The Beginning Of The End Ad
Gold Buying Guide: Golden Eagle Coins

Recent Posts

The Preppers Blueprint Economic Collapse Blog Get Prepared Now Ad

Enter your email to subscribe to The Economic Collapse Blog:

Delivered by FeedBurner

‘When I say cut taxes, I don’t mean fiddle with the code. I mean abolish the income tax and the IRS, and replace them with nothing’

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterPin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on LinkedInShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone

The quote in the headline comes from Ron Paul, and it should be the goal of every conservative lawmaker in the entire country.  When professional politicians tell you that they are in favor of reforming the tax code or reducing taxes a little bit, essentially what they are telling you is that they are perfectly fine with the status quo.  They may want to tweak things slightly, but in general they are content with big taxes, big spending and big government.  I spent an entire year getting a Master of Laws in Taxation at the University of Florida Law School, and in my opinion the best thing that Congress could do to the tax code would be to run it through a shredder and put it in a dumpster.  As I noted the other day, the tax code is now more than four million words long and it takes Americans about six billion dollars a year to comply with it.  Those that believe that they are offering the American people a “solution” by proposing to tinker with this abominable mess are just fooling themselves.

The only long-term solution that is going to work is to get rid of the entire steaming pile of garbage.  Ron Paul understood this, and we would be very wise to take his advice.  The following is the full version of the quote from the headline above…

“By the way, when I say cut taxes, I don’t mean fiddle with the code. I mean abolish the income tax and the IRS, and replace them with nothing.”

If I run for Congress, and I am very strongly leaning in that direction, this is what my position on taxes is going to be.

Of course we are going to have to dramatically change the composition of the House and the Senate in order to get this done, so in the short-term we may have to focus on reducing tax rates and the size of the tax code by as much as possible.

But ultimately, the goal will be to abolish the tax code and the IRS altogether.

We have become so accustomed to an income tax that many of us couldn’t possibly imagine a society without one.  But today there are seven states that do not have one, and that includes very big states such as Texas and Florida.  And from 1872 to 1913, there was no federal income tax.  When a federal income tax was finally reinstituted in 1913, the rates were extremely low.  The following comes from Politifact

The 1913 law imposed a tax of 1 percent on income up to $20,000, for both individual and joint filers. However, exemptions from the tax — the first $3,000 of income for individuals and the first $4,000 for joint filers — meant “virtually all middle-class Americans” were excused from paying, according to W. Elliot Brownlee’s book, Federal Taxation in America. The law also put in place a graduated surtax on incomes above $20,000; the highest rate paid, 7 percent, applied to Americans making more than $500,000 (about $11.4 million in 2011 dollars).

So how did things go for our country during the four decades when there was no federal income tax?

Well, if you regularly follow my work you already know the answer to that question.

That period of time just happened to be the best period of economic growth in U.S. history.

Oh, but we wouldn’t want to change from the way things work today, would we?  After all, the U.S. economy has grown at a blistering average yearly rate of just 1.33 percent over the past decade, and we are actually behind that pace so far in 2017.

If you want a no growth economy and a steadily shrinking middle class, then our current system is perfect for you.

But I believe that we can do so much better.

So how are we going to fund the federal government if we eliminate the income tax?

Well, the truth is that taxing individual incomes accounts for only 46.2 percent of all federal revenue.  The federal government has lots of other ways that it raises money, but of course we wouldn’t be able to keep the massively bloated federal bureaucracy that we have today.  We would need to reduce the size and scope of the federal government to an appropriate constitutional level, and of course most politicians on the left would resist this greatly.

There are some federal agencies and programs that we could completely eliminate altogether.  If it was up to me, the EPA, the Department of Education and the BATFE would be good places to start.  Any essential functions that they are currently performing could easily be absorbed by other agencies.

There are very few politicians in our entire country that will still talk like this, because our leaders have taken us so far down the road toward “a social state” that most Americans don’t even know what “limited government” looks like anymore.

I would like to share with you an old newspaper clipping that was posted to Facebook by Get Involved, You Live Here

Over the past several decades, the left has made a tremendous amount of progress toward achieving the goals that Saul Alinsky originally outlined in Rules for Radicals.  Obamacare was a giant step toward federal control over our healthcare system, poverty is exploding as the middle class shrinks, we are nearly 20 trillion dollars in debt, our public schools have become left-wing indoctrination centers, and God has been pushed out of almost every corner of public life.

We should be very thankful that we got Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton, but many radical leftists consider Trump to simply be a bump in the road on the way to completely eradicating our way of life.

They want to criminalize what we believe by making it “hate speech”, they want to steal the minds of the next generation by dominating our system of education, and they want to use government institutions and the legal system as tools to completely reshape society in their image.

The only way that we are going to defeat this tyranny is if we stand up and fight for our country, and that is precisely what we are going to do.

 
  • SoCalBeachDude

    Rather obviously, quotes like the title of this article simply show how totally out of touch Ron Paul is with financial realities and the fact that the US government is a $4+ trillion a year entity which is responsible for around 25% of all of the $18 trillion of economic activity in the USA. What Ron Paul apparently wants – and has no chance of getting any support on – is a total shutdown of the US government and all of its operations including Social Security, Medicare and Medical, and all military spending. Without the current federal tax system – or an equivalent replacement – there is no chance at all of the US government continuing as an ongoing entity.

    • Guest

      Ron Paul is no longer a Congressman. Now we know you’re an idiot.

      • SoCalBeachDude

        Huh? I never stated that Ron Paul was currently a Congressperson anywhere in any of my comments. Where did you come up with that bizarre assertion?

    • aldownunder

      So you don’t agree with M’s article
      I take it you don’t agree with most of his articles the way you sabotage the comments sections maybe it’s time to find another site to harass

      • SoCalBeachDude

        Most of his articles are absolutely excellent.

        Just how do you propose funding our $4+ trillion a year government without our current federal tax system or an equivalent replacement which increases federal taxes by around $1 trillion a year to ensure we do not run a massive deficit?

        • aldownunder

          What about the one’s criticizing your glorious FED

        • SnodtBlossom

          excellent..lol

        • Stuey

          Absolutely excellent?? You disagree with 75% of what he says.

      • Guest

        He hijacks the comments section of this site because he can’t get an audience anywhere else. He’s a diminutive man with an enormous ego.

        • SnodtBlossom

          Hijacks? in what way? He gets upvotes because he’s liked and you’re all whiny jealous babies

          • Dave

            Why does he get to post link after link after link while other people have to wait hours for theirs in moderation? If you can’t answer without sarcasm or being a smart a** don’t bother replying.

          • SnodtBlossom

            he knows the coding

          • TOUJOURS DEMAIN

            When it is so simple to block anyone that you do not want to read, why is SoCalBeachDude even an issue for you?

            He is one of this sites most polite, professional people.

            I think I will eat an apple.

          • Dave

            Everyone should be able to post a link equally. This is a dictatorship. And why did you change your avatar and name anyways AlwaysTomorrow?

          • TOUJOURS DEMAIN

            If you think everyone “should be able to post a link equally” that is an issue to take up with the author.

            As far as my name, would you like me to change it back? By the way it was ALWAYSTOMORROW, one word all caps please.

          • Dave

            Nah, keep the goofy avatar and name. It suits your personality. As for this site it became a dumpster fire since SoCalBeachDude arrived, so I’ll just leave like lots of other people to greener pastures. Goodbye!

          • TOUJOURS DEMAIN

            Au Revoir

          • FriendOfManAndAnimal

            Goodbye Dave. Sorry to see you go. Come back if you change your mind.

          • ncmist

            Until you mentioned that I thought his avatar was a penguin. Actually looking at now and it’s some weird black dude with a 1930’s haircut.

          • TOUJOURS DEMAIN

            Why do you think the “dude” is weird? Is it because he is black?

          • Grand Wizard

            YES!!!

          • CASTIEL

            He is a idiot………And we are not interested in what you are going to eat or what you are going to do……save that to yourself…..

          • TOUJOURS DEMAIN

            Okay. I understand.

            I think I will now have a glass of skim milk.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            I like 2% milk the best! Try some! It costs exactly the same as 1% (skim) milk.

          • Stuey

            keep drinking that 2% milk and eating doughnuts and stale bread.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            Bread keeps for many weeks and months in a very nice fresh state.

          • Stuey

            Yeah, but is it kosher? Regardless, please keep eating plenty of bread, doughnuts and change to whole milk, it is better for you than that weak 2%.

          • CASTIEL

            I bet you are the kind of people who like milk from a ox…….

          • CASTIEL

            Go drink gasoline and then smoke a cigar…….You will have a explosive breakfast….

          • TOUJOURS DEMAIN

            Care to join me?

          • CASTIEL

            Only to smoke a cigar………the gasoline i will leave it to you……

          • SnodtBlossom

            Você é um saco de sujeira portugese

          • CASTIEL

            And you are a sperm bank……..when you open the legs….its like a radioactive waste…..I bet even muslims prefer the goats than you……

          • aldownunder

            An apple……..are you on a health kick?

          • TOUJOURS DEMAIN

            I eat quite healthy.

          • aldownunder

            Well an apple a day keeps the doctor away

          • Paul Anders

            GMO apples or Organic?

          • TOUJOURS DEMAIN

            GMO of course. They make you strong and healthy!

          • SoCalBeachDude

            GMO is far better for you.

          • Stuey

            polite?? he has called people more names than anyone on here!!

          • TOUJOURS DEMAIN

            Your assertation is laughably false. 🙂

          • Stuey

            How many accounts do you have drugheaddude? At least use different phrases and wording in your different accounts so it isn’t so obvious.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            Absolutely false.

          • Bill

            Clear sailing for the dud, and moderation for others is discrimination that is extremely prejudicial.

          • FriendOfManAndAnimal

            Maybe if someone posts more than 15,000 comments without saying anything overtly racist or extremely offensive then they are allowed to bypass the moderation by Disqus? I don’t know for sure just a possible theory.

          • Trump 2020

            LAUGHABLY FALSE. Infowars website uses disqus and I can posts links on there just fine immediately. I don’t care that my comments go to moderation if I use a link on this site I’m just using that site as an example that also uses disqus.

          • FriendOfManAndAnimal

            Maybe each website that uses Disqus has the option of setting the threshold of how many posts are needed before no moderation is needed. Perhaps the Infowars website has this Disqus option turned off.

          • FriendOfManAndAnimal

            I just went to the InfoWars website and posted a comment with a link. The comment got through immediately without moderation. But when I try to do the same here, it goes into moderation.

          • df NJ

            My comments are NOT moderated at all. They go right up. I don’t know what you are using but I am logging in with Disqus

          • FriendOfManAndAnimal

            Try posting a comment with a link to a webpage in it. Most people have to wait 16 hours or more before it is viewable by others.

          • df NJ

            Again, I post links all the time logging in with Disqus. I never have a problem Can you see my links? The only time I get the “Awaiting Moderation” is if I use a bad words like some pejorative term for Arabs or Jews.

          • FriendOfManAndAnimal

            I cannot remember seeing a link in a post by you. Could you please reply now with a link in it to show that you are getting through without delay? Thanks.

          • FriendOfManAndAnimal

            It’s been about 30 minutes since I asked you to post a test link and I have not seen a post from you. Maybe you have signed off. If you have posted in the last half hour, could you let us know if you have please?

          • SoCalBeachDude

            df NJ posted a very extensive comment above with full links and it appear here immediately with all of the links functioning.

          • FriendOfManAndAnimal

            Ok. I see his post with the links in it. It looks like df NJ does not have his links moderated. I noticed df NJ has over 15,000 posts so maybe that is the secret that allows a commenter’s posts with links to get through without moderation.

          • aldownunder

            Who knows what it is but an explanation would be handy as almost everyone has to wait hours for a comment with links to be cleared

          • FriendOfManAndAnimal

            Maybe Disqus does not want people to know the secret if it is just the total number of posts. If that knowledge were to get out then a lot of people would generate thousands of innocuous posts just to increase their post count.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            Yes, you links come in just fine on every comment with your full Disqus account.

          • Paul Anders

            Even typing the first name of the sites owner will throw the comment into moderation

          • Paul Anders

            Comments will, but try attaching something to them…

          • CASTIEL

            Go f#ck yourself you fat ugly cow……

        • SoCalBeachDude

          What utter nonsense.

          • df NJ

            This time I agree with you.

    • calling elvis

      I don’t believe Mr. Paul is expecting to kill Social Security, Medicare or the Military (reforms yes but not do away with them), rather get rid of all the totally unnecessary departments that have cropped up over the years. And yes we would have to replace all of that “government economic activity” and get those displaced government workers real jobs. But as the article suggest very few politicians think this way – SoCalBeachDude can’t even imagine thinking this way. Great article.

      • SoCalBeachDude

        Well, social spending and medical spending account for 63% of the federal budget and military and veterans benefits account for 20% of the federal budget and between just the 2 of those that’s 83% of all current federal government spending of more than $3 trillion a year. You are aware of that, aren’t you? So even if you do try to eliminate everything else, just where are you going to get $3 trillion of federal revenue from?

        • Kaddy

          tax is theft, you understand that right? people can work out how to best to run their lives between themselves, they do not need some blood sucking daddy government to control them.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            All of the 196 countries in the world CHARGE TAX TO THEIR CITIZENS and there would be no way to support any governments at all but for taxes.

          • huththa

            Way to generalize. Supporting taxation doesn’t mean you give carte blanche for any kind of taxation or any amount.

            The argument is against INCOME tax. A CONSUMPTION tax is more reasonable and fair. There’s your tax. Happy? Don’t forget property taxes and assorted other usage-based taxes.

            And what’s with the “all countries” argument? Since when has the US been beholden to what “all countries” do? “All countries” don’t have military bases all over the world. So why do we?

            Taxation is indeed theft when the taxee has not agreed to the use of that tax money. The way to minimize that disagreement is to minimize government operations to only those explicitly authorized by the Constitution. Beyond protecting all citizens basic rights and keeping the nation safe from external enemies, there isn’t a whole lot more.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            As I have stated many times, a CONSUMPTION TAX IS HIGHLY REGRESSIVE and would result in a VAST TAX INCREASE ON THE MORE THAN 50% OF AMERICANS WHO PRESENTLY PAY NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX AT ALL.

            Property taxes DO NOT GO TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNEMNT but are collected for state and local governments.

            The US federal government spends around $4 trillion a year and that is what is at issue. If you want to in any way change the federal income tax laws then you need to find EXACT REPLACEMENT REVENUE OR HIGHER REVENUE or you’ve got a total non-starter of a notion as to any tax revisions on a federal level.

