[/quote] Well there were wars before (Civil War, ...) and you didn't see spikes in that region. The WW1 was the original reason for that but the FED made it possible and after the WW2 there weren't any more World Wars and the inflation still exploded. The inflation started delayed. The created the FED in the Dec. 1913 so you don't think that they started right away ... that would be too obvious. |
[quote=joblack;158255]Well there were wars before (Civil War, ...) and you didn't see spikes in that region.[/quote]The second chart, titled "United States National Debt" "1791 to Present" and labeled "Figure 2", on the page at the second link that YOU posted ([URL="http://www.cedarcomm.com/%7Estevelm1/usdebt.htm"]http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm[/URL]) clearly shows an upswing at the start of the Civil War -- from just under 100 million in 1859 to roughly 2-3 billion just after the war.
You can even see the bump during the U.S.-Mexican War (1846-1848). [U]This is on a chart that YOU posted the link for[/U]! Don't you check the references you yourself present? :) [quote]The WW1 was the original reason for that[/quote]That's the sort of erroneous conclusion you draw [U]when you don't pay attention to your own source data[/U]. Once again, it seems like your desire to blame the Fed overrode your own vision of what was right before you! You're not going to convince anyone to accept your theory when you keep posting evidence that contradicts it, so maybe you ought to consider following the evidence to a more correct conclusion. - - - BTW, where's the data supporting your claim that the Fed supports inflation? "National debt" isn't a synonym for "inflation". An upswing in national debt and an upswing in inflation are two different things. We've had an enormous upswing in U.S. national debt during the past 7 years, but inflation has been low throughout that time. Do you claim that it was the Fed that caused the enormous increase in national debt during the Bush administration? If so, why didn't it cause inflation to rise? |
[QUOTE=joblack;158059]Check out the national debt graph of the USA
[/QUOTE] So about $30,000 for every man/woman/child. $457B in Canada / 35M people = about $13,000 each. Though ours has actually gone down since 1996 (about 102B or 18%). Count me as one who would be willing to pay our $26,000 share (wife and I) up front on the condition Federal Government agrees to NO LONGER charge me federal taxes (of any kind)....not that it would ever happen. And another 7B Provincial debt = $7,000 each. So we pay another $14,000 and be free of Provincial debt....wishful thinking. $40,000 up front and NO MORE TAXES.... if only!!!!!! |
Petrw1, note that we got cheesehead to admit that perhaps the Fed is part of the problem rather than the solution [url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=158313#post158313]over here[/url] - he just needed some rational arguments in order to be convinced, which is entirely proper.
[QUOTE=cheesehead;158281]BTW, where's the data supporting your claim that the Fed supports inflation? "National debt" isn't a synonym for "inflation". An upswing in national debt and an upswing in inflation are two different things. We've had an enormous upswing in U.S. national debt during the past 7 years, but inflation has been low throughout that time. Do you claim that it was the Fed that caused the enormous increase in national debt during the Bush administration? If so, why didn't it cause inflation to rise?[/QUOTE] National debt may not be exactly synonymous with inflation, but the same conditions that allow a country to run chronic account deficits invariably lead to inflation in one form or another, if not now then later down the road. And once a government has established (by deifnition perfectly legal) means to monetize debt, the temptation to abuse the privilege will always be there. Think Reaganesque "deficits don't matter". Also, your characterization of the past 7 years is misleading - sure, the CPI in the narrow gerrymandered way the government chooses to measure it has been "tame", but look what happened to housing prices during that time. Is housing becoming grossly unaffordable not a form of inflation? Are loose credit and consumers being encouraged to spend based on inflated paper valuations of their newly-purchased bubble houses not inflationary? You have to look beyond the made-up CPI numbers (which among other things presume that that new PC you purchased is implicitly worth far more than the one it replaced because it has a faster processor - a.k.a. "hedonic adjustment") - Austrian economic theory defines inflation as an increase in money supply and credit. The Fed completely ignored that version of inflation until last year, and then Bernanke et al spent months blathering about "concerns about inflation" just as the very opposite - a massive deflationary decrease in nominal asset values and credit - was getting rolling. And while the current economic picture is highly deflationary, the Fed, having utterly misdiagnosed the disease, is trying to cure it via more of the same thing - excess credit - that caused it. where do you think those trillions of dollars the Fed has added to its balance sheet in the past year - and the trillions more which are going to get added in the next few years by way of multiple, massive misguided "stimulus packages" - are coming from? And once they are in the system - even if at present mostly in the form of money added to banks` balance sheets which said banks are currently unwilling to lend out, for good reason - do you think they're going to be easy to take back? Nope - the Fed, rather than helping to fix anything related to the current problem, which is a massive speculative asset bubble that needs to deflate, painful though that process is, is in fact sowing the seeds for another bout of inflation and bubble-omics down the road. Part of that is due to the fact that once they are in existence, government institutions like the Fed justifiably feel they need to be seen as "doing something". Simply letting the dotcom bubble (coupled with the 9/11 economic fallout) pop and the economy go through a few years of painful readjustment wouldn't do, so Greenspan flooded the system with EZ money and fueled an even bigger bubble by far. Now that that one has also popped, predictably in much more painful fashion, there is even more pressure to "do something", and I suspect the attempted desperate-remedies cure is once again only going to make things worse. Hold on to your gold fillings, folks - you might them to buy food with in a few years. |
I'm prepared to adjust my opinions upon seeing sufficient evidence. (But pseudo-evidential presentations or claims rile me.) I've done so before, and I'll do so again ... though I recognize that it's taking longer for such adjustments to "take" nowadays.
