The basic notion of a (usual, industrial) country is that it is self-sufficient and provides mostly for its own. The Caymans is the antithesis of this. Wealth is imported, and the richness of the country is therefore artificial - i.e. not the result of any distinct value that it has produced through goods and services.
Of course you can create a near utopia without taxation for your own people if you are able to import fabulously rich residents by the boatload and taxing them instead. This is obviously not an option that is sustainable on a large scale , nor do most countries have the exotic climate to support it.
In short, you need to tax somebody. In the Caymans these happen to be rich foreigners on holiday (or in some sort of semi-permanent residence)... in other countries clearly the taxes have to come from somebody else.
I guess focusing on the comment above, “and has no direct tax”. I have been told there was no direct tax in US till 1913, so how did it work then? we seem to get along just fine to that point? Assuming what you say is true, that it will never work….
“This would never work in a country that isn't a tax shelter from other nations,” but isn’t Manhattan N.Y. U.S. also a tax haven to foreigners, other then U.S. citizens? And doesn’t the Cayman Islands support competition among, within and between taxing districts of the world, for which they attract wealth? Maybe it’s the competition among governments that makes it work in Cayman, giving money owners a better deal then they get else where.
“Somebody”, yes… if direct then apportioned. Tax somebody with competition, perhaps maybe best.
"I have been told there was no direct tax in US till 1913, so how did it work then? "
This is not entirely true. There was an income tax that was put into place for a number of years around the civil war, but was later abolished. Im not certain on the exact years, though.
Either way, taxes still abounded back then, they just werent compulsory. But they were if you were alive, eating, and tried to move around society. In other words, if you lived in BFE and had a farm, you probably didnt pay anything -- but if you lived in the city, you almost had to when buying tea, other food items, paying for stamps, other imported items.
The debate about whether we should have income tax or not is somewhat moot outside of armed rebellion. Its here to stay. The point that is more important is that it should be uniform, easy to follow, and LOW. I should not pay 50% of my efforts to the government. 5%, ok, 10% maybe, but 50%? no. The amount is what makes the income tax so unbearable, not that it exists at all.
“The debate about whether we should have income tax or not is somewhat moot outside of armed rebellion” I hope this is not true, I’d prefer a peaceful solution. I believe all things are possible, perhaps it is not possible because people think it is not. Even if you want it low, the best strategy may be to urge for abolishment, and the chances of getting low taxes go up. I was for low taxes, now I’m for abolishment. The more I learn about the system being rigged, the more I want it absolutely.
Manhattan is a tax shelter? You certainly don't know much about Manhattan.
There were taxes prior to the income tax, they were just different taxes. A flat rate sales tax and no income tax would still be tax - it would just be easier to avoid.
"It does not surprise anyone when I tell them that the most important tax haven in the world is an island," international tax expert Marshall Langer pointed out in a speech last November. "They are surprised, however, when I tell them that the name of the island is Manhattan."
Ah I wasn't thinking of non-citizens, for me it is hard to think of it as a shelter when I pay significantly more tax now that I work in Manhattan than when I worked in New Jersey.
I agree on the republic idea, but those safe guards that have been eroded, make it stealing. The 16th was fraudulent ratified; “The Law That Never Was” makes this point well. If we “apportion” as the constitution says to, we have problem too, because it is a check as well. It would be hard politically to tell California to cough up their portion of the debt. So the constitution is not obeyed perhaps more so to divide the people, that is how the power that be controls populations. If it is gold and silver coins, to declaration of war to the way the 16th was passed turned into law, or the state’s picking of senators, who benefits? When the rule of law is not obeyed, I conceive the idea that perhaps you do have robbery, be it in different forms, but still robbery.
I've read all the conspiracy theories about the 16th amendment not being properly ratified, but honestly if we had to ratify it again today you and I both know that it would pass and so the whole arguement is moot. You are using loaded words to describe taxes. It is NOT stealing. Stealing is the unlawful taking of your money, if the taxes are approved by the rulers we all collectively voted for, then they are lawful. The fact that you disagree with everyone else, means that you simply disagree - not that taxes are stealing.
Legal plunder, perhaps would be a better term:-) And I would stand by that term as being correct. “Stealing is the unlawful taking of your money” agreed, so why is the constitution not being obeyed? Most of the programs, etc. are not constitutional along with everywhere the government is not obeying the constitution… there is a lot of this from not declaring war, to gold and silver coins. If the rule of law is not being obeyed, or was changed legally, by your own definition, perhaps it is stealing in many forms first of the power reserved for the people or the states.