    • Kaddy

      well, duuuur

  • Guest

    Though I did not vote in the last election, Trump did something that I’m very grateful for. Immediately after taking office he issued an executive order instructing federal agencies to minimize the economic burden of Obamacare. The IRS subsequently announced, pursuant to the executive order, that individual tax returns for 2016 that didn’t indicate if the taxpayer had health insurance for 2016 would not be rejected as incomplete. I did not have health insurance for all of 2016, and I had intended to just pay the penalty for not having insurance, like I did when I filed my 2015 income tax return. However, as a result of the executive order, I didn’t check the box on Form 1040 to indicate that I had health insurance for 2016, because I didn’t, and instead of owing the IRS for 2016 I actually received a refund!

    • df NJ

      So when you have a heart attack and rack up a $200,000 bill at the hospital we will know which freeloader to thank.

  • Bob

    My professor in my income tax accounting class said if the U.S. went to a flat tax of 15%, the deficit would disappear. Everyone would pay 15% regardless of income level. Any comments from all of you about this idea? A workable solution? Good proposal?

    • Bill

      It’s a good place to start.

      • SoCalBeachDude

        Obviously not. You don’t start by WIPING OUT 100% OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REVENUES as a place to start unless you want to destroy the entire government and economic system of the USA. Is that what you want to see?

        • Capitalist

          The flat tax and the eventual abolition of the income, capital gains, and corporate tax would be enrich every single person in this nation and wider world. Why, one may inquire as to validity of these solutions.

          A decrease in tax rates would stimulate the velocity of circulation as people spent and investment rates as people invested more. 501c(3)s would see a boon, as people donated more. Imagine how much more Bill Gates could have donated if his income was not taxed. Regardless of ones income, investment and voluntary private charity would increase at a higher rate. Right now, we see a logistic growth of these metrics. The fact that these level off is indicative of a bloated government that steals to much from the rich, the middle classes, and the poor; of course the top 10 percent pays over 50% of all taxes, but the poor need every penny they earn_and they deserve it, just as us wealthier people deserve every penny.

          Government is barrier to innovation and investment; it keeps the poor impoverished and limits the potential of the knowledge workers, the wealthy, and the poor. Cutting spending by at least 50% would be a good start, although I would have to derive (a) differential equation(s) to obtain accurate optimal solutions.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            Absolutely and laughably false.

    • DesertPaine

      Maybe the numbers work, maybe not. Either way, it makes income tax a tax on property. We are light years better off with it as it is now, an excise.

    • df NJ

      I heard someone in a red state say flat tax is not fair because their taxes would go up. I heard a rich guy say it’s not fair because why should he pay $200,000 when someone else only pays $5000. If people think a flat tax isn’t fair there is no hope for us.

      • SoCalBeachDude

        How is a flat tax going to work with people who have NO NET INCOME after expenses, especially with business that HAVE NO PROFITS? Revenues are never taxed; it is PROFITS that are taxed.

        • df NJ

          If a business has no profit, then how can it stay in business.

          I don’t understand why you argue with everything. What is wrong with a flat income tax? It’s fair. We are not talking corporate taxes. That’s just one big red herring.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            Most self-employment small businesses which account for about 80% of all private sector businesses in the US HAVE NO PROFITS AT ALL with expenses in excess of revenues. How is it “fair” to increase the taxes on 50% of taxpayers (the bottom 50%) by suddenly charging them 15% of their incomes when they are currently PAYING ZERO FEDERAL INCOME TAXES?

            Where are they going to get the money to pay that tax? And how do you propose charging any tax on businesses that HAVE NO NET INCOME at all and therefore no taxable income?

          • DesertPaine

            df – think long and hard before exchanging the current excise for a direct property tax, which is what FAIR tax is. It sounds good, I know, but the devil is in the fundamentals.

    • SoCalBeachDude

      The bottom 50% of income earners don’t have 15% to pay the federal government and many of them get the refundable Earned Income Tax Credit currently from the federal government. 15% wouldn’t even begin to generate the total amount of federal government tax revenue that is now being generated of a little more than $3 trillion a year while federal spending exceeds $4 trillion a year.

  • Bill

    I agree with this article 100%, but the policy of letting the obnoxious dude have free reign over this blog must end!!!

    Please vote for change.

    • PocoPete

      SoCalBeachDude suffers from the sin of conceit.

      • SoCalBeachDude

        Hardly. The issue is COMMON SENSE and FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY when it comes to federal government spending and taxing matters and the goal is to get a BALANCED BUDGET.

        • df NJ

          Taxes are only half the problem. The government is paying too much for goods and services. That’s the bigger problem. Not taxes.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            Such as? Please do be specific.

          • awb22

            Agreed, bidding up cost and crowding out the private sector. They’re in denial.

        • Paul Anders

          There was never meant to be a balanced budget.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            The US federal government has been DEFICIT SPENDING ever since 1776. States were ALWAYS REQUIRED to the contrary to have a BALANCED BUDGET and all states have balanced budget clauses in their Constitutions and the very same thing should be enacted into US federal law as that is the ONLY HOPE of getting the federal budget under control.

          • Stuey

            The states don’t follow their own balanced budget laws, so what is the point for the federal govt. to have such a law, they just won’t follow it either.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            Nearly all states do in fact follow their BALANCED BUDGET MANDATES with the sole exception being Illinois which is now facing disastrous consequences for being so grossly profligate and unlawful.

            Illinois careens into financial meltdown…

            ‘Like a banana republic’…

            http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/20/illinois-careens-into-financial-meltdown-and-not-even-lottery-is-safe.html

          • Stuey

            Maybe a balanced budget means something different to you and the states than to me. If you have a balanced budget that should mean that you have as much revenue coming in to equal spending for expenses going out. But when you look at the debt clocks for every state i looked at(admit i did not have time to look at all 50) they all show their state debts going up every second. So apparently they are spending more than they are bringing in, which isn’t a balanced budget to me.

        • Jason Samuelson

          Uh, I think that’s what he said when he talked about eliminating useless government agencies and having a constitutional “limited government”…

          • SoCalBeachDude

            That isn’t the problem at all as 83% of the federal expenditures are for:

            1) 63% Social Welfare and Medical

            2) 20% Military including 4% for Veterans

            So, even if every other government expenditure was eliminated entirely there would be no change at all in 83% of the current federal expenditures. Do you get it now as what the problem is?

      • Patriot

        It is not conceit – it is believing himself to be smarter than he actually is!

        • SoCalBeachDude

          What utterly clueless nonsense, dude.

    • df NJ

      I don’t agree. I don’t like political correctness. If you don’t like what he’s saying just skip over his posts.

      • awb22

        I blocked him, and it’s a breath of fresh air.

        • SoCalBeachDude

          Like a clueless ostrich with its head buried deep in the sand!

        • Patriot

          I played with him for awhile, but then I blocked him too!

      • Patriot

        It is not about political correctness. The beach dude is like the guy who shows up late and pushes his way to the front of the crowd!
        He is not trying to contribute, he is trying to disrupt!
        He is like the guy who screams FIRE, just to watch the people panic.

        • SoCalBeachDude

          It is about CORRECTNESS OF INFORMATION and I always provide accurate and correct information.

    • SoCalBeachDude

      And, then, just how would you pay for the $4 trillion in federal government spending where more than 80% is for social welfare including medical and military programs?

      • Paul Anders

        For starters, you QUIT spending $4 Trillion dollars. Name the last country that policed the world and tell me…what are they up to these days?

        • SoCalBeachDude

          I completely concur that federal government spending should be cut and the range I would suggest for cutting is between 33% and 50% of current spending levels. That would, of course, create a MAJOR DEPRESSION in the US economy which is buoyed up artificially by massive federal government spending, and CONGRESS and the WHITE HOUSE are TOTALLY OPPOSED TO ACTUALLY CUTTING FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING which is at the heart of the problem as to why it has not been cut at all, but rather MASSIVELY INCREASED over the past 35+ years.

          • smallmanbigfont

            Do you feel like your comments aren’t being seen? What’s with the bold font and capitalization? Are you overcompensating for something?

          • SoCalBeachDude

            Do you not comprehend what I have stated?

    • Isaac Nussbaum

      Bill, if everyone would just ignore SoCalBeachDude – not mention him, not reply to his posts – his participation would be damped down to a considerable extent, I think.

      • jakartaman

        Yup – Don’t feed the animals

    • marlene

      Bill, I don’t know which “obnoxious dude” you mean…

  • Common Ground

    …nice article, but (if NO taxes), who will pay for the Coast guard, military, politicians salary, garbage collection, airports, etc.?….oh baloney!

    • df NJ

      Trump wanted to get rid of the DOE until he found out they are responsible for making sure nuclear waste doesn’t kill everyone in the country.

  • SoCalBeachDude

    And just what federal government spending do you all propose cutting and by how much in each category?

    Only 20% of the US government annual spending is for total military spending with 16% for actual military spending and 4% for Veterans Benefits.

    The biggest part of the spending is SOCIAL PROGRAMS including the Social Security and Medicare insurance programs which are NOT ACTUARILY SOUND and which are paying out vastly more than they have taken in with payroll taxes.

    A summary of the fiscal 2015 US federal government expenditures totaling nearly $4 trillion is as follows:

    WELFARE & MEDICAL (63%)
    33% Social Security, Unemployment, Labor
    27% Medicare & Health
    ..3% Housing & Community

    MILITARY (20%)
    16% Military
    ..4% Veterans Benefits

    INTEREST ON DEBT (6%)
    ..6% Interest on Debt

    FOOD & TRANSPORTATION (6%)
    ..3% Food & Agriculture
    ..3% Transportation

    EDUCATION & SCIENCE (3%)
    ..2% Education
    ..1% Science

    ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT, & INTERNATIONAL (2%)
    ..1% International Affair
    ..1% Energy & Environment

    OTHER EXPENSES (1%)
    ..1% Government Expenses (general)

    The complete breakdown of Fiscal 2015 expenditures is extensively detailed including actual numbers as well as pie-charts with various percentage breakdowns as to discretionary and non-discretionary expenditures at:

    https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

    • df NJ

      I’m not sure you should include Social Security when you say military spending is 16% of the total budget. It’s almost half if you take out social security.

      If Social Security is funded by payroll taxes, then why was it included in a chart about income taxes?

      Here’s the thing, I don’t have 2016 numbers but in 2011 social security from payroll taxes brought in $959 billion. And the outlay for social security spending was $825 billion.

      So your numbers are distorted by the way you group the data in my opinion.

      • SoCalBeachDude

        All revenues GO TO THE US TREASURY as federal government revenues from an array of taxes including federal income and payroll taxes and that TOTAL ADDS UP TO A LITTLE OVER $3 TRILLION A YEAR, while total spending is shown in the numbers above for 2015 which adds up to around $4 trillion a year and increased around 7% for fiscal 2016 and around 7% for fiscal 2017. Nothing is in any way “distorted” at all, but rather that is the BIG PICTURE TOTAL FEDERAL SPENDING.

  • SoCalBeachDude

    $240,418,000,000: Feds Collect Record Taxes in May…

    Still Run $88,246,000,000 Deficit…

    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/240418000000-feds-collect-record-taxes-may-still-run-88246000000

    • df NJ

      How many people in the population and what is the percentage of total employment? What is the deficit’s percentage of GDP? Otherwise, you numbers are meaningless.

      • SoCalBeachDude

        The above numbers in the article headline are the CURRENT ACTUAL NUMBERS as to federal revenues collected and the SHORTFALL BETWEEN REVENUES AND SPENDING WHICH IS THE CURRENT DEFICIT.

  • df NJ

    This article and anyone who agrees with it has absolutely no concept of mathematics. I am so sick of the idea we have too much socialism in this country. We don’t have a social state in any way shape or form.

    Listen very carefully to what I am about to tell you. IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT YOU PAY IN TAXES. WHAT DOES MATTER IS THE PURCHASING POWER OF YOUR TAKE HOME PAY.

    Taxes are irrelevant. If a large plain pizza costs 10 hours working at minimum corporate wage it doesn’t matter how big the government is. There are two parts to this equation. How much you pay in taxes is just half of the equation. The cost of living is the other. We have just way too many math illiterate people in this country.

    Right now in this country wealth inequality is at all time highs. This has nothing to do with taxes. It has to do with corporations are charging too much for products and services. And at the same time corporations are keeping wages depressed using data analytics and deep data mining.

    I hear a lot criticisms of the left. But when you look at FDR’s words they ring truer today than they did when he spoke them during the 1936 Democratic National Convention:

    “An old English judge once said: ‘Necessitous men are not free men.’ Liberty requires opportunity to make a living – a living decent according to the standard of the time, a living which gives man not only enough to live by, but something to live for.

    For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people’s property, other people’s money, other people’s labor – other people’s lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness.

    Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of government.

    The tyranny we are experiencing is because corporations ARE the government.

    “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.” Benito Mussolini

    The problem we have in this country is not because we have too much socialism. If we had socialism, then check out what the income graph would be for socialism in this video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

    Every time I make this argument nobody ever talks back. That’s because there’s people agree with this way of thinking. The problem is not government. Government is the solution. The problem is we need to take back the government FROM the corporations. As long as the CEOs run the government, the cartels and monopolies will keep everyone miserable and in poverty.

    • SoCalBeachDude

      Monopolies are subject to control by the federal Anti-Trust Laws, specifically the Clayton and Sherman Acts which define what monopolies are.

    • Capitalist

      The number of people living on less than two dollars per day has decreased from 1.85 billion people in 1990 to around 750 million people in 2013. That is ≈60% reduction in extreme poverty. Of course, there is much work to be done. Who employs most of these people as globalization marches forward? They are multinational corporation and large domestic corporations. Of course, pay should be higher as living standards rise in developing economies. Recall that industrialization and modernization are rough processes. There are no laws or regulations in these developing economies regarding wages; yet subsistence levels have been exceeded in many of these countries.

      Government is an anachronism from a time when violence and dogma dominated the minds of people, now science and progress in addition to those beliefs permeates society. Taxation allowed all tyrants to flourish, and stymied innovation except in few cases. Look at all of the Russian scientists who left and leave their native homeland due to lack of opportunity. They see a West that was once the envy of much of the world. Look at China’s growth after foreign investment was allowed to enter the country and capitalism grew in popularity.

      Taxes are a problem; however, they are of course not the only problem. Monopolies are not as prevalent as they once were. If there existed true monopolies, globalization would cease and there would be mass poverty in the U.S., while billionaires would number in the very low hundreds, not the low thousands.