(Example: I'm preparing to start accepting offers of senior discounts without asking about the age limit, but suspect that I'll still sometimes reflexively ask, "How old do I have to be to be 'senior'?" for a while. AARP, annoyingly, put me on their solicitation mailing list back when I was [I]30[/I], for some reason. Hmmm ... maybe the senior llimit is llower for llamas ... I never thought of that before ... maybe I [I]have[/I] been elligiblle allll this time!) |
[quote=cheesehead;158281]
Once again, it seems like your desire to blame the Fed overrode your own vision of what was right before you! [/quote] There is also no proof NOT to blame the FED. The FED is creating the money (a.k.a. US-Dollars) and is (indirectly) responsible for the inflation. There are (small) spikes before 1917 but in relation to the actual inflation it´s not worth to mention. Unfortunately there is no direct proof that another central bank system would have a better effect in the USA but other countries like Switzerland show a different approach (better education, better health care system, ...). So, who´s judgment is fogged? |
[quote=joblack;158487]There is also no proof NOT to blame the FED. The FED is creating the money (a.k.a. US-Dollars) and is (indirectly) responsible for the inflation.
< snip > Unfortunately there is no direct proof that another central bank system would have a better effect in the USA but other countries like Switzerland show a different approach (better education, better health care system, ...). So, who´s judgment is fogged?[/quote]Let's see ... 1) You state that there is no proof not to blame one central bank system for something. 2) You state that there no direct proof that any other central bank system would have a better effect. 3) You don't retract your assertion that the Fed is to blame. and then you ask whose judgment is fogged? That's funny. :-) Number 1 doesn't imply that the central bank system (the Fed, in particular) [I]is[/I] to blame, so doesn't support your argument that the Fed is to blame. Number 2 implies that you know of no direct proof that there is any better system than the Fed, so it, too, fails to support your argument that the Fed is to blame (rather than show that [I]any[/I] system would be to blame, perhaps because inflation is not caused by the type of central bank system). You seem to have answered your own question. So, what is your point? - - - [quote=joblack;158487]There are (small) spikes before 1917 but in relation to the actual inflation it´s not worth to mention.[/quote]Actually, in that second figure graph, I can easily see that the Civil War spike [I]is[/I] noticeably larger, relative to the pre-war debt, than either the WW1 or WW2 spike. It spans about 1-1/2 of the logarithmic intervals, whereas the WW1 spike is only a bit larger, if any, than one interval, while the WW2 spike is less than one logarithmic interval (= factor of 10). (I hope you understand why the logarithmic scale is more appropriate than the linear scale for this sort of thing. For instance, consider three jumps: one is 15%, one is 10%, one is 8%. The 15% jump is the largest in terms of how it affects the situation at the time it occurred. Suppose the bases from which each jump occurred are 10, 1000, and 10000, rspectively. Then the absolute magnitudes of the jumps are 1.5, 100, and 800. But that doesn't change the fact that the 15% jump, [I]at the time it occurred[/I], was a greater disruption of the pre-jump situation than were either the 10% or 8% jumps. [I]That's why we use percentages for stuff like this![/I]) - - - I could be convinced that the Fed is to blame for inflation IF you presented enough sound evidence that doesn't contradict what you claim. But you keep making statements that are contradicted by the charts YOU presented to support your argument, supposedly! |
[quote=cheesehead;158531]Let's see ...