I didn’t know “The Law That Never Was” was a conspiracy, I thought it was a factual record of what the state’s recorded and what the GSA and government recorded. Perhaps the term of conspiracy is a better label? or you are using a loaded word, to mark an area of taboo. After pushing towards a 100 years of tax/need brainwashing, I don’t know what the affect would be if the 16th was to pass today, I think it would never have passed in 1800, though:-) to say it is moot is like saying because the people would not approve the constitution today, using that document of freedom is moot as well, we should disregard it. I do not believe that would be wise. The more I think about how the rule of law is not being obeyed, in all its forms, the more I think stealing might be better than legal plunder….
I like your case though, thanks for reply
No, "The Law That Never Was" is a conspiracy. A conspiracy for Benson to make money off dumb saps who believe it.
The court stated: "Benson has failed to point to evidence that would create a genuinely disputed fact regarding whether the Sixteenth Amendment was properly ratified or whether United States Citizens are legally obligated to pay federal taxes. Also, as is indicated above, Benson is precluded in this action from taking the position that the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified."[20] The court stated that "the undisputed evidence shows that Benson had actual knowledge that the information in the Reliance Defense Package was false or fraudulent."[21] The court also stated: "Benson falsely tells customers that if they purchase and use his products they will be shielded from criminal prosecution for violating the internal revenue laws. Purchasers of the 'Reliance Defense Package' receive a letter signed by Benson that falsely represents that the purchaser can rely on Benson's research to conclude that the Sixteenth Amendment was not ratified, and that the purchaser is thereby not required to file federal income tax returns or pay federal income or social security taxes to the United States."[22] The court ruled that "Benson's position has no merit and he has used his fraudulent tax advice to deceive other citizens and profit from it" in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 6700.[23]
And honestly, you don't think that a bunch of rich people would have tried to overturn the income tax back when it was 70%? I'm in the upper tax bracket. If I didn't have to pay it or I could donate to a fund for people who wanted to overturn it, I would in a heart beat.
I think it is a silly arguement to have. If it were up to me, all the taxes would be income taxes and everything else would be 0. No capital gains, no estate, no tariffs, no corporate. Make the American people feel exactly what these programs cost - becuase right now they pay all the other taxes indirectly and they don't know it. Make people feel what a big government really means on their pocket and then you will see how many more people are screaming for libertarian policies. But saying "we shouldn't pay any tax" and "i wish I could succeed from the government" which I know is a common libertarian ideal, is just so impractical as to be a detriment to the cause.
Roads in Illinois and most of the USA, before Lincoln’s system of spoils were actually private toll roads. In fact, most of the early days of government internal improvement projects, while having serious competition from the private sector, mostly were examples of failure. Perhaps it is far easier to make a case why you/we must be mugged, by the powers that be for some social good then it is to make a case for freedom, in all forms.
“Taxes are necessary evil”… I conceive the idea that this is like 1+1=3
Or he’s betting that he will get to run the last two rolls of the dice at the game of taking America by monopoly that he is playing, like a 11year old kid, once they have boardwalk and park place along with most of the other important ones, you can’t stop the game without a temper tantrum, maybe in this case one will not be allowed to walk away from the game.
He also was saved 6.5 billion from the bail out of Fanny/Freddie. He also has made his fortune from insurance, which one might say is like banking, a big benefactor of the ‘game’. Would you buy insurance or food first if prices fall and you are out of work? He would lose in that environment, too granted, (did you notice he switched into food lately right around when he went on a buying spree in one of the safest of fiat currency:-) but the real gain is in the upside of knowing what society will need and having it with less competition:-), it only gets better…. Giving him credit he did offered to buy one percent of the 700 billion, (though not first lost position) or without his friends picking which ones...
Old money fears new money. I was going to say old wealth fears new wealth, but with PG’s input on wealth… I think it would be better to say money. Or maybe even perhaps large money fears small money that has ingenuity that may become large money. Buffet knows where to stop his competition before it becomes a serious problem – Monopolist, or should say cartelist or oligopolists always have… sometimes I wonder how many wealth creators by innovation understand, or even think this as true.
But if ones includes the inflation tax that they (Banks, etc.) directly benefit from by getting the fait funny money first before the rest of society and it’s results on everyone, this may not be true. There are more poor and middle class that have the inflation tax steal from them (for which most don’t understand the how of it) in addition to the direct tax that takes to support the preplanned central banking scheme that benefits the few. When you add to that the mal-investment which makes decisions skewed for the poor or middle class trying to get ahead, one may be able to make a even stronger case against the preplanned ordered centrally controlled economy and a better case for a more market based one with sound money.
Don’t rely on the tyranny of the democracy. Use this as an opportunity to build a framework based on principle and apply it across the board. When you build constitutions, you have to do it in private, with great minds and based on timeless principles… and weight in fact the true nature of man. In Freedom,
Hmm .. looky, looky .. 1-point comment from a single use account and yet not only it was quoted in TechChrunch cover of the story, but it was also remarkably fit for propagating whatever point Arrington was making.
Why?