      Also, mathematical illiteracy is the biggest problem in the western world; it is a learned skill, not an innate ability. I had some struggle with math in elementary school, but now this summer I am teaching myself differential equations (primarily linear first order right now; I started only a couple of weeks ago) and have taught myself integration and differentiation (for “one variable” functions, multivariable will come later). It requires great effort, I spend at the least six hours a day teaching myself actual understanding of these concepts. I am only at the level of understanding proofs for derivative and some integral rules, not making them without external sources. I have not taken a calculus class yet, but I am quite sure that most public school just teach, for example, dy/dx(x^n) = nx^n-1 and not why that is the case.

      This math gap and also to some extent verbal skills deficit and programming deficit hurt the economy because people will be less competitive–and less competition leads to less innovation, which is deleterious to all people, not just our own.

      • SoCalBeachDude

        That certainly is not my problem nor the problem of the USA. That’s up to each country around the world to deal with for and by itself.

  • df NJ

    SocialDude, you keeping saying, “social spending and medical spending account for 63% of the federal budget”. That’s just not accurate because social security is its own ticket item. If you take out social security that 63% number is much smaller. If you take out social security I bet the social programs are less than the military spending. You just want to use social security as a way of cutting other social programs and spending.

    • SoCalBeachDude

      No, social welfare spending and medical programs are not some “separate budget” at all but are PART OF THE FEDERAL BUDGET SPENDING OF $4 TRILLION PER YEAR that the federal government is now doing. Yes, there is a SEPARATE PAYROLL TAX to generate revenues for that, but the spending is not separated from the total federal government spending at all, and all of the prior funds of around $5.5 trillion in the Medicare and Social Security programs HAVE ALREADY BEEN TOTALLY SPENT FOR GENERAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING leaving behind just a trail of IOUs which are a separate class of non-marketable US Treasuries which are redeemed at maturity by the federal government US Treasury to the federal government US Treasury.

  • Snews

    No one cares that the U.S. shot down a Syrian fighter jet? And now Russia is threatening to shoot down U.S. planes? Ok. The march to WW3 continues. Stay tuned.

    • SoCalBeachDude

      The US is BACKING ISIS IN SYRIA which is the core of the problem there, but the Neocon warmongers are not making any headway with their attempts to incite yet another “war” in the Middle East.

    • TexOhara

      Would it have been better to let the Syrian fighter attack our friends who are fighting on our side?

      • SoCalBeachDude

        Our “friends” in Syria are ISIS / IS / ISIL. Hellllo?

        • TexOhara

          Syrian Kurdish and pro US Syrian Arab fighters are US allies who are helping us to battle ISIS in Syria.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            What utterly bogus NONSENSE.

          • TexOhara

            What is bogus about our allies fighting ISIS in Syria?

          • SoCalBeachDude

            They are not “fighting ISIS” but rather are PART OF ISIS / IS / ISIL. Get a clue.

          • TexOhara

            Why would Syrian Kurds fight with ISIS? They are bitter enemies.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            Absolutely false.

          • TexOhara

            The vast majority of Syrian Kurd fighters are fighting against ISIS although there may be a few Kurd fighters who are fighting for ISIS. That is why the US is providing them with support.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            Again, what utterly bogus and false nonsense as they are all part and parcel of the absurd US CIA, UK MI5/6, and Israeli Mossad BS called ISIS / IS / ISIL.

          • TexOhara

            Just do a Bing or Google search for “Kurds oppose ISIS” and you will find the overwhelming number of articles show that the Kurds oppose ISIS. Yes there are a few that say the opposite but these sites may be propaganda sites.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            All that brings up is BOGUS PROPAGANDA.

  • Frijebai

    Fight by teaching those who talk about wrong ideals.

    • SoCalBeachDude

      What is that supposed to mean?

  • SoCalBeachDude

    The issue with the federal government budget and debt are as obvious and as straightforward as could possibly be and that has been the case for the past 35 years as the federal debt has exploded out of control ever since the Reagan years starting in 1981.

    The federal government is spending VASTLY BEYOND ITS MEANS, which in crystal clear terms means that it is SPENDING FAR ABOVE TAX REVENUES which results in an ANNUAL DEFICIT WHICH INCREASES THE FEDERAL DEBT. The total aggregate federal debt has increased from a “mere” $1 trillion in 1981 to currently around $20 trillion as a result of that deficit spending which now exceeds $1 trillion a year. Last year, in fiscal 2016, the federal debt increased by $1.4 trillion.

    The ONLY SOLUTIONS TO THAT ISSUE are:

    1) Cutting federal government expenditures dramatically

    2) Increasing federal taxes dramatically

    3) A blend of approaches 1 and 2

    There simply are NO OTHER SOLUTIONS AT ALL. It is impossible to “grow our way out” of this massive problem. In any way decreasing federal taxes would make that problem dramatically worse.

    • TexOhara

      Since the US can deficit spend without causing inflation why even bother balancing the budget?

      • SoCalBeachDude

        Isn’t the answer to that question blatantly OBVIOUS for all to see?

        Just who the heck do the present generations of people alive in America think they are for PLACING THE BURDEN OF PAYING A MONUMENTAL FEDERAL DEBT TO PAY ON THE FUTURE GENERATIONS?

        Helllllllllllllooooooooooooooooooo?

        • TexOhara

          The future generations can just deficit spend also and not have to worry about it either.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            Those are ABSOLUTELY FALSE and just incredibly stupid and bogus assertions.

          • TexOhara

            Its not a problem now. When will deficit spending become a problem then?

          • SoCalBeachDude

            US GOVERNMENT DEFICIT SPENDING HAS BEEN A MASSIVE, GROWING, AND INCREASINGLY CATASTROPHIC PROBLEM EVER SINCE 1981. When – not if – interest rates normalize in the US Treasuries markets to around 5.25% for short term yields (interest rates) the amount due each year on the federal debt of around $20 trillion will soar to well over $1 trillion a year.

          • TexOhara

            If it is not causing inflation why is deficit spending a problem?

          • SoCalBeachDude

            If you do not comprehend what I very clearly stated, then you are beyond hope. “Inflation” has never been the issue with deficit spending, but rather PAYING THE DEBT WITH INTEREST has always been the KEY AND CORE ISSUE.

          • TexOhara

            The US can deficit spend for the payment of the interest on the debt just like it deficit spends for all the other stuff it pays for.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            No, it certainly CANNOT DO THAT AT ALL, and there is a LIMIT TO THE AMOUNT OF US DOLLARS AVAILABLE. The total US money supply is only about $13.5 trillion in the regulated banking system in the US and the federal debt is now around $20 trillion. About $6 trillion of that debt is DUE AND PAYABLE EACH AND EVERY YEAR which is the reason why more than $7 trillion in NEW US TREASURIES (government debt) are issued each and every year and the yields (interest rates) on that are at the MERCY OF THE BOND MARKETS.

            I would suggest you learn about the US Treasuries markets at:

            http://www.TreasuryDirect.gov

          • TexOhara

            The US can just roll over the portion of the debt that comes due each year.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            Nope. There is no such thing as “rolling over” the federal government debt as NEW US TREASURIES HAVE TO BE SOLD INTO THE US TREASURIES MARKETS TO REPLACE THE FEDERAL DEBT THAT MATURES EACH YEAR. If existing holders who are repaid in full (around $6 trillion a year) CHOOSE NOT TO REPURCHASE US TREASURIES then that game you call “rolling over” is DONE AND FINISHED FOR GOOD.

          • TexOhara

            Of course it is not “rolling over” in the literal sense. It is replacing the maturing treasuries when it comes due with new treasuries as you describe above.

            If there are no buyers for the new treasuries the Fed Reserve can buy them as it has done already in some earlier years.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            Absolutely false. The Federal Reserve only buys a relatively small amount of US Treasuries and that averages about 8% a year with 92% purchased by other parties and the Federal Reserve only owns less than 14% of US Treasuries and those holdings are headed to being reduced to only about 8% by the end of 2018 as the Federal Reserve reduces its $4.4 trillion balance sheet by around 50%.

          • TexOhara

            So what would happen if the Fed purchased more than 8% of the treasuries a year? At what point does the process break down?

          • SoCalBeachDude

            What do you mean by “what point does the process break down?” The Federal Reserve is REDUCING ITS HOLDINGS OF US TREASURIES BY ABOUT 50% between now and the end of 2018 which will bring its total US Treasuries holdings down from around $2.5 trillion to around $1.2 trillion.

          • df NJ

            What is the percentage of GDP?

          • SoCalBeachDude

            What is what percentage of GDP?

          • SoCalBeachDude

            Absolutely and totally false.

        • orsobubu

          Tex thinks rthat his country is a splendid isolated place with no links at all with all the other economic entities in the world. Perhaps US could roll the can along as he suggests, but it will finish in a war IMO. All debts are payed in a way or another, now or then, ever.

    • Kaddy

      duuuuude your like delusional. lol Do you even understand what libertarianism is? I think you do but your so triggered by it that you are currently in such a state of denial that you are over working your brain by constantly barraging this comments section.

      • SoCalBeachDude

        Obviously that would be YOU who is delusional. What I stated are the STRAIGHTFORWARD FACTS and you are arguing for some bizarre little form of political philosophy which totally ignoring the PRECISE FACTS WHICH I STATED. Isn’t that sort of nonsense the very definition of being totally DELUSIONAL? Hellllooo?

        • insertgovernmentemployee

          Hello. Goodbye.

  • Paul Vosper

    when you use GOD name in print always use capital letters never use .small letters ( God ) … sample Look it up in your holy book …..

    • df NJ

      Caesar’s Messiah

      The 5:35 mark in the video:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBZH0uoUZH4

      It may be all false. But what an argument!

      Romans 13

    • TOUJOURS DEMAIN

      god

    • JC Teecher

      It is a personal choice, which in my case I use a capital G and capital H, for Him and He,….out of respect for my Heavenly Father, and not to appease man, or be in any sense of the word socially correct.

      God knows what is in our hearts and minds, and that is what counts. When God haters use the little g, and mock Him, well, they just as well get ready for the spiritual gourd thumpings in their future, for a day of reckoning is coming for sure.

      As the mockery of Carl against God, is something that he continually compounds, his suffering will be ten fold, …”if he does not repent”. However; one must receive salvation as a believer to receive that repentance.
      Living life as a heathen and mocker of God, and then at the last moment say,
      “oh well, I guess I had better repent”, doesn’t get it done. the process starts with Acceptance and Acknowledgment of the sacrifice by Christ, and then a humbling down before the repentance and salvation takes place.

  • JC Teecher

    To run for Congress on a tax code reform and elimination of the IRS just might be the ticket to win on. Keep that front and center, and you might just win, brother.

    My advice, for what it is worth, from a hickabilly, in the sticks (for now but soon relocating as a beach bum or a buckaroo in the Big Sky); I would stay on the down low with the push for eliminating the Fed Reserve.
    Once you get in, then push for all the conservative/patriotic changes you want to.

    As to the old article about the “getting involved”, it brings to mind something people refused to acknowledge many decades ago, and it is biblical. It is called the four hidden dynasties. They have been in force here in America for the past Century, and a force they are; sadly a dark force. It is a liberal agenda that was orchestrated ions ago by ole Lucifer himself and as his evil spirit looms stronger, they become more relevant for control of the people.

    Each one is significant and each one has been twisted and tweaked by establishment liberals.
    The first is financial/economical
    The second is educational
    The third is political
    and the fourth, although not seen by many yet, is religious.
    The religious part is now becoming the focus since all of the other three have already, basically, been accomplished by liberal ideologies and down right wickedness.
    The controlling factors of the religious dynasty is harder for people to see and accept because most have either been indoctrinated already, or just turned their backs on anything having to do with a church. In some cases that is not a bad thing. WHY?
    If a person becomes part of the mainstream mega church style worship, they may be like sheep led to slaughter, through the false doctrine of a pre-trib rapture. The underlying purpose for that doctrine isn’t biblical, but it is based solely on keeping people coming back for more of a warm and fuzzy feeling, with concentration on prosperity and escapism from tribulation. Even the preachers/teachers that don’t necessarily make it the highlight of their ministry, are even delusional about it.
    They say, “well it isn’t a salvation issue, so we don’t preach/teach against it”.

    Oh really? So if antichrist/satan comes in with a message of fly-away,prosperity, and escape tribulation, and those same preachers fall for his deception and think he is the real Christ, and then get whole congregations to follow him; would that not be a “salvation issue”. When the true Christ returns near the end of the First christ’s reign, according to my Bible, it is too late then.

    The example of that, time to come, was given with the parable of the Ten Virgins.
    Virgins represent the “church/christians”, and half were deceived and had not the truth in their lamps, which means they had already taken up with the “false one”. What happened? the door was shut on them.
    So it is very much about salvation.

    Anyways; the time is soon coming, when the other three hidden dynasties will all come together in order to bring in the new world order, which will make the true message of Christianity “illegal”. The new one world religion will be some mixed up mess of a combination such as Chrislam, and it will have a new bible, which will be adopted as the only one that can be followed and still receive the favor/benefits of the false King of Kings.
    Look for the changes to start coming in about 2022 for a push by liberals to make Christianity a religion of hate, mainly because of it’s Godly stance against abortion and gay marriage. When this last drive for changing the way people can freely worship, comes to fruition, then the end time clock is sitting at 11:59.

    • df NJ

      I agree. Getting rid of the Federal Reserve would be our salvation.

      Jesus is Lord. Romans 13

      • SoCalBeachDude

        Laughably false. The Federal Reserve not only has NO NET COST WHATSOEVER to the US Treasury and its taxpayers, but GENERATES AROUND $100 BILLION A YEAR IN REVENUES FOR THE US TREASURY and is the largest single entity contributor each year to US Treasury revenues as it rebates more than 94% of its profits each year to the US Treasury. Are you somehow not aware as to those facts?

        • hummingbird

          That’s after they pay you to spread disinformation. What’s your cut by the way?

          • SoCalBeachDude

            Everything I stated above is 100% correct.

            If you don’t know those facts, then I would suggest you learn about them at the excellent Federal Reserve web site at:

            http://www.FederalReserve.gov

  • earl turner

    I’m not convinced that income tax is even legal.

    • Capitalist

      It is “legal,” but such terms are wholly artificial and should be laughed at, not revered. The government imprisons thieves–and rightfully so–but it turns a blind eye to omnipresent thieves within their own institution. Indeed, taxation, regardless of one’s income or from where it was derived, is unethical, detestable–it hurts those less fortunate than I more than it harms me.