1) You state that there is no proof not to blame one central bank system for something. 2) You state that there no direct proof that any other central bank system would have a better effect. 3) You don't retract your assertion that the Fed is to blame. and then you ask whose judgment is fogged? That's funny. :-) [/quote] That's not right. I wrote that there is no direct proof because you can't go back in time, change one variable (another central system) and see if it works out differently in America. You can compare your system with other central banks and most of the countries have a better (=lower) inflation rate and less (state) debt. You will certainly say you can´t compare the two countries because they are different in ... I surely don't retract my 'assertion' that the FED is to blame. The FED is creating the money so it is responsible for the creation of inflation. If you compare it with different other countries (like Germany or Switzerland) you can see that there are laws to prevent an excessive inflation scenario. Additionally the central banks in that countries aren´t in the the hand of private investor banks. Coincidence? You don´t have to be a rocket scientist to be suspicious ... The strong hypothesis is that the FED is mainly responsible for the situation of the USA today. I´m amused because you seem to believe that the inflation is coming from god or another divine creation instead of searching for a 'scientific human reason'. A comment to your writing style: Obviously I´m not your student (and there is no hierarchy between us) so don´t react like 'professor knowitall' ... |
[quote=joblack;158667]A comment to your writing style:
[/quote]My writing style has been the same for years in discussions with many folks. Ask other long-time forum members, or browse my oldest postings, if you don't believe that. I write in different manners in different situations and moods. If you don't want to see a "knowitall professor" style, the simplest method is to stop interpreting mine as such and get on with the topic of discussion. - - - Are you willing to acknowledge the truth of what I've said about the Civil War spike on the logarithmic graph YOU presented us? |
[QUOTE=cheesehead;158762]My writing style has been the same for years in discussions with many folks. Ask other long-time forum members, or browse my oldest postings, if you don't believe that.[/QUOTE]
Yes, we old-timers like to refer to Richard's style merely as being one of great "pedantic prolixity." :razz: |
[quote=ewmayer;158765]Yes, we old-timers like to refer to Richard's style merely as being one of great "pedantic prolixity." :razz:[/quote]
Indeed, but it helps if you don't rise to the bait. David |
With regard to the legality of the U.S. tax system, please remember that "legal" is a moving target. What is legal today may be illegal tomorrow. For today, the tax system is 'legal' because failing to abide by it is illegal.
With regard to the Fed causing a tremendous amount of the present difficulty, I have to agree. The problem gets down to seeing how to address the underlying fiscal necessities of a modern culture. The Fed is one effort to find that solution. WRT the legality of the money we use as legal tender, if you don't like it, barter. You can barter anything of value for any other thing of value and so long as money (legal tender) does not change hands, it is generally tax free. I know there are a lot of arguments on this, feel free to post alternate positions. I generally agree with cheesehead's rather overly pedantic grandiloquently histrionic idiosyncratic position. DarJones |
[quote=Fusion_power;159058]WRT the legality of the money we use as legal tender, if you don't like it, barter. You can barter anything of value for any other thing of value and so long as money (legal tender) does not change hands, it is generally tax free. I know there are a lot of arguments on this, feel free to post alternate positions.[/quote]
I'm pretty sure that the government taxes bartering as well, but they don't know of every barter, just like they don't know of every person-to-person cash payment. |
[quote=Fusion_power;159058]With regard to the legality of the U.S. tax system, please remember that "legal" is a moving target. What is legal today may be illegal tomorrow. For today, the tax system is 'legal' because failing to abide by it is illegal.[/quote]Yes, but what most of the fringe tax protesters are trying to argue (as in the "coins" argument) is that the current tax law is invalid and unenforceable because it does not have a proper legal foundation. They are mistaken.