      • df NJ

        The bank bailouts in 2008 cost 160 years worth of welfare cost. What is the bigger problem: Socialism for the people or socialism for the corporations???

        • Capitalist

          Both are severe issues. I am not opposed to welfare for people–privatizing the government and introducing a fixed income based on the private government (owned by all people, rich or poor–everyone needs roads) for all people would be far superior to our current system of government. Imagine, not only would poverty be eliminated, but the innovation would soar, but issues such as poor housing (having a stake in real estate and living there

          One may accuse me of socialism; I view as an abomination–there are ways to solve issues without murder and marauding, pillaging and torture.

          I am a very logical person, I could, if it become necessary, derive a differential equation in the future (I am learning them on my own) to prove the validity of this system. There are some things that I acknowledge that cannot be differentiated, integrated or graphed: the joy of knowing that one can live in peaceful, prosperous world, but also have a job that they enjoy and make a difference with, or run a good business.

          • df NJ

            I disagree with your opinion. Privatizing of government is NOT a cure all. Just like bad government, you can have an equally bad privately owned bureaucracy. Just because you privatize something doesn’t mean you will have good government.

            I too am a logical person. I don’t think we should have for-profit hospitals and for-profit prisons because there will be unintended consequences driven by the profit motive.

            There’s nothing wrong with government as long as you have accountability.

            I have no problem with welfare for the people. I think of it as helicopter money to stimulate the economy.

          • DesertPaine

            We have accountability, df. It is the Constitution and its structure of negative liberties. In that well constructed accountability, there is nothing ‘accountabile’ about public hospitals or welfare. I understand why you’d want those things. You can have it, or you can have govt accountability, but not both.

          • df NJ

            The casinos have accountability. We put a space ship on Mars. I think smart people could design a system of checks and balances where we have lean, efficient, and effective government. The thing is the people the lobbyists represent do NOT want accountability.

          • DesertPaine

            Yes. Casinos have accountability. They are strictly accountable to precise standards. Mars trip? Of course. Ignore the rules of physics &c are the space ship goes no where. Likewise, govt is accountable. Not to precise accounting standards (obviously!) or the rules of physics, but rather to the construct of govt – the constitution. Govt that exchanges accountability for a wish list gets the same results as a casino that does, or a space trip that does.

          • JC Teecher

            Possible? Yes.
            Probable? No

            On an individual basis it is still possible in the right situation with the right job.
            A good enough paying job, or business that grants one the chance to save and invest with low risk, without ever having to rely on a gov SS entitlement payment.
            An income that provides enough extra funds to be able to purchase a
            Cadillac health insurance plan, or just save $$ in a special fund/place where it is used as a personal health plan fund, without insurance company interference.
            Those are two biggies that should be addressed in being able to live in financial peace.

        • SoCalBeachDude

          False. There was NO NET COST AT ALL for the so-called “bank bailouts” in 2008-2009. They were just a series of VERY SHORT TERM LOANS AT VERY HIGH INTEREST RATES that we imposed on all financial concerns even though most all attempted to refused TARP loans. The only portion that was not paid back in full to the US Treasury was about $10 billion related to General Motors.

          • aldownunder

            “Seven weeks after the Lehman bankruptcy [former Federal Reserve Chairman] Bernanke doubled the size of the balance sheet [of the Fed] from $900 to 1.8 trillion. He did in seven weeks what the Fed did in ninety-four years.

            David Stockman

          • SoCalBeachDude

            OK, but so what? None of those funds were ever expended at all by the Federal Reserve but were simply used to purchase EXISTING SECURITIES FROM MEMBER BANKS WITH THE PROCEEDS BEING DEPOSITED INTO THE RESERVES ACCOUNTS OF THOSE MEMBER BANKS INSIDE THE FEDERAL RESERVE which is precisely where they have always remained and are now.

          • shilling

            YES! Shut that guy up with facts. Awesome. He must be paid to spread disinformation. What a shill.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            Nothing stated in that comment in any way contradicts anything all that I have stated, and everything that I have stated is 100% true, accurate, and fully correct. If you disagree with anything specific, please do let me know and I will be happy to give you a very specific response.

        • curious

          The courts ruled that corporations are people. So technically it’s just plain socialism. I’m surprised the equality/civil rights movement doesn’t include people wanting to marry corporations. I wonder if there would be any additional tax exemptions if they did. Or to have foreign corporations become American through marriage.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            Corporations in the USA are STATE CREATIONS and have ALWAYS BEEN PEOPLE in the eyes of the law. I do find your comment quite amusing, by the way!

        • SoCalBeachDude

          Absolutely false. There was NO NET COST WHATSOEVER for any of the so-called “bailouts” in 2008-2009 except for about a $10 billion loss related to General Motors. All of the other LOANS WITH HIGH INTEREST were fully repaid to the US government.

      • DesertPaine

        Cap, right on. Right on.

    • SoCalBeachDude

      Well, obviously the US Supreme Court says it is legal.

      • DesertPaine

        Partly correct, mostly not. SCOTUS has never ruled on the nature of the individual income tax. Its rulings on corporate, privileges and foreign taxation strongly suggest that income tax applied to individuals would probably be ruled unconstitutional.

        • SoCalBeachDude

          The US Constitution broadly gives the federal government the power to tax its citizens and the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution specifically gives Congress the power to tax incomes of people and entities in the United States. I would suggest you go read the 16th Amendment of the US Constitution to clarify your misconceptions.

          In 1913, Wyoming ratified the 16th Amendment, providing the three-quarter majority of states necessary to amend the Constitution. The 16th Amendment gave Congress the authority to enact an income tax. That same year, the first Form 1040 appeared after Congress levied a 1 percent tax on net personal incomes above $3,000 with a 6 percent surtax on incomes of more than $500,000.

          In 1918, during World War I, the top rate of the income tax rose to 77 percent to help finance the war effort. It dropped sharply in the post-war years, down to 24 percent in 1929, and rose again during the Depression. During World War II, Congress introduced payroll withholding and quarterly tax payments.

          The IRS as it presently exists was founded on July 9, 1953.

          http://www.irs.gov/uac/Brief-History-of-IRS

          • DesertPaine

            The Supreme Court, in determining 16A impact on taxing authority, said that the amendment conferred no additional authority to tax. Its sole purpose and effect, the Court said, was to preclude consideration of the source of income that would otherwise classify the tax as direct, requiring apportionment. Brushaber v Union Pac. R.R. Co., 240 U.S.1, 36 S.Ct. 236 (1916), *10, *11, *17

            The effect of 16A was not to permit a direct income tax, nor to grant, enlarge, or enhance to Congress any additional power of taxation. Brushaber; Stanton v Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916); Peck v Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1918); Eisner v Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920)

            All of these cases CLEARLY differentiate what the tax is, what it is not, to whom it applies, and when You can’t say “enact an income tax” and overlook these pretty important things, and still have people think you know what you are talking about, which seems really important to you.

          • Thanks

            Right on, someone who can finally shut that guy up. Thanks for posting with evidence. That guy makes so many false assertions, it’s really annoying.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            What utterly false and bogus nonsense. It is a FEDERAL FELONY CRIME TO EVADE PAYING FEDERAL INCOME TAXES and many people including Al Capone and Irwin Schiff (the daddy of Putrid Petie) have been SENTENCED TO FEDERAL PRISON FOR WILLFULLY FAILING TO REPORT AND PAY THEIR FEDERAL INCOME TAXES. Sadly, for Irwin, he passed away inside federal prison where he was serving a very long sentence for federal felony tax evasion prior to his expected release date.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            I have never made any false assertions at all here or elsewhere, and if you disagree with any specific statement I have made then please let me know specifically and I will be happy to give you a specific response. Everything I have stated is 100% true, accurate, and fully correct.

          • DesertPaine

            More was posted, much more, but was stripped out. too bad; good info. // Yes – in the area of taxation, false, misleading half-truths are more than annoying. They are dangerous.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            There were no “false, misleading half-truths” whatsoever in any of the comments and/or excerpts that I posted and the full link was provided for the article from which those 100% correct excerpts were taken. What is FALSE AND MISLEADING are your references to TOTALLY IRRELEVANT 100 YEARS OLD COURT CASES which have nothing whatsoever to do with the specific topic of constitutionality of federal income taxes which have NEVER ONCE EVER BEEN HELD TO BE IN ANY WAY UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE 16TH AMENDMENT.

          • DesertPaine

            Sure. That’s believable.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            Those 3 one-hundred year old cases have no bearing at all on the issue of Constitutionality of federal income tax and the Supreme Court has NEVER ONCE RULED IN ANY SUBSTANTIVE CASE that the federal income tax is anything less than fully Constitutional.

          • DesertPaine

            Stanton v Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103; 36 S. Ct.
            278; 60 L.Ed. 546 (1916): “…by the previous ruling it was settled that
            the provisions of the Sixteenth
            Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the
            previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress
            from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to
            which it inherently belonged and being placed
            [*113] in the category of direct
            taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which
            the income tax was derived…”

          • SoCalBeachDude

            Once, again, that case is totally irrelevant to the constitutionality of federal income taxation and is from 101 years ago.

          • DesertPaine

            Eisner v Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 40 S. Ct. 189 (1920), *206: “As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new
            subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for
            an apportionment among the States of taxes laid on income.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            That court case is from 1920 – nearly 100 years ago – and is totally irrelevance to the legitimacy of federal income taxation.

          • DesertPaine

            Regarding your tax history through WW II.
            The 1913 top rate – seven percent – mushroomed to seventy-seven percent by 1918 and ninety-four
            percent by the close of World War II.
            With a one-hundred percent proposal by FDR in between! The 1913 bottom rate, one percent, grew
            twenty-three-fold by the end of that war. The 1913 bottom rate tax base, $20,000, decreased tenfold to $2000 by World War II.[1] The minimum filing requirement in 1913, $3000, was more than triple the average wage of the time. By the end of World War II, a $500 floor required nearly everyone to file.[2] The cash cow had become a golden calf.

            [1] Statistics
            of Income, p. 205, Table 36.

            [2] Ibid.
            p. 206, Table 37.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            Again, your facts are correct and this time they do add a bit of amusing nuance to the history of federal taxation!

          • DesertPaine

            Regarding your withholding history.

            In 1944, the federal government
            leveraged the information return process.
            They decided to collect income tax on property as it was earned. The new Form W-2 caused Form 1040 filings to increase 845%, from just before World War II to war’s end.[1] As a result, the individual income tax became government’s largest single source of revenue by 1944.[2] Without any substantive tax changes, and with a population increase of only six percent, income tax revenues grew twelve-fold between 1940 and 1945.[3] The W-2 revealed the autocrat’s worldview that government had first right to people’s property, and aimed to get that property before its true owners did.
            This could happen only if a nation focused on war overlooked liability,
            assessment and collection due process protections. They did.

            Meanwhile, courts who had opined piecemeal about the doubtful constitutionality of individual income taxes never did opine on the matter in para materia. They never have. Narrowly crafted, off-point, and often conflicting decisions further fueled the controversy. Still unresolved, application of the income
            tax to people in the 21st century is accomplished only by threat,
            intimidation, custom, subterfuge and force.

            [1] Statistics
            of Income, pp. 204, 207.

            [2] Ibid., p. 200.

            [3] Ibid.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            Largely correct as to your facts which while adding a bit of nuance don’t really add anything substantively at all.

          • DesertPaine

            No. Entirely correct. Primary sources, gov’t docs, standing SCOTUS decisions, research. Which makes it more substantive than the half truths you posted on this matter.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            Which are TOTALLY IRRELEVANT TO THE MATTER AT HAND, COUNSELOR. Did you go to night law school somewhere at a community college?

          • DesertPaine

            Good one. I guess you showed me a thing or two.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            I’d suggest you try to get admitted to a much better law school in your next life!

          • DesertPaine

            Thanks for the suggestion.

  • Carl

    Ron Paul was all show. He could vote the way he did because he knew the rest in Congress would vote the opposite way. It was a win win for him in that regard. Especially since he also padded the budget with things for his district. Taking a stand when you know you are going to lose is a genius political move. Of course most Ron Paul worshipers will disagree because they are too far gone to see the forest for the trees.

    • SoCalBeachDude

      Yep, and very well started.

      • Grammar Police

        Yep, and very well “stated”. Not yep, and very well “started”.

  • travis690

    I’m always disgusted whenever I read that the reason to oppose something is because the proponent hasn’t presented a clear idea of what’s on the other side of their reforms.

    The 16th Amendment came into force because the East Coast elites were able to rake in fortunes from the excise tax system while at the same time making the production of the Midwest more expensive on world markets. Most of the groundswell for the income tax started in the Central states as a way of striking back against the East Coast states. The problem that happened later was that the tax brackets kept being changed, so that more people were trapped in the net.

    What is needed is to shrink the size of government. We don’t need to hear about politicians scrambling for “revenue-neutral” reforms of the tax code; we need them to scrap it completely.

    When the Fair Tax was proposed at a Republican Party debate in 2012, Michelle Bachman opposed it, saying that “we don’t want to give the government an additional tax basis,” without understanding that the proposal also called for repealing the income tax and the estate tax. And her resume included the position of “tax lawyer.”

    I have fought for the Fair Tax before, and will continue to do so, because I believe it is the best system proposed for funding the federal government. I also will fight for reducing the size of the federal government by 90% from its current size, because it is the right thing to do.

    • df NJ

      What do you mean by reducing the federal government by 90% ? Do you want to eliminate all military spending or just social security?

      • travis690

        Social Security amounts to returning to people what the government, through force, stole from them while they were working. As such, it shouldn’t exist. Let the people keep what they earn! Spend less than you earn, and save the rest. The objective of the savings becomes to spend for when you don’t have active income.

        Regarding military spending: What has been the success of our military in their actions since the end of World War 2? We have used the military forces to go where the CIA has fomented hatred for the United States. The more important question should be: Why the hell do we have the CIA? They start the trouble that the military forces have to clean up after. Maybe I could get an explanation for why China is so successful with their international relations while spending much less on their military than we do? I’ll drop a hint: It’s about commerce and trade, not starting wars in other nations.

        • JC Teecher

          Yes, on the military thing.

          On the premise behind SS Retirement and Disability, the basis for helping people help themselves was right on the money, because:

          Sadly, the majority of the people in that day and time grew up in a time when average folks had it fairly tough at times.
          They didn’t have the same opportunities in the smaller towns and cities that industrialized bigger cities offered.
          They mostly worked in the agriculture based economies and back then, especially; there were no benefits for workers and most only got paid cash or with food, in lieu of cash.

          The system was set up on the fact that at least 90 % of people had no savings, nor even had an opportunity to plan for retirement with a savings account.
          Even if they did have some extra funds, it just was not possible when there were debts and mortgages that “had” to paid off before they got too old to work, lest they would be forced to live with children if they had any, or become a burden on the county through minuscule welfare programs.

          At least with a small monthly SS retirement check, they could live the remainder of their lives with some degree of dignity, instead of becoming a burden to their children, relatives, or to the county.

          My grandparents on mother’s side were examples of that. Grandfather had land, of which he sold off for his retirement funds, just to supply the basics for survival. He had worked very little during his 75 years, at what we always referred to as public work, whereby a check with deductions was issued. He finally got his SS retirement check at about 70, and it amounted to less than $100.00 per month. Granny had worked some in textiles, and her check was even less. she continued to work through her 60’s as a caregiver to a Judge’s son that was in an iron lung.
          she might have made $ 40.00 a week because those people were pretty stingy people, as I did lawn work for them when I was old enough, and they paid me with pocket change.

          People in those days were less educated and could not look into their future without the same blinders on that their parents had. Saving for retirement did not register for the average person. A forced system, if done fairly, as it was originally designed for, would not be considered as “theft” from the working man and woman, once they saw those monthly checks showing up in their mailbox.
          It forced them into living their senior years with some degree of dignity.

          Now; it needs to be reformed and stopped as payroll deduction, and the people that are still young enough can plan accordingly, or not plan at all, and then go into their golden years without
          any dignity and become a burden on someone or the system.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            US military spending should be cut by at least 50% as the US spends more on “military” than the next 25 largest countries in the world combined.

        • SoCalBeachDude

          Absolutely false. Nothing was “stolen” from anybody. All Social Security and Medicare benefits spending comes straight from annual federal tax revenues and amounts to 63% of all current federal government spending which is vastly more than beneficiaries ever paid into the system which is at the core of the current huge federal spending problem.

          • travis690

            I guess I can’t fix you, SoCalBeachDude. Social Security was set up as a way of theft. When it was created, the average lifespan in the United States was under 65 years, so they set the age when payouts could begin at 65 years of age. They never intended to pay out most of what was collected! And all taxation is theft. If you don’t believe it, try telling the revenue agent’s gun that you don’t need to pay up. Medicare is a different program than Social Security, so I won’t waste my space addressing it.

          • Stuey

            Exactly!! And now they keep raising the age so more people won’t live long enough to collect any of their stolen money. I know of numerous people who had their money stolen through social security for 30 years and never received a dime because they died too young. Social security was started towards the end of my grandmothers working life, she paid into it, but when she was forced to quit working due to health problems, she hadn’t paid in enough quarters so she wasn’t even eligible to receive ANY social security. ALL of what she had “paid in” was stolen from her. Social security was a SCAM from the very start and is just another source of tax revenue for the federal govt.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            Once gain, TOTALLY FALSE. Social Security was originally set up as a VERY LIMITED STIPEND FOR PEOPLE OVER THE AGE OF 65 and many people were already living into their 80s by the 1930s when it was established.

            No, not all taxation is “theft” at all and ALL COUNTRIES HAVE TO CHARGE TAXES IN ORDER TO RUN COUNTRIES AND SERVICES FOR CITIZENS.

          • travis690

            “Many people” were already living into their 80s by the 1930s .

            This is false; the life expectancy in the United States in the 1930’s was under 65. Even today, the life expectancy in the United States is only in the low-to-mid 70’s. Unless you don’t believe your own government’s statistics, which is another story altogether.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            What I stated is 100% true and correct.

    • JC Teecher

      Social Security was stolen from the people by foolish and arrogant politicians. This fund would still be self sustaining had it not been “re-appropriated”, many times.
      All those that were involved in touching that fund, should have been exposed, run out of office, and the congress/senate forced by vote, to re-establish those funds. But; people just went along like good little sheeple with muzzles on, and now……….

      • SoCalBeachDude

        The Social Security and Medicare Trust funds were not “re-appropriated” at all, but were simply “invested” in US Treasuries over the years. Funds NEVER JUST SIT THERE but have to be invested to EARNED RETURNS. Whether blowing all of those funds on US Treasuries (government debt) was a wise decision or not is another issue, but that was REQUIRED BY A LAW PASSED BY CONGRESS AND SIGNED INTO LAW BY THE PRESIDENT so there was no other choice at all to put those funds but for into US Treasuries.

        • Stuey

          You are absolutely wrong here. The money collected by social security taxes are put into the general fund of the US govt. on a weekly basis and then spent. Even the federal govt. admits to this and is on the social security website.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            What I stated is, of course, 100% correct, and the payroll tax funds are deposited into the SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE TRUST FUNDS from which the US government purchases a special class of US Treasuries with the amounts credited to each individual’s SS account who pays into the system and are updated regularly for beneficiaries to see.

            Those funds DO NOT GO DIRECTLY INTO THE GENERAL FUND AT ALL contrary to your totally bogus and false assertion.

          • Stuey

            Once again, you are WRONG. Here is a direct quote from the Social Security org website found under the question What happens to the taxes that go into the Trust Fund”—“Tax income is deposited on a daily basis and is invested in
            “special-issue” securities. The cash
            exchanged for the securities goes into the general fund of the
            Treasury and is indistinguishable from other cash in the general fund.” —-So this is a real neat trick, they claim the money goes into a Trust Fund but it is immediately exchanged for “special issue” securities for cash. So there is NO actual money in the so called Social Security Trust fund. It is all just basically bonds which have no real value to be paid back by the US taxpayers when we are 67 trillion in debt now. So how will it ever be paid back? I could post the link to this page but then this will go into moderation for hours since i don’t have special status on here like you do. But anyone can go to the Social Security website and find this info. or just do a search for “does social security money go into a trust fund”. It isn’t hard to find, i pulled it up in less than one minute. So basically, this BS about a Social Security Trust Fund is double talk, which is the same that drugheaddude likes to do here all the time. Don’t be fooled people, there is NO MONEY in the so called Social Security Trust Fund.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            Thank you for CONFIRMING THAT WHAT I STATED IS 100% CORRECT as is confirmed on the IRS web site itself. You obviously can’t even comprehend what they are stating clearly which aligns perfectly with exactly what I stated. Sad.

          • Stuey

            IRS website?? Who said anything about the IRS website?? Can you read? And I see you can’t dispute what i quoted from the social security website.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            Learn to read and comprehend, dude.

          • Stuey

            HAHA. Maybe if you could get your story straight. I see now you changed your post to say SS website. Initially you wrote IRS website. But instead of being honest about it, you correct it then make a smart remark back to me to read and comprehend never admitting your error. Typical of you. I can read but you can’t write. But regardless, you never refuted what the SS website states and that i quoted above, that all SS money is taken from the so called trust fund daily and IOU’s are put into the fund for the money removed. IOU’s that the govt. wants to call “special issue” securities. There is NO MONEY is the Social Security Fund! You should quit misleading the people. So everyone, just know, that with the USA is now 67 trillion in debt with no way to pay it back, Social Security will one day collapse because there isn’t any way to pay back the money owed to it which has been stolen by the govt. to fund it’s reckless spending.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            You poor confused sorry little clueless fool.

          • Stuey

            More flagged insults and name calling.

    • DesertPaine

      Income tax traded for Fair Tax gives up an excise for a direct tax. Be careful what you wish for.

      • huththa

        Fair Tax has the following key benefits:
        (a) Allows you to keep everything you earn. That’s an incentive to be more productive, hard-working, entrepreneurial.
        (b) Discourages consumption. That’s good for the planet in general.
        (c) Puts YOU in control of how much tax you pay. If you want to increase your cashflow you have the opportunity to do that by decreasing you consumption (whether it be food, clothes, vacations or whatever). The more you live beneath your means, the faster you accumulate wealth. If you wanted to decrease your income tax the only way to do that is to decrease your income which would slow down your wealth accumulation!
        (d) Provides a safety net for the poor via the prebate. This fact is often ignored.

        The above are only the individual benefits. I’ll let someone else talk about the benefits for business owners and the ability to capture hitherto “uncapturable” dollars due to income tax avoidance/cheating and the tourist economy.

        • DesertPaine

          All of that, exactly right.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            Nope.

        • SoCalBeachDude

          50% of all Americans currently PAY NO FEDERAL INCOME TAXES AT ALL and spend 100% OF THEIR MONEY ON BUYING GOODS AND SERVICES and have no money to have their purchases taxed at 35% or so which is exactly what would happen with your so-called “Fair Tax” nonsense.

          • huththa

            You just proved my point (d), completely ignoring it.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            Your “safety net for the poor notion” is TOTALLY DOA and could not ever be implemented from an accounting standpoint at all and is just more BOGUS MUMBO-JUMBO for an entire nonsense notion that is TOTALLY DOA.

    • SoCalBeachDude

      The so-called “Fair Tax” proposals are extremely stupid and HIGHLY REGRESSIVE and have no chance of getting any support at all.

      • travis690

        I disagree. I would seriously doubt you actually read it (yes–there’s only one) completely. You would find that it is not “highly regressive” like you say. Besides, taxes aren’t supposed to be an equalization mechanism; they are only supposed to be a revenue-collection mechanism. Properly established, they are not intended to be social-engineering schemes.

        The advantage from the citizen’s perspective is that they would not need to report to the government what they earn. They would have a record of what they spent, which would include the line item for the amount of taxes they paid.

        The Fair Tax has a prebate attached to it that would return, in advance each month, the amount that a household would pay for necessities each month due to the Fair Tax. Therefore, only the spending beyond necessities is taxed. How is that regressive?

        • Stuey

          Of course he hasn’t read it. He just wants to attack others on here, that is all he is good for.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            Totally false and absurdly stupid assertions.

        • SoCalBeachDude

          The US has among the LOWEST INCOME TAXES IN THE ENTIRE WORLD.

          The fact of the matter is that about one third of Americans are essentially totally UNEMPLOYABLE DUE TO LACK OF INTELLIGENCE AND SKILLS and nearly all of those who are working (about 147 million out of the 318million Americans) are GROSSLY OVERPAID for what they do. As to that moronic so-called “fair tax” nonsense, those are utterly nonsensical and absurdly false assertions.

          50% of the people in the US currently pay no federal income taxes at all.

          The stupid “fair tax” nonsense would massively increase the prices of goods and services for those people so obviously there is nothing “fair” whatsoever about that nonsense, leaving aside the issue as to how 50% of Americans would suddenly be able to pay 30% to 50% more for the prices of goods and services.

          • travis690

            How would eliminating the already built-in taxes for current goods and services increase prices? This is why I assert you don’t even know any details of the Fair Tax.

            As for people being “GROSSLY OVERPAID” for the work they do: How can their employers remain in business?

            If 50% of the people pay no federal income taxes at all, then why are we relying upon the federal income tax to fund the government? It makes zero sense to have 50% of the people pay for the lifestyle of the other 50%.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            What “built-in” taxes for current goods and services are you talking about?

            The top 20% of all income earners pay MORE THAN 80% OF ALL FEDERAL INCOME TAXES. The bottom 50% NEED TO START PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE as they are the ones primarily consuming the expenditures of the US government and getting ENORMOUS BENEFITS including child dependency and earned income credits based on the more children they have which is a HUGE PROBLEM in the US federal income tax system.

            Top 20% of Earners Pay 84% of Income Tax…

            http://www.wsj.com/articles/top-20-of-earners-pay-84-of-income-tax-1428674384

          • Patriot

            Have you ever read the 13th amendment?

            Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

            Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[1]

            If I work a job and I pay 40% of my income in taxes that means that 4.8 months out of the year I am working for the Federal Government.

            Another way of stating that is to say that I am placed in forced servitude to the government for 4.8 months of every year!
            This is a clear violation of the 13th Amendment!

          • SoCalBeachDude

            You apparently have a major issue with comprehending clear and specific English language including the 13th Amendment in its historic context when it was enacted by Congress back on January 31, 1865.

            I would suggest you use Google to learning the meaning of 1) slavery, and 2) involuntary servitude as I’m really not in the mood to give you a lesson on those historical topics here today.

            Once you do, you will clearly see that those very specific topics have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with your subsequent bizarre notion stated above making your final paragraph totally beyond laughable.

          • Patriot

            The 13th Amendment is just that it is an Amendment to The Constitution and as such it is just a valid and just as enforceable today as it was when it was enacted.
            There is NO historical context to consider!

            The Supreme Court of 1803 stated that The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and that any law which is repugnant to The Constitution is void of law and is not law!
            This ruling has stood for 214 years and has never been overturned!

            Many, if not most, people work for an hourly wage and so there exists an equation that show the correlation between time and wage (money). So if my gross pay is $104,000.00 and I pay 40% of that in taxes or $41,600.00, we can then calculate the temporal equivalent by dividing by my hourly rate of $50.00 per hour. The result is 832 hours that I had to work to pay the government their 40%. That’s 104 days (8 hour workday), 20.8 weeks (5 day workweek) or 4.83721 months!

          • SoCalBeachDude

            SO WHAT? None of that has anything at all to do with “slavery” or “involuntary servitude.” Get a clue, dude.

          • Patriot

            I’m trying to figure out if you’re a child or an adult.

            If you are a child then you are a badly behaved child.

            If you are an adult then you are emotionally challenged.

            I’ve challenged you on many fronts and I read your replies to other commenters and your response is always to disagree regardless of the subject. You show a complete lack of historical knowledge and you seem to think the world started in 1916! Mostly though, you seem to spout `facts’ that ignore history, the law and common sense.

            Keynesianism is not economics, it is a nightmare dreamed by a fool!
            Anyone who thinks you can substitute debt for money is someone who thinks you can substitute dog-doo for brains!

          • SoCalBeachDude

            Looks like YOU are so LOST that you have a whole lot to figure out. I’ve responded to you very explicitly and clearly with 100% correct and accurate answers and information, and yet you appear totally unable to comprehend anything I have stated to you.

            Obviously to anyone with a brain, my responses are highly intelligent and very thorough and yet you continue to blather on about meaningless nonsense and it is obviously that YOU have no historical knowledge even as to the meaning and application of works, specifically in 1865 as to 1) slavery, and 2) indentured servants.

            The only “challenge” involving you is my attempting to NOT BURST OUT LAUGHING OR ROLLING MY EYES when reading your incoherent nonsense.

            So-called “Keynesian” economics has nothing whatsoever to do with anything I stated, so why do you keep bring up that irrelevant notion?