[quote]With regard to the Fed causing a tremendous amount of the present difficulty, I have to agree. The problem gets down to seeing how to address the underlying fiscal necessities of a modern culture. The Fed is one effort to find that solution.[/quote]For anyone to claim that the Fed _in particular_ is to blame is off-the-mark. Inflation, deflation, business cycles, financial panics, market crashes -- all existed before the Fed did. Inflation, etc. exist in countries that have no Fed or equivalent. There is no known monetary/financial system that does not have some kind of problems when applied to our modern culture. (If there were such a system, whoever thought it up has done a lousy job of publicizing it.) Arguing that the Fed is "the" cause of standard financial problems such as inflation is, often, based on ignorance of history -- of what happened before the Fed existed. [quote]You can barter anything of value for any other thing of value and so long as money (legal tender) does not change hands, it is generally tax free.[/quote]Wrong!! (in the US, anyway) [quote]I know there are a lot of arguments on this, feel free to post alternate positions.[/quote]It's not a matter of argument; [I]it's a matter of established law![/I] (in the US, anyway) [URL]http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc420.html[/URL] [quote][B]Topic 420 - Bartering Income[/B] Bartering occurs when you exchange goods or services without exchanging money. An example of bartering is a plumber doing repair work for a dentist in exchange for dental services. The fair market value of goods and services received in exchange for goods or services you provide must be included in income in the year received. Generally, you report this income on [URL="http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040sc.pdf"] Form 1040, Schedule C[/URL] (PDF), [I][I]Profit or Loss from Business[/I][/I]. If you failed to report this income, correct your return by filing a Form 1040X. Refer to [URL="http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc308.html"]Topic 308[/URL] for Amended Return information. A barter exchange or barter club is any person or organization with members or clients that contract with each other (or with the barter exchange) to jointly trade or barter property or services. The term does not include arrangements that provide solely for the informal exchange of similar services on a noncommercial basis. The Internet has provided a medium for new growth in the bartering exchange industry. This growth prompts the following reminder: Barter exchanges are required to file Form 1099-B for all transactions unless certain exceptions are met. Refer to Barter Exchanges for additional information on this subject. If you are in a business or trade, you may be able to deduct certain costs you incurred to perform the work that was bartered. If you exchanged property or services through a barter exchange, you should receive a [URL="http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1099b.pdf"] Form 1099-B[/URL] (PDF), [I][I]Proceeds From Broker and Barter Exchange Transactions[/I][/I]. The IRS also will receive the same information. If you receive income from bartering, you may be required to make estimated tax payments. Refer to [URL="http://www.irs.gov/publications/p525/index.html"]Publication 525[/URL], [I][I]Taxable and Nontaxable Income[/I][/I], for additional information. [/quote][URL]http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=113437,00.html[/URL] [quote][B]Barter Exchanges[/B] Bartering is the trading of one product or service for another. Usually there is no exchange of cash. Barter may take place on an informal one-on-one basis between individuals and businesses, or it can take place on a third party basis through a barter exchange company. A barter exchange is any person or organization with members or clients that contract with each other (or with the barter exchange) to jointly trade or barter property or services. The term does not include arrangements that provide solely for the informal exchange of similar services on a noncommercial basis. Unlike one-on-one bartering, members of exchanges are not obligated to barter or purchase directly from a seller. Instead, when a barter exchange member sells a product or a service to another member, their barter account is credited for the fair market value of the sale. When a barter exchange member buys, the account is debited for the fair market value of the purchase. [B]Internet-based Barter[/B] The Internet provides a new medium for the barter exchange industry. Pure Internet-based barter companies differ from traditional, organized trade exchanges in that they do not have a physical office. In modern Internet barter exchanges, there is an agreement or process in place to value goods and services exchanged, which is facilitated by the barter exchange for a fee. A barter exchange functions primarily as the organizer of a marketplace where members buy and sell products and services among themselves. [B]Trade Dollars[/B] Barter exchanges have their own unit of exchange, usually known as barter or trade dollars. Trade dollars or barter dollars are valued in U.S. currency for the purposes of information returns. Trade dollars allow barter to take place between parties when one party may not have a simultaneous need or desire for the goods or services of the other members. Barter exchanges act as the bookkeeper for keeping track of trade dollars that participants accumulate. Earning trade or barter dollars through a barter exchange is considered taxable income, just as if your product or service was sold for cash. [B]Requirement for Barter Exchanges to File Information Returns[/B] Barter exchanges are required to issue [URL="http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1099b.pdf"]Form 1099-B[/URL] Proceeds from Broker and Barter Exchange Transactions, annually to their clients or members and to the Internal Revenue Service. Learn more about [URL="http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=188094,00.html"]information return filing requirements[/URL] for barter exchanges. [B]References/Related Topics[/B] [LIST][*] [URL="http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=187904,00.html"]Bartering Income[/URL][*] [URL="http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=187920,00.html"]Bartering Information[/URL][*] [URL="http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=188094,00.html"]Tax Requirements for Barter Exchanges[/URL][/LIST] [/quote][I]Some[/I] (not many, but some) of the people claiming that income taxes are illegal, or that bartering is always tax-free, are deliberately and knowingly trying to mislead others in order to cause trouble. They have succeeded. |
[quote=cheesehead;159279] There is no known monetary/financial system that does not have some kind of problems when applied to our modern culture. (If there were such a system, whoever thought it up has done a lousy job of publicizing it.) Arguing that the Fed is "the" cause of standard financial problems such as inflation is, often, based on ignorance of history -- of what happened before the Fed existed.
[/quote] There is a monetary system which solves the boom-gloom-doom crash cycles. It's called Freiwirtschaft / Freemoney ('free economy','free money'). It was successfully tested in the Great Depression in Wörg (Austria) and Unterguggenberg (Germany). It is also known as the 'Wunder von Wörgl' (The wonder of Wörgl) and worked fine until the central bank banned the alternative money system. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freigeld[/url] |
[QUOTE=cheesehead;159279]Bartering occurs when you exchange goods or services without exchanging money. An example of bartering is a plumber doing repair work for a dentist in exchange for dental services. The fair market value of goods and services received in exchange for goods or services you provide must be included in income in the year received.[/QUOTE]
Hmmm ... the danger there is "where does it end?" A married couple shares the housework ... he does trash/yardwork/recycling/laundry/automotive-maintenance, she does shopping/cooking/cleaning. Clearly a form of barter, with a well-defined fair market value. Similarly, given that the IRS is weighing [url=http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/27/pimp.tax/]whether to tax the sex trade[/url] (and any form of legalized prostitution would clearly be taxable), if one member of a couple takes the other out for a nice dinner, and the recipient of the dinner reciprocates via a right randy postprandial shag session (and let's assume they use birth control, i.e. the sex is purely for pleasure), would that not also constitute an "exchange of goods or services" with a well-defined fair market value? |
[quote=ewmayer;159419]A married couple shares the housework ... he does trash/yardwork/recycling/laundry/automotive-maintenance, she does shopping/cooking/cleaning. Clearly a form of barter, with a well-defined fair market value. Similarly, given that the IRS is weighing [URL="http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/27/pimp.tax/"]whether to tax the sex trade[/URL] (and any form of legalized prostitution would clearly be taxable), if one member of a couple takes the other out for a nice dinner, and the recipient of the dinner reciprocates via a right randy postprandial shag session (and let's assume they use birth control, i.e. the sex is purely for pleasure), would that not also constitute an "exchange of goods or services" with a well-defined fair market value?[/quote]Yes, but the tax consequences may depend on whether the couple is filing jointly or separately. If they're joint filers, any barter between themselves might have no tax consequence. IANAL, so consult a qualified tax attorney.
|
[quote=joblack;159381]There is a monetary system which solves the boom-gloom-doom crash cycles. It's called Freiwirtschaft / Freemoney ('free economy','free money').