          • SoCalBeachDude

            Your crazed and nutzoidal definition of “involuntary servitude” is so far off the mark as to be totally laughable. It is the duty of ALL CITIZENS TO PAY TAXES to both state and federal governments and if you don’t comprehend that is what provides a vast array of services then you are beyond totally clueless.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            Your crazed and nutzoidal definition of “involuntary servitude” is so far off the mark as to be totally laughable. It is the duty of ALL CITIZENS TO PAY TAXES to both state and federal governments and if you don’t comprehend that is what provides a vast array of services then you are beyond totally clueless.

    • SoCalBeachDude

      Military spending alone accounts for 20% of the federal government annual expenditures including 16% for direct military matters and 4% for veterans benefits.

      So you want to ELIMINATE ALL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING TOTALLY and then cut military spending by 50%. That’s a rather ambitious notion, to say the least!!!

      Just who do you think would support that?

      • travis690

        I guess you don’t know the difference between 90% and ALL. I have no need to address someone that tries to put words into my mouth that I didn’t say or write.

        • Stuey

          He is very good at that. He also never answers a question directly and prefers to attack others and talk in circles.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            What utterly bogus nonsense from you.

        • SoCalBeachDude

          The very notion of reducing the size of the federal government by 90% is LUDICROUSLY AND LAUGHABLY ABSURD and NOBODY WANTS TO DO THAT AT ALL. You’re the one that made the very stupid assertion that ” I also will fight for reducing the size of the federal government by 90% from its current size, because it is the right thing to do.” So, I am certainly not “putting any words” into your mouth at all.

          • travis690

            Since you say that nobody wants to reduce the size of the government by 90%, and then you point out that I said exactly that (and meant it), you are showing a lack of reading comprehension. Your assertion that “Nobody wants to do that at all” is certainly putting words in my mouth, since it directly contradicts what I said.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            One person out of 324,000,000 people in the US wanting to do something incredibly stupid and totally against the interests of nearly all of the American people is IRRELEVANT. There is NO SUPPORT AT ALL FOR CUTTING 90% OF US GOVERNMENT SPENDING and we can’t even get support to cut 1% of the federal spending at this stage.

  • DJohn1

    How do you plan to pay the bills?
    Near as I can tell the government pays bills by inflating the dollar.
    But I am sure the IRS code allows government to pay some of its bills.
    Trouble is the IRS is unconstitutional.
    It discriminates against different classes of people.
    It is not clearly written so that all people can understand it.
    The law is like a house of cards. The enormous code and regulation means no one person really understands it.
    It has been used for political purposes under the Democrats.
    That makes it kin to the KGB!
    There is a growing segment of our population that are not wage earners. Taxing zero income does not make sense. I can see government doing it in the near future.
    The other problem we have is the court system. It is way too easy for a powerful government agency to put any one of us in a bankrupt situation by seizing our assets. Then what? Justice? Not likely . . .
    Where is Mr. Bundy right now? Bet he is in jail in solitary so no one can communicate with him. That is tax law at work.

    • SoCalBeachDude

      No, there is practically NO INFLATION AT ALL. The US government pays its $4 trillion a year in bills by 1) raising around $3 trillion in federal tax revenues, and 2) borrowing about $1 trillion via issuance of net new US Treasuries (government debt) each year.

      There is nothing in any way “unconstitutional” at all about the IRS and every country in the world has tax laws to raise revenues.

  • Stuey

    I agree with Ron Paul and the author but lets be honest. It is NEVER going to happen. There are too many corrupt politicians. The whole system is corrupt. The citizens are controlled with the social system and the powers that be will never give that up. So if no income tax, how will all the government be paid for? We know government spending is never going to be decreased in a substantial or meaningful way.

    • JC Teecher

      “throw the bums out”.

      • Stuey

        I wish the American people would do that JCT. But I have been hearing that for 45 years and it hasn’t happened yet. The election of Trump is the closest thing to it. But still, 63 million people voted for Hillary. Too many people are getting something from the government so they will continue to vote to get their handouts. That was the whole purpose of the handouts to start with. So i hate to be negative, but i don’t see anything changing in any meaningful way. We are headed for an economic collapse and only after that will anything change.

        • df NJ

          I doubt we will ever see a collapse. All the CEOs have to do is double people’s wages and the economy will always rebound. Greed is powerful.

          • Stuey

            Doubling peoples salaries will not help the national debt. The debt is what will eventually cause the collapse. It really isn’t a matter of IF at this point just a matter of WHEN. They will do everything in their power to postpone it of course, but it will come one day.

          • JC Teecher

            I think they, as establishment politicians, have a back up, more like their main plan via the shadow gov, to start a war and wipe out most of that National debt by wiping out most of the holders of said debt.
            That is basically the only way it gets erased.

          • Stuey

            Yeah, that is an interesting theory. But i am sure all the foreign govts. who hold US debt will get paid, especially China. And of course the Federal Reserve will get what is owed to them as well, no doubt there.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            The US government – by far – is the largest owner of US Treasuries (government debt) through its various agencies with the largest of those being the Medicare and Social Security Trust Funds who have “invested” around $6 trillion in US Treasuries which is 30% of the total $20 trillion outstanding in US Treasuries. China owns less than 7%.

          • Stuey

            This is only about the 100th time you have posted this same information. So what is your point here, that because most of the debt is owned by the US govt. is irrelevant? YOU are the one who keeps saying we must cut our debt. Can you be consistent at least for one week?

          • SoCalBeachDude

            Apparently, no matter how many times that information on debt in the USA is stated in different ways here, you STILL DO NOT COMPREHEND those basic and straightforward facts nor do you appreciate their important in the big picture as regards the federal debt. Total debt outstanding in the US is more than $67 trillion of which the federal government debt represents about 30%.

          • Stuey

            Lets run through this one more time and maybe, just maybe we can get a direct point out of your ramblings. In my original post, i stated quote “So i hate to be negative, but i don’t see anything changing in any meaningful way. We are headed for an economic collapse and only after that will anything change.”———So you replied that most of that debt is owed to the US govt. So i responded so does that make it okay. Instead of answering my question, you attack me saying i don’t comprehend the basic facts. What I don’t understand is what is your freaking point dude?? You talk in circles and never get to the point. So lets see if i can make this simple for you. YOU are the one who said the USA must cut spending and increase taxes to stop deficient spending, so i assume you are concerned about the debt.—-SO does the $67 trillion debt matter to the USA or not, even if most of it is held by the US govt. itself? Do you think the USA is headed for an economic collapse or not? And instead of attacking someone and rambling on, just give a direct precise answer to my question above.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            You are so confused and clueless that I’m not even going to attempt to response. Go read my many comments carefully and attempt to understand in each case exactly what I stated.

          • Stuey

            Notice everyone, he drugheaddude DID NOT answer my question AGAIN. He never answer questions directly. He double talks and then insults people. This is ALL he can do on here.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            Your ignorance is far beyond mind boggling.

          • Stuey

            See what i mean everyone?? What did he do? Insult me but doesn’t answer questions. This is all he knows, double talk and insult.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            Again, you are SO CONFUSED that it is not worth my time to bother to response to your rambling clueless nonsense.

          • Stuey

            Yeah right. You realize once again I have shut you down and proven you wrong. The only response you could possibly give is more insults and you know it and you realize the people here are tired of your insults.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            You are a sorry little clueless drip who is making a pitiful fool out of yourself here.

          • Stuey

            That is a direct insult and name calling that is uncalled for and over the line. Your post has been flagged. But since you are on the “inside”, lets see if anything is done about it.

          • sadlittleman

            Gotta be a government employee. Poor sucker is brainwashed.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            You are indeed a sad little man.

          • sadlittleman

            I am sad, that people like you can be so willfully ignorant. Depressing actually.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            I’m not in the least, but apparently you sure are extremely willfully ignorant. Sad.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            False.

          • William Lutz

            Add the total net worth of every single American and you would still fall short in proportion to the national debt. Take $20 trillion and divide that by the total population of the USA. It’s also much greater than the national GDP and much lower than all of other debts combined.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            False. US GDP is about $18 trillion a year and federal debt is only about 107% of US GDP. Household assets alone in the US are worth more than $95 trillion and the total federal debt as compared to US assets is only about 20%.

            BOOM: Household Net Worth Climbs to Record $94.8 Trillion…

            https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-household-net-worth-climbs-to-record-94-8-trillion-1496937830

          • William Lutz

            Thanks blog clogger. The financial numbers look so bleak that I sometimes exaggerate how negative the economic situation is.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            How do financial numbers look “bleak” at all when the US economy is an $18 trillion a year economy which is by far the largest single country economy in the world with no other country even coming slightly close? Moreover, total household assets in the USA now exceed $95 trillion which is far about total debt in the USA of around $67 trillion.

        • JC Teecher

          Agreed, in that it has to collapse, in order to be rebuilt. Being rebuilt by more greedy politicians will bring about the same results.

      • SoCalBeachDude

        And replace them with just whom? The American people voted their representatives into office and wanted the most PROFLIGATE AND SPENDTHRIFT people who ran and promised them all sorts of goodies such as more benefits and lower taxes and that is precisely why we have the horrendous mess that now exists.

    • df NJ

      Corporations ARE the government. Lobbyists own the politicians. The CEOs own the lobbyists. Money talks, voting is irrelevant.

      • Stuey

        I agree that money talks and corporations are a part of that money. But it isn’t just corporations who have the money to control the politicians and the entire system. The entire system is corrupt.

        • df NJ

          Who else has power?

          It’s really quite simple. The lobbyists force the politicians to pass laws creating cartels and monopolies in exchange for campaign financing. It doesn’t matter what you pay in taxes. What does matter is the purchasing power of your take home pay. By controlling pricing with deep data mining and analytics, the corporations maximize their profitability at labor’s expense.

          You know the system is rigged because whenever there is rioting going on the next day a story will run saying wages are increasing by an unexpected higher amount.

          • Stuey

            The media has tremendous power. The politicians are scared to death of them. Trump has been the only one who has been able to beat them and they aren’t done with him yet that is obvious. The others see what is happening to him now and learn from it. They don’t want to cross the media. There are powerful forces at work out there, but no point getting into it. The whole system is controlled and corrupt to the core, that is all that really matters.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            What and who do you think the media are BUT FOR LARGE CORPORATIONS?

    • William Lutz

      Yes, the “limited government” ship has already sailed permanently. Also, how are we going to offset the enormous debt without paying a dime in taxes? It’s ludicrous. That only works with an economy that’s not yet bankrupt.

      • Eileen Kuch

        You forgot one thing, William .. without the Fed and the income tax that came with it, the US never gone so deep in debt. Why? When you think about it all, whom has the USG been borrowing money it used to print/coin itself from? If you say, the Fed, you’re quite correct.
        Therefore, the vast majority of this country’s debt isn’t to foreign countries, but to the Fed itself, from which it borrows on a daily basis.
        If the Fed – along with the income tax that came with it – were to disappear today, the USG would simply cancel that debt and continue what the Constitution authorized it to do back in 1787.

        • SoCalBeachDude

          Absolutely and totally false. The Federal Reserve only owns less than 14% of the total $20 trillion in US Treasuries outstanding for a total of around $2.5 trillion and is now in the process of reducing those holdings by about 50% between now and the end of 2018 down to only around $1.2 trillion.

          The Federal Reserve did NOT RUN UP A SINGLE PENNY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT but rather 100% of it was run up by CONGRESS AND THE WHITE HOUSE who appropriate and sign the spending bills into law and it is THEIR PROFLIGACY WHICH HAS CAUSED 100% OF THE US GOVERNMENT DEBT WHICH IS OWNED BY ITS CITIZENS WHICH THEY REPRESENT.

          Only a small portion (14%) of the US government debt is owned to the Federal Reserve amounting to about 14% and about to go to around 7% is owed to the Federal Reserve and THAT IS INTEREST FREE TO THE US TREASURY as the Federal Reserve rebates more than 94% of its annual profits to the US Treasury and has done so for its entire 103+ years of existence.

          The largest portion of the US government debt is OWED TO THE US GOVERNMENT ITSELF and specifically its various agencies with the largest owners being the Medicare and Social Security Trust funds to the tune of around $6 trillion. Are you not aware as to those facts? Really? Seriously?

          There are MILLIONS OF OWNERS OF THE US GOVERNMENT DEBT OF $20 TRILLION WHO HOLD THAT DEBT AS ASSETS and attempting to wipe out that debt by not repaying its owners would result in the DESTRUCTION OF $20 TRILLION OF ASSETS INCLUDING THE ENTIRE MEDICARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUNDS. Not to mention banks, insurance companies, pension funds, money market funds, foreign holdings, and a vast array of other holders including millions of individuals in the USA and abroad.

          Any such action would render the credit of the USA TOTALLY DESTROYED and make it unable to borrow at all in the credit markets as it would have defaulted on its debt and created the BIGGEST DEFAULT CATASTROPHE EVER SEEN IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD. I would suggest you review exactly what I stated and GET A CLUE.

    • Jason Samuelson

      I think even Trump was overwhelmed when he took office. He knew government was corrupt but didn’t know the magnitude. Looking back in retrospect, when he said “drain the swamp” he’s now thinking he should have said oceans.

      • SoCalBeachDude

        TRUMP IS VERY MUCH PART OF THE SWAMP.

        • Stuey

          Well you voted for the guy.

          • arnieus

            No we voted against the CFR candidate and for Trump’s words. Not Trump.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            100% correct and got CONNED big time.

      • Stuey

        I believe you are 100% correct.

        • SoCalBeachDude

          Donnie is a poster child for corruption.

          • Stuey

            Well you voted and campaigned for the guy, guess you are the idiot in your own eyes then.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            Laughably false. The 2016 Presidential election came down to a BINARY CHOICE BETWEEN CROOKED HELLERY OR DUPLICITOUS DUFUS DONNIE and there were no other choices, and Donnie was simply of LESS OBNOXIOUSNESS THAN HELLERY.

      • arnieus

        I’ll bet he believes some of those “conspiracy theories” now.

  • Patriot

    I am all for abolishing the IRS, unfortunately we can not abolish the IRS until we first abolish the Federal Reserve!
    The
    IRS and the Federal Reserve were both created in 1913. This is because
    the IRS is the collection agency for the Fed! It is the muscle behind
    the Federal Reserve.
    All the taxes we pay go to the Fed and none of it goes to Infrastructure, which is why we have $20 trillion of debt!
    What
    we need is one bill that eliminates both the Fed and the IRS in one
    swift move. Only then can we begin to build a new economy based on Hard
    Money!

    • df NJ

      I agree. The Federal Reserve is designed to make sure everyone and the country is always at maximum debt levels. There is no way out. Cutting spending just doesn’t matter.