It was successfully tested in the Great Depression in Wörg (Austria) and Unterguggenberg (Germany). [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freigeld[/URL][/quote]If there's no incentive to store the Freigeld, then are there no savings accounts? Credit cards? Where does business startup investment come from? |
[QUOTE=ewmayer;159419]Hmmm ... the danger there is "where does it end?" A married couple shares the housework ... he does trash/yardwork/recycling/laundry/automotive-maintenance, she does shopping/cooking/cleaning. Clearly a form of barter, with a well-defined fair market value. Similarly, given that the IRS is weighing [url=http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/27/pimp.tax/]whether to tax the sex trade[/url] (and any form of legalized prostitution would clearly be taxable), if one member of a couple takes the other out for a nice dinner, and the recipient of the dinner reciprocates via a right randy postprandial shag session (and let's assume they use birth control, i.e. the sex is purely for pleasure), would that not also constitute an "exchange of goods or services" with a well-defined fair market value?[/QUOTE]
I don’t want us to get bogged down in tax (God help us!). I don’t know much about it - and nothing about the US system - but it might make sense to approach the question something like this. If we make the large assumption that the intent of the US tax gatherers is not to hit everything that moves, then the answer to your question is, it depends on the purpose of the activity. The plumber and the urologist who agree barter their skills to repair each other’s pipes have a plain commercial purpose. That would be taxable. The married couple who trade jobs about the home are not involved in a commercial activity; there is no right to payment in any conventional sense and no money changes hands. The lovers who go out together for a pleasant meal to enjoy each other’s company and a postprandial snog are likewise not engaged in trade and commerce. There is no right to payment in a conventional way and no cash value attaches to what occurs. If that is right, then you could conclude that the tax man will want to know about what you are up to only if it involves something you do for a living with a right to payment or where there would be an expectation you would be paid for your service. That would catch the plumber or a professional punter, but not a casual gambler’s winnings or the spouses or lovers in your example. Just a thought ... . |
[quote=cheesehead;159490]If there's no incentive to store the Freigeld, then are there no savings accounts? Credit cards? Where does business startup investment come from?[/quote]
Of course you have saving accounts and all the other products. The todays problem is that money is only invested if you get a certain return (let's say 6 percent interest), if not you hold it back for better chances (=speculation). Today's problem is that money is held back and people/banks are going in a bankruptcy/credit crunch. The incentive is that just cash will loose value over time - to retain the value you have to invest it. The bank will invest the money so you're money will have the same value or more (depends on the investment). Albert Einstein was talking about the Freigeld invention of Silvio Gesell: "Ich erfreue mich an dem glänzenden Stil von Silvio Gesell. ... Die Schaffung eines Geldes, das sich nicht horten läßt, würde zur Bildung von Eigentum in anderer wesentlicherer Form führen." [url]http://www.politik-forum.at/freiwirtschaft-und-freigeld-der-weg-aus-der-krise-t6514.html[/url] Translation: "I enjoy myself on the glossy style of Silvio Gesell. ... The creation of money which can be hoarded, would lead to the formation of property in other form of major lead." |
[quote=joblack;159522]Of course you have saving accounts and all the other products.[/quote]The Wikipedia article says
"The name results from the idea that there is no incentive to store the money as it will automatically lose its value after some time" and I wasn't sure whether that applied only to the paper currency, or to abstract accounts. [quote]The todays problem is that money is only invested if you get a certain return (let's say 6 percent interest), if not you hold it back for better chances (=speculation). Today's problem is that money is held back and people/banks are going in a bankruptcy/credit crunch. The incentive is that just cash will loose value over time - to retain the value you have to invest it. The bank will invest the money so you're money will have the same value or more (depends on the investment).[/quote]I don't understand how Freigeld solves that problem, then. When we say people are holding onto "cash", that means paper currency plus demand (checking) accounts (and the demand accounts total is higher than the paper currency total IIRC). If Freigeld demand deposit accounts don't lose value over time like paper Freigeld does, then it seems to me that there's no [I]more[/I] incentive for folks to move their Freigeld out of those accounts into investments (but see below) than there would be with dollars. Correct? But if Freigeld demand deposit accounts _do_ lose value over time, that would lessen the incentive to deposit it in the bank in the first place, rather than hold onto also-value-losing-but-no-worse paper currency, wouldn't it? (Some incentive remains, such as security. But that's the same with dollars.) So, again I don't see the advantage of Freigeld. Now, with fractional reserve banking, the banks are allowed to invest a portion of their demand deposit balances. Does Freigeld make any difference there, or does fractional reserve banking work the same with it? |
[quote=99.94;159503]If that is right, then you could conclude that the tax man will want to know about what you are up to only if it involves something you do for a living with a right to payment or where there would be an expectation you would be paid for your service. That would catch the plumber or a professional punter, but not a casual gambler’s winnings or the spouses or lovers in your example.[/quote]Correct.