      • SoCalBeachDude

        Absolutely and totally false. The US government spending has nothing whatsoever to do with the Federal Reserve, and the federal government debt matters VERY MUCH and is priced as to yields (interest rates) in the $13 trillion a year US Treasuries markets. When – not if – those yields (interest rates) rise the INTEREST BILL FOR THE US GOVERNMENT AND ITS TAXPAYERS WILL SKYROCKET UP TO BETWEEN $1 TRILLION AND $2 TRILLION just on the present $20 trillion federal debt from its current tab of around $300 billion a year.

    • JC Teecher

      I agree, but the sad reality is there are 100% liberal dems in support of the IRS and the Federal Reserve Systems.
      Just guessing, I would say at least another 50% of Repubs are on the same page. So; anything short of throwing all the bums out via a military coup, and having a complete overhaul, is something akin to the return of Jesus Christ.
      The only thing that will eliminate the Fed and the Taxes, is death. And by “death” I mean his literal name, as in Satan, the destroyer, and master deceiver, as he comes in disguised and so deceptive that nearly the whole world will believe in him and whor after him.
      He will abolish all governments except the one where he installs his supernatural (angelic) generals, as leaders, over ten country regions of the world. They will have their own socialistic system by which a few are chosen as workers, and a few are chosen as their bosses. The rest, like the “entitlement” generations, will get their wish and just collect their rewards for worshiping and praising him as the messiah.

      • SoCalBeachDude

        The IRS is the US Treasury’s tax collection and enforcement agency and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Federal Reserve.

      • Patriot

        As president Mr. Trump has the Secret Service at his disposal and until 2003 they were part of Treasury Department. As such they would have made perfect agents for removing the Federal Reserve and the IRS.
        As long as the President follows the Constitution and the rule of Law, no one can stop him, unless he rolls over. Trump needs to use all the powers and authority granted to the Office of the President by the Constitution, and he better do it soon!

        • SoCalBeachDude

          That is an outrageously absurd assertion.

          The Federal Reserve derives its authority from the FEDERAL RESERVE ACT which is a LAW PASSED BY CONGRESS. The IRS is PART OF THE US TREASURY and is simply the tax collection and enforcement division of the US Treasury. Both are fully CONSTITUTIONAL and any attempt to attack either would be TOTALLY UNLAWFUL AND CRIMINAL and I would suggest you refrain from advocating CRIMINAL ACTS.

          • Patriot

            The Federal Reserve Act was passed on December 23rd when most of Congress was on Holiday!
            Even Woodrow Wilson said, when he signed the bill, `I think I have just destroyed my country’.

            “I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A
            great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our
            system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore,
            and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We
            have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely
            controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world — no longer a
            Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and
            the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a
            small group of dominant men.”

          • SoCalBeachDude

            Woody was a dimwit and imbecile and got his claim to fame by become a leader in the so-called very stupid “Progressive Movement” back in the early 1900s and was elected President of the US and served as the 28th President of the United States from 1913 to 1921.

            Woody was a HYPOCRITE to the first degree and ran for President in 1916 the around the slogan “He kept us out of war” and yet was the primary cause of WWI which broke out during his second term and he was the primary driver behind anti-war movements during his second term.

    • SoCalBeachDude

      The Federal Reserve has nothing whatsoever to do with the Internal Revenue Service, and the receipts of the IRS go directly into the US Treasury and have nothing whatsoever to do with the Federal Reserve. In fact, the Federal Reserve is the LARGEST SINGLE ENTITY CONTRIBUTOR TO US GOVERNMENT TAX REVENUES as it has always REBATED MORE THAN 94% OF ITS ANNUAL PROFITS TO THE US TREASURY. The US dollar is HARD REAL MONEY and there is no currency in the foreseeable future that can even remotely begin to challenge the US dollar.

      • Patriot

        The Federal Government was designed to be funded by Tariffs, Duties and Fees!

        • DesertPaine

          You are too right, Patriot. Forgetting that, or not knowing it at all, is what causes otherwise rational people to support IRS or Fair Tax. The difference between excises, duties and imposts on the one hand, and direct property taxes on the other, is sobering.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            50% of the people in the US currently pay no federal income taxes at all.

            The stupid “fair tax” nonsense would massively increase the prices of goods and services for those people so obviously there is nothing “fair” whatsoever about that nonsense, leaving aside the issue as to how 50% of Americans would suddenly be able to pay 30% to 50% more for the prices of goods and services.

          • DesertPaine

            Off point, again.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            Not in the least, but you sure are and your wacky “fair tax” is anything but fair and totally mathematically absurd and would ENORMOUSLY HARM THE BOTTOM 50% OF AMERICANS rather catastrophically financially.

          • DesertPaine

            Now I know how you “answer” so many posts. You don’t read them. Nowhere have I ever promoted FAIR tax. We agree it is a bad thing, albeit for entirely different reasons. No matter. I’ve given you a chance and you blew it. Go right ahead and pay your EXCISE (hint hint) income tax. You will do so for the rest of your life, only because you are too arrogant and condescending to learn anything. I teach people how to file properly for a living (BTW, which NEVER includes filing a 1040) but you are certain that your 30 seconds of bad research is superior. You’ve made the most expensive mistake of your life. You are now blocked.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            Thank you for confirming your extreme ignorance and total lack of comprehension.

        • SoCalBeachDude

          Yes, indeed it was back in the backwater banana republic days when the USA was of no economic significance at all in the world, but by the early 1900s the US had started to become an important part of the global economy and was growing both in terms of size of population and economic activity at an extremely fast pace and there needed to be a much broader and greater revenue generating mechanism for the US government than those prior petty little charges.

          That is how and why the federal income tax came about on a permanent basis with the adoption and ratification of of the 16th Amendment in 1916 and is the present system today.

          • DesertPaine

            For someone filled with factoids, you are about the most dense person I have seen on comment boards in a long time. You are right, often, or at least half right. Otherwise, you seem completely incapable of accepting that other people know things, too. For all of your promise, it is sad to see.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            I do not put up “factoids” but rather ACTUAL FACTS and BIG PICTURE INFORMATION, quite unlike you who has a history here of putting up nothing but IRRELEVANT FACTOIDS and appears to be TOTALLY DENSE as to the big picture and context of information. What I have stated above and elsewhere in regards to the IRS and the history of the federal income tax is TOTALLY CORRECT IN EVERY REGARD whereas your nonsensical FACTOIDS and statement that you want to cut federal government spending by 90% are beyond UTTERLY ABSURD and obviously of no interest at all to nearly all of the American people.

          • Patriot

            When this country was established there was fight between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalist. The Federalists wanted a large central government, the Ant-Federalists want a small hub for a federal government.
            Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, was an Anti-Federalist, as was James Madison, the Father of The Constitution. These two facts alone should make any intelligent being realize that the Anti-Federalists were right.
            We only had one Federalist President; John Adams, but the federalist managed to destroy this great nation before it even got started!
            We need to remember that both Jefferson and Madison believe The Constitution to be a compact between independent Nation States which did not forfeit their sovereignty when they join the union of States, but when the Federalist took over they distorted the both the meaning and purpose of The Constitution.
            Our government was founded as an inverted triangle or pyramid with the the Federal government on the bottom, the States above the Federal government and We the People above the States.
            If you read Article one, Section 8, Clause 17 you will see that the Federal Government has no authority over the States, but the State have authority over the Federal Government!
            (oh, and don’t miss the word `OVER’, it is the most important word in Clause 17)

          • SoCalBeachDude

            As to Thomas Jefferson, he was a PROFLIGATE DEBTOR FOOL who died with an astounding $107,000 in net debt at a time when his plantation, Monticello, was worth only around $4,500. Are you aware of that?

  • Richard O. Mann

    It is the fall of every great state/nation sooner or later. It is just the nature of the beast. Throw in the raging sexual perversion taking over the West, Europe and America, and you have the makings for the end of the age. And there is no stopping it.

    • df NJ

      People will continue to have babies whether the dollar collapses into nothing or not. I have faith in people to continue copulating.

  • Gary Wayne Sharp

    You got it right brother.

  • JC Teecher

    Ok, I am now no longer a fan or respecter of Jonathan Turley, as an intelligent interpreter of law.
    According to Allen Dershowitz, a scholar of scholars on constitutional Law, “No sitting President can be charged for obstruction while in office”.
    Turley is advising Trump that he can be charged, before impeachment, but the law differs and Turley is trying to redefine the law. This keeps the liberal witch hunt continuing and Trump spending time and energy out tromping around in the weeds.

    The liberals have an agenda through Chuckey cheesey schummer, to obstruct, and delay anything having to do with what helps the American people, so when the mid-terms roll round they can, bark out all day…”see the repubs can’t get anything done so they need to be replaced.

    it is a sad time for America as the leaders, (just as God said) would have the minds of children in these last days.
    Childish acting they are that.

  • SoCalBeachDude
  • Priszilla

    It doesn’t matter. The government is printing money anyway to pay for arms if the tax income is not enough. Anyone receiving that money is then converting it into gold or silver immediately.

    • SoCalBeachDude

      The US government does no such thing at all as you falsely assert, and the total amount of gold ever mined is only about 180,000 metric tonnes that would fit into two Olympic size swimming pools. Even at around $1,250 per ounce, the total value of all of that gold ever mined anywhere in the world is worth less than $7 trillion (and 70% of that is in the form of jewelry) and it has no financial relevance whatsoever in today’s global economy system with $72 trillion of GDP and around $7 trillion in total global assets.

  • SoCalBeachDude

    5 Facts That Prove Many American’s Don’t Know Anything About How to Manage Money

    24% of Americans don’t have single dollar saved for emergency…

    https://moneyish.com/ish/5-facts-that-prove-americans-dont-know-anything-about-managing-money/

  • SoCalBeachDude

    Life is doing just fine on our planet earth, and there are now more than 7.5 billion people alive today.

    • PocoPete

      2 billion people have no access to safe drinking water.

      • SoCalBeachDude

        Everybody has access to plenty of water and it rains everywhere in the world. If they fail to store water properly, then that is their problem and they need to manage their resources better.

        • aldownunder

          You arrogant fool

          • SoCalBeachDude

            I suppose you are not aware that it rains everywhere in the world and that nearly everywhere that are huge lakes and rivers and streams. I’d suggest you learn about global geography and topography.

        • ignoranceisnotbliss

          Wow. Never a falser statement have I read in my life. You really excel in the cognitive dissonance. How can you make such a bold blanket statement like that. Such arrogance. I feel bad for your parents. I bet they wish they never had you.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            Your name certainly suits you perfectly. Sad. What I stated is 100% true and correct.

  • SoCalBeachDude

    New border adjustment tax would amount to a $5 trillion tax hike on consumers

    Any American who pays taxes can agree: our tax system is broken and in dire need of repair. While many pro-growth tax reform proposals exist, some Republican leaders, like House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas) continue to push a border adjustment tax (BAT).

    In simple terms, a BAT would tax imports and subsidize exports. For example, under current tax law, a local retailer could pay $40 to import a gadget that it sells for $50. A retailer can then deduct its cost and only owe tax on the $10 profit. But, with a BAT in place, that retailer would owe corporate taxes on the full $50 sale price.

    About one-third of the durable goods that Americans buy are imported, and that number trends higher for those in the low- and middle-income brackets. So, whether they’re shopping online or at a local retailer, a BAT will be like a vast hidden sales tax that drives up the cost of purchases and forces retailers to cut costs, including jobs, in order to compete.

    Any American who pays taxes can agree: our tax system is broken and in dire need of repair. While many pro-growth tax reform proposals exist, some Republican leaders, like House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas) continue to push a border adjustment tax (BAT).

    In simple terms, a BAT would tax imports and subsidize exports. For example, under current tax law, a local retailer could pay $40 to import a gadget that it sells for $50. A retailer can then deduct its cost and only owe tax on the $10 profit. But, with a BAT in place, that retailer would owe corporate taxes on the full $50 sale price.

    About one-third of the durable goods that Americans buy are imported, and that number trends higher for those in the low- and middle-income brackets. So, whether they’re shopping online or at a local retailer, a BAT will be like a vast hidden sales tax that drives up the cost of purchases and forces retailers to cut costs, including jobs, in order to compete.

    Beginning to recognize the unpopularity of a border adjustment tax, Rep. Brady recently proposed a five-year phase-in for a BAT to give time for businesses and consumers to “adjust” to the change. But phasing in a tax increase, doesn’t make it any less of an increase—a BAT would be a $5 trillion tax hike on American consumers. A bad idea is still bad, no matter what shade of lipstick Rep. Brady puts on it.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/economy-budget/338634-new-border-adjustment-tax-would-amount-to-a-5-trillion-tax

  • SoCalBeachDude

    Capital gains taxes on metals are always a 28% tax rate as those things such as silver, gold, platinum, etc. are considered “collectibles” under the US tax law. Capital gains taxes are MUCH LOWER THAN ORDINARY INCOME TAXES which apply to other capital gains on assets held for less than 1 year.

    If you are speculating in such risky assets, you should be aware that you cannot deduct more than $3,000 a year in capital losses, although you can carry the remaining losses forward for a number of years.

  • Carl

    “If I run for Congress, and I am very strongly leaning in that direction, this is what my position on taxes is going to be.” Said blog owner knows the score. Might as well try to get his bread buttered like all the career politicians. Free health care, nice retirement package, only working 130 days a year (give or take a few). No worries ever again. We all should run for office. Getting elected is like winning the lottery.

    • SoCalBeachDude

      While always promising something to the people that can never ever possibly be done! That’s the American Way!

      • questions

        Is it difficult for you? Seems that you always have to get the last word in all the time. Must be exhausting. What do you do after all this blogging? Do you drink? Do drugs? Are you even employed?

        • SoCalBeachDude

          Do you have a scintilla of a brain cell?

          • DesertPaine

            Wow. Brilliant. I’ll bet Questions is licking his wounds at this very moment.

  • SoCalBeachDude

    Irwin Schiff DIED IN FEDERAL PRISON while he was serving a VERY LONG FEDERAL FELONY PRISON SENTENCE FOR WILLFUL TAX EVASION. He would have been released in late 2016 but passed away before then. Peter, his nutty and clueless son, is as bonkers as his felony federal tax evader daddy, Irwin.

  • SoCalBeachDude
  • SoCalBeachDude

    HISTORY OF FEDERAL TAXES IN USA

    Prior to federal income taxes in 1916, the US federal government largely funded itself through 1) TARIFFS, and 2) LIQUOR TAXES.

    Should we go back to that system and raise $4 trillion a year through the use of tariffs and liquor taxes?