|
[QUOTE=joblack;159522]Albert Einstein was talking about the Freigeld invention of Silvio Gesell:
"Ich erfreue mich an dem glänzenden Stil von Silvio Gesell. ... Die Schaffung eines Geldes, das sich nicht horten läßt, würde zur Bildung von Eigentum in anderer wesentlicherer Form führen." [url]http://www.politik-forum.at/freiwirtschaft-und-freigeld-der-weg-aus-der-krise-t6514.html[/url] Translation: "I enjoy myself on the glossy style of Silvio Gesell. ... The creation of money which can be hoarded, would lead to the formation of property in other form of major lead."[/QUOTE] Actually, a nearer translation is: "I take joy in the wonderful (literally: shining) style of Silvio Gesell ... The creation of a currency which [b]cannot[/b] be hoarded, would lead to formation of property in another essential form." |
[quote=cheesehead;159550]The Wikipedia article says
"The name results from the idea that there is no incentive to store the money as it will automatically lose its value after some time" and I wasn't sure whether that applied only to the paper currency, or to abstract accounts. I don't understand how Freigeld solves that problem, then. [/quote] The actual money (cash) is losing value by inflation. In a deflationary depression (which we are all heading) your cash is gaining value by itself (you can observe that on the real estate market and soon on other assets). So why should you invest it on a bank or company if you have the risk of losing all of it? The English wikipedia article is a little bit short to explain the concept. [quote=cheesehead;159550] When we say people are holding onto "cash", that means paper currency plus demand (checking) accounts (and the demand accounts total is higher than the paper currency total IIRC). If Freigeld demand deposit accounts don't lose value over time like paper Freigeld does, then it seems to me that there's no [I]more[/I] incentive for folks to move their Freigeld out of those accounts into investments (but see below) than there would be with dollars. Correct? But if Freigeld demand deposit accounts _do_ lose value over time, that would lessen the incentive to deposit it in the bank in the first place, rather than hold onto also-value-losing-but-no-worse paper currency, wouldn't it? (Some incentive remains, such as security. But that's the same with dollars.) So, again I don't see the advantage of Freigeld. Now, with fractional reserve banking, the banks are allowed to invest a portion of their demand deposit balances. Does Freigeld make any difference there, or does fractional reserve banking work the same with it?[/quote] I´m only talking about cash. Money on a checking account is invested by definition and you can only request to convert it back to cash (if the bank is able to). If Freigeld would be the official money you would have to invest it to not loose value or get a profit. On a checking account you would would have negative interest but not as much as in Freigeld cash. Let´s say you have a 'negative interest' for Freigeld cash of 5 percent /year. On a checking account you would have 2 - 3 percent. On longer investments you would have around -1 up to +2 - +3 percent. That would mean that you would invest in a company even if you get 'only about 2 - 3 percent profit'. If you have an economical growth you could get even more. The idea is to tax hording the cash (because you hurt the economy by that). You don´t want to change the 'free trade' or corporate freedom. Everything else (Fractional Banking, ...) can work like it works at the moment - Fractional Banking is actually a problem if the investors start hording cash and don´t invest it. Addendum: In the middle ages there were another similar concept. The Brakteaten coins were only valid for a year. After that peroid you had to change them to the newer one with a fee. With that fee you paid your taxes. [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracteate[/URL] In that times the biggest churches and art building were built and the economy was on a high. That money system broke down after the gold standard was forcedly introduced. After that the economy went down and gold hording started once again. |
The underlying problem with our economy is that it functions well only when liquidity is high. Define liquidity as the continuous flow of money. People earn it, then spend it. A taxi driver buys food. Sale of food pays the bills for the grocery store, the grocery store buys food from a distributor, the distributor buys food from a producer, who buys the raw food products from the farmer. I won't talk about the ways to shorten that path, permit me to use it for the moment. The concept is that a dollar got spent 5 times which generated liquidity. Now, let us say the taxi driver saved his dollar instead. What happens?
DarJones |
[quote=joblack;159614]The actual money (cash) is losing value by inflation.[/quote]I'll use the term [I]currency[/I] to denote coins and paper bills. You're using the term [I]cash[/I] for the same, right?