    The roots of IRS go back to the Civil War when President Lincoln and Congress, in 1862, created the position of commissioner of Internal Revenue and enacted an income tax to pay war expenses. The income tax was repealed 10 years later. Congress revived the income tax in 1894, but the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional the following year.

    In 1913, Wyoming ratified the 16th Amendment, providing the three-quarter majority of states necessary to amend the Constitution. The 16th Amendment gave Congress the authority to enact an income tax. That same year, the first Form 1040 appeared after Congress levied a 1 percent tax on net personal incomes above $3,000 with a 6 percent surtax on incomes of more than $500,000.

    In 1918, during World War I, the top rate of the income tax rose to 77 percent to help finance the war effort. It dropped sharply in the post-war years, down to 24 percent in 1929, and rose again during the Depression. During World War II, Congress introduced payroll withholding and quarterly tax payments.

    The IRS as it presently exists was founded on July 9, 1953.

    http://www.irs.gov/uac/Brief-History-of-IRS

    • shillinpretty

      blah. blah. blah. I’m a government shill. I get paid per post. The people get the bill. Come read my disinformation. Come watch me spread my lies. I have nothing but time, just come and bring your eyes.

      • SoCalBeachDude

        What utter nonsense. That is a 100% correct and fully accurate post above as to the history of the IRS and if you specifically disagree with any part of that statement, then take it up with the IRS.

  • Bruce

    Abolishing almost half of the nations income is ridiculous. You’d have a better chance of selling snow cones in a blizzard. I’m all for lower taxes and a much more responsible government. However, to think we can lose 46.2% of the nations income and just cut departments and agencies that much is just plan looney and irresponsible to me.
    Yes, we could abolish income taxes but, we’d have to have a Federal sales tax. Reform has to be reasonable or it’s foolish.

    • DesertPaine

      The nation did it once before. 1922-23. What happened immediately after is why it was called The Roaring 20s. Moreover, the nation existed longer and more prosperously without the income tax, and without all of the extraconstitutional departments and agencies.

      • SoCalBeachDude

        The 1920s were a a VAST CREDIT BUBBLE which was turned into a SELF-COLLAPSING MESS.

        • DesertPaine

          Again, a half truth. You are correct – after 1926 and especially after NY Fed chairman died in May(?), 1929. 1922-23 boom begin benefited from SEASONALLY stable interest rates, but the cause was cuts in spending.

          • SoCalBeachDude

            There is no “half-truth” at all as to what I stated, and your added FACTOIDS are totally irrelevance nonsense that has nothing to do with my comment. No, the cause of the downturn was NOT CUTS IN SPENDING AT ALL, but rather the forces of gravity from a VASTLY INFLATED AND UTTERLY ABSURD CREDIT BUBBLE.

  • Richard Wahd

    How about taxing the trillions billions and gillions traded on Wall Street a mere 0.01% which would yield more revenue than the rich, working class & poor’s taxes combined…

    • SoCalBeachDude

      It wouldn’t raise hardly anything is the problem.

      • Richard Wahd

        You’d rather let them tax your grandmother’s social security? How very Californian of ya.

        • SoCalBeachDude

          Most Social Security income is SHIELDED FROM TAXES unless your overall income exceeds a certain threshold.

          I am actually in favor of what you suggest but at a much higher rate but even at that it wouldn’t raise much in the way of overall revenues compared to the current federal income tax.

          Financial Industry Sales Tax (FIST) Would Solve Deficit Problems…

          1% Wall Street sales tax solution to stabilize US federal budget

          In the midst of the current haggling over the US federal budget, the main fact is being ignored: the fiscal shortfall of the US government over decades is largely due to Wall Street’s rigging of the tax code so that the main money center banks pay little or nothing in the way of taxes.

          In short, the greatest single flow of untaxed money is the stocks, bonds, and derivatives which cross the exchanges in New York and Chicago, as well as the over-the-counter derivatives which are contracted behind the scenes. If sacrifices are required, this is obviously the place to start. The obvious way to stabilize the US federal budget is to levy a sales tax on these financial market transactions. A sales tax will be paid immediately on every trade, without regard for the yearly profits and losses reported by smart accountants, making it much harder to cheat.

          http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/12/04/276170/wall-street-tax-solution-to-us-budget/

  • Eye of Horus

    Congress wants a tax so they can spend to their heart’s desire. Think about this. There are hundreds of millions of transactions every second. if each of those transactions had a 5% tax on them that would bring in trillions of dollars every hour. With that amount of money coming in to the U.S. Treasury an income tax would not be needed at all. Neither would a national bank hence, dump the Fed as well as the I.R.S. and its incompetent job of collecting income taxes. The job of the I.R.S. from the beginning was the collection of excise taxes on liquor, tobacco and firearms. When Congress declared income tax as an excise tax that caused a huge mess in the economy of this country. Change needs to be done.

    • SoCalBeachDude

      People already pay around 10% sales tax in most states on goods and services. Adding a 5% tax to that would not raise much in the way of funds and certainly would go nowhere towards replacing the federal income tax. GDP is $18 trillion a year and a 5% tax on every single dollar of GDP in the US would only yield about $950 in income to the taxing party which is ONE-QUARTER OF THE WHAT THE US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS CURRENTLY SPENDING.

  • Eileen

    I have no problems with Ron Paul’s suggestions, as long as we don’t go cold turkey. While “phasing out” can be a mnemonic for “no change”, it is also true that some social programs are built into our psyche. An example is Social Security. You can’t just stop it tomorrow and eliminate the payroll tax because that will seed massive social unrest. You can, however, decree that people below a certain age are NOT going to get it and stop the payroll tax for everyone.

    One of the reasons why previous Presidents never went to Congress for their “regime changes” is that they used the payroll tax to fund their activities. FDR’s failure to force Congress and the Treasury to set up a unraidable fund is to blame for this. All it became was a piggy bank that they could raid due to lack of fiscal discipline. So, while I agree with the basic premise that Social Security may be unconstitutional (as is the payroll tax), I don’t agree that the solution is to just stop it.

    We have to impose fiscal discipline on the government, stop its growth, stop this silly regime changes, like what we did in Iraq and are trying to do in Syria. We have to impose discipline upon our immigration policies and immediately stop giving welfare benefits to third world migrants. We have to let the big banks fail, let states like Illinois fail to stop this migration to socialism. Yes, there will be a hardship, but people also have to learn to STOP voting for socialists, just so they can get free stuff. Ask the question, is it the government that needs discipline or us whenever we walk into a voting booth? Think about that because if we are being intellectually honest, we would realize that it us, the voters, who need fiscal discipline by not expecting the government to do things that we can do for ourselves but are too lazy.

    • huththa

      hear, hear!

    • SoCalBeachDude

      Obviously, the problem is that it would LEAVE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT UNFUNDED AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS PRESENTLY SPENDING $4 TRILLION A YEAR and would need replacement funding of the $3 trillion from current federal income taxes plus needs around $1 trillion a year in NEW FEDERAL TAXES in order to achieve anything approaching a balanced budget.

  • DesertPaine

    We could replace all those jobs with teachers who know the Constitution and US history, thereby permitting millions more to handle their EXCISE tax decisions properly.

    • SoCalBeachDude

      The last thing in the world we need in the USA are ignoramuses who advocate bizarre and bogus interpretations of the US Constitution. That is an issue for LAW SCHOOLS and not for regular schools which need to start teaching the 3 Rs once again and reverse the disasters that have occurred to our educational system and turned it into the laughingstock EDYOUKAYSHUNUL system.

  • SoCalBeachDude

    Absolutely false. The exact experts are 100% true, accurate, and fully correct.

    • DesertPaine

      Well then. Since you said so, it must be true.

      • SoCalBeachDude

        What have stated is true because it is fully empirically verifiable based on evidence.

  • SoCalBeachDude

    Just how do you expect to fund our $4 trillion US government without the income tax and the IRS? The Federal Reserve is merely a central bank and one in the US that significantly contributes to US government revenues. It sounds like all you want to do is to destroy the federal government, which is an absurd and fruitless path to take in dealing with and solving any of the issues in the USA.

  • SoCalBeachDude

    You are the one who apparently has zero capacity to learn or comprehend anything of substance.

  • SoCalBeachDude

    Laughably false. Those metals are just LITTLE TINY NICHE FUNGIBLE COMMODITIES and nothing else and are NOT USED OR ACCEPTED AS “CURRENCIES” OR “MONEY” ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD.

    There is no “petro dollar” system at all, and the amount of oil trading in the global economy is less than 5% of the use of the US dollar in the global economy. Oil is likely headed towards $20 per barrel or lower, but was below $10 per barrel back in 1999. More than 95% of all uses of the US dollar in the US an global economies have NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH OIL (PETROL) and ALL COMMODITIES ARE PRICED IN US DOLLARS.

    If you have US Mint 1 oz. silver or gold American Eagles you can ALWAYS reliably use them anywhere that US dollars are accepted as LEGAL TENDER for their face amounts of $1 and $50 respectively!

    • Patriot

      On August 15th 1971 Richard Nixon took us off the Gold Standard and replace it with the Petro Dollar system.
      We made a deal with Saudi Arabia and other oil producing nations. The deal was that we would buy their oil with Treasury Bonds which they would hold and that they would only sell oil in US Dollars.
      This has been the only thing `backing’ the US Dollar for over 40 years, but now the Arab nations are running out of oil and as goes the oil, so goes the Dollar!
      You really need to stop drinking the Keynesian Kool-Aid!

      • SoCalBeachDude

        I am just flabbergasted as to how you could write a comment with every single premise you state being so dead wrong and totally false.

        Nixon did not “abandon gold” at all. Nixon merely ended the Bretton Woods currency fixed exchange rate agreement which had been in force from 1944 to 1971.

        Nixon had nothing to do with the “gold standard” in the US which had long ago been TOTALLY DISCARDED BY THE US DOMESTICALLY back in 1933 and only a tiny shred of gold nonsense was even left in the form of international bank transaction convertibility which is what was discarded in 1971.

        There is no such thing at all as the “petrodollar” as oil accounts for less than 7% of the annual global use of the US dollar which is used in around 83% of all global transactions for all sorts of goods and services around the world

        The US made no such deal as you assert at all with Saudi Arabia which is just one of the world’s many oil producers. The 3 largest oil producers are the US, Saudi Arabia, and Russia and Russia doesn’t even price oil in dollars nor does Iran. Saudi Arabia has never owned much in the way of US Treasuries at any time. In fact, Saudi Arabia holds (owns) practically NONE OF THE OUTSTANDING $20 TRILLION in US Treasuries.

        Treasury Says Saudis Hold $117B of US Debt…

        http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-16/u-s-discloses-saudi-arabia-s-treasuries-holdings-for-first-time

        Total outstanding US government debt in US Treasuries is over $19.5 trillion and $117 billion is like a ROUNDING ERROR and of no significance whatsoever. The annual US Treasuries market is a $12.8 trillion a year market and more than $7 trillion in NEW US TREASURIES are issued each year and US Treasuries are the MOST LIQUID BOND MARKET IN THE WORLD.

        As to oil supplies, nobody is running out at all and, in fact, exactly the opposite is the case as the world is drowning in a GLOBAL GLUT OF OIL.

        GLOBAL OIL GLUT DRAMATICALLY INCREASES…

        Oil Slides to Seven-Month Low on High Inventories

        http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2017/06/14/oil-prices-fall-after-iea-says-global-stockpiles-up.html

        Oil at 7-month low of $44.73 on spike in US gasoline stockpiles

        http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/13/oil-prices-fall-on-opec-output-increase-rising-us-crude-stocks.html

        As supplies increase and demand wanes, the price of oil just keeps plunging which AXIOMATICALLY INCREASES THE PURCHASING VALUE OF THE US DOLLAR against oil, and in fact, the price of oil has plummeted by more than 60% since June 2014 increasing the purchasing value of the US dollar against oil priced in US dollars by 120%.

  • SoCalBeachDude

    That is just another TOTALLY BOGUS AND FALSE propaganda piece.

    • Patriot

      Yes you are!

      • SoCalBeachDude

        Hardly, but YOU SURE ARE. Pathetic.

  • SoCalBeachDude

    Absolutely and categorically FALSE. JFK never did any such thing at all as you TOTALLY BOGUSLY ASSERT. Where do you come up with such TOTALLY FALSE NONSENSE?

  • SoCalBeachDude

    RAND PAUL JUST AS CLUELESS AS DADDY RON…

    RAND PAUL: Insurance should be available for $1 a day…

    http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/339123-rand-paul-insurance-should-be-available-for-1-a-day

  • SoCalBeachDude

    Your utter ignorance is beyond mind boggling and your laughably false and utterly clueless assertions are so far out there that it is stunning. Get a clue dude.

  • marlene

    So much talk, so little action. He sounds like he’s preparing his rhetoric for 2020. I’d rather listen to someone who’s actually doing something, effectively, to “… cut taxes, I don’t mean fiddle with the code… abolish the income tax and the IRS, and replace them with nothing.”

    • SoCalBeachDude

      Congress CANNOT REDUCE TAXES when it is RUNNING A $1 TRILLION A YEAR FEDERAL DEFICIT without first CUTTING SPENDING BY AROUND $1 trillion a year. What on earth is so hard to comprehend about that?

      • marlene

        It’s what YOU don’t comprehend that’s so hard for you! Read your own ridiculous comment again. Cutting a $1 Trillion deficit takes more than a year!

        • SoCalBeachDude

          The US government is presently running a $1+ trillion a year DEFICIT and in Fiscal 2016 ran a $1.4+ trillion deficit as determined by subtracting the federal debt at the beginning of the year from the federal debt at the end of the year.

          Cutting any federal taxes at all just makes that MASSIVE DEFICIT HOLE MUCH WORSE and that is what you and your ilk apparently do not comprehend at all.

          My comment above is 100% correct.

          All federal spending should simply be cut 33% straight across the board with no exceptions at all IMMEDIATELY.

          • marlene

            COMMENTS FROM ILK LIKE YOU ARE NEVER 100% CORRECT! You misinterpret everything you read.

  • Tx Land Owner

    Need to be careful regarding “no income tax” as I live in TX and they have high property taxes to offset the lack of an income tax. While this may sound good, it basically means that if you lose your job or decide to be a “homesteader”, you are still required to pay these high property taxes…or lose your land to the government. This is a backdoor way to keep everyone “in the system”.

    I agree with abolishing taxes but we need to be aware of unintended consequences.

Finca Bayano

Panama Relocation Tours




 

ProphecyHour

Facebook Twitter More...