[quote]In a deflationary depression (which we are all heading) your cash is gaining value by itself (you can observe that on the real estate market and soon on other assets). So why should you invest it on a bank or company if you have the risk of losing all of it?[/quote]If you stuff it into your mattress you risk losing all of it. Is Freigeld better than currency only in deflationary times? [quote]I´m only talking about cash. Money on a checking account is invested by definition and you can only request to convert it back to cash (if the bank is able to).[/quote]Okaaayyy... these definitions may be difficult to get used to. [quote]If Freigeld would be the official money you would have to invest it to not loose value or get a profit.[/quote]But you just wrote, "why should you invest it on a bank or company if you have the risk of losing all of it?" and "Money on a checking account is invested by definition". That implies, to me, that putting your Freigeld into a checking account is riskier than keeping it as currency/cash. [quote]On a checking account you would would have negative interest but not as much as in Freigeld cash.[/quote]But you've already said that one could lose [I]all[/I] of the value of one's checking account. So there has to be some incentive to put Freigeld into a checking account in order to balance this [I]extra[/I] risk, and this incentive is part of the spread between the (negative) interest rate on Freigeld and the interest rate on the checking account. Correct? [quote]Let´s say you have a 'negative interest' for Freigeld cash of 5 percent /year.[/quote]... which is equivalent to having an inflation rate of 5% in our current monetary system. But Freigeld's advantage so far seems to be only in [I]de[/I]flationary times. [quote]On a checking account you would have 2 - 3 percent. On longer investments you would have around -1 up to +2 - +3 percent. That would mean that you would invest in a company even if you get 'only about 2 - 3 percent profit'. If you have an economical growth you could get even more. The idea is to tax hording the cash (because you hurt the economy by that).[/quote]That's what inflation does, in effect: tax the hoarding of currency. So the concept of Freigeld is to conserve certain financial principles (not principals :) in deflationary times? [quote]Addendum: In the middle ages there were another similar concept. The Brakteaten coins were only valid for a year. After that peroid you had to change them to the newer one with a fee. With that fee you paid your taxes. [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracteate[/URL] In that times the biggest churches and art building were built and the economy was on a high. That money system broke down after the gold standard was forcedly introduced. After that the economy went down and gold hording started once again.[/quote]You're not going to convince many people that Freigeld is a good idea by citing examples from the Middle Ages! Those medieval "biggest churches and art building" often took [I]generations[/I], or even [I]centuries[/I], to build, not for lack of technology or labor, but because of shortages of financing. |
[quote=cheesehead;159658]I'll use the term [I]currency[/I] to denote coins and paper bills. You're using the term [I]cash[/I] for the same, right?
If you stuff it into your mattress you risk losing all of it. Is Freigeld better than currency only in deflationary times? Okaaayyy... these definitions may be difficult to get used to. But you just wrote, "why should you invest it on a bank or company if you have the risk of losing all of it?" and "Money on a checking account is invested by definition". That implies, to me, that putting your Freigeld into a checking account is riskier than keeping it as currency/cash. [/quote] Theoretically it is riskier to invest it in a bank instead of having it as cash. But these sentences are related to our actual money and the actual situation. With Freigeld you won´t get the situation we have today (because the money hording is unattractive and strong deflations will not be available anymore). [quote=cheesehead;159658] But you've already said that one could lose [I]all[/I] of the value of one's checking account. So there has to be some incentive to put Freigeld into a checking account in order to balance this [I]extra[/I] risk, and this incentive is part of the spread between the (negative) interest rate on Freigeld and the interest rate on the checking account. Correct? [/quote] Yes - you have less of a fee ( lets say 2.5 % instead of the original 5 %). For longer investments you could even get a positive interest rate. The actual interest rate would be setup by the free market situation. [quote=cheesehead;159658] ... which is equivalent to having an inflation rate of 5% in our current monetary system. But Freigeld's advantage so far seems to be only in [I]de[/I]flationary times. That's what inflation does, in effect: tax the hoarding of currency. So the concept of Freigeld is to conserve certain financial principles (not principals :) in deflationary times? [/quote] No, Freigeld is applicable in every economic situation. In deflationary times it would help a lot (because the money hording would stop to an extent). At the beginning of a new economy cycle (after a war) the two money systems are equally effective, but after some centuries you don´t have the growth you got at the beginning. Our actual monetary system will destroy itself if there is no more growth (exploding debt and declining economy). [quote=cheesehead;159658] You're not going to convince many people that Freigeld is a good idea by citing examples from the Middle Ages! Those medieval "biggest churches and art building" often took [I]generations[/I], or even [I]centuries[/I], to build, not for lack of technology or labor, but because of shortages of financing.[/quote] The Middle Ages weren´t all "Dark Ages". The Bracteaten coins used between 1150–1450 brought (at least in Germany) a growing economy. For that I have only German sources ( like [url]http://www.geistigenahrung.org/ftopic3494.html[/url] ). Anyway - we will see if the American people will search for alternative systems in the Second Great Depression. |
| All times are UTC. The time now is 20:03. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.