Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
bobsponge

Tax Avoidance

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

So again...maybe for you, risking you life, liberty, and happiness is not worth X amount of dollars, but for others, getting back that 3rd of their life... that discretionary money and time, and living a full life for as long as they can get away with it(which I know for a fact can be done for long periods of time-even indefinately) is worth the risk of a few years in a federal prison.

The maximum penalty for tax evasion in US is 5 years in prison and $250,000 fine. But since tax evasion is an illegal activity if you earn cash that you fail to report on your tax return - you are not just a tax evader, according to the law, you are also a money launderer. Money laundering includes the deposit and/or use of cash on which taxes have not been paid. The maximum penalty for that is 20-year prison and $500,000 fine.

Edited by ~Sophia~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The maximum penalty for tax evasion in US is 5 years in prison and $250,000 fine. But since tax evasion is an illegal activity if you earn cash that you fail to report on your tax return - you are not just a tax evader, according to the law, you are also a money launderer. Money laundering includes the deposit and/or use of cash on which taxes have not been paid. The maximum penalty for that is 20-year prison and $500,000 fine.

That's an interesting evil little law. The couple people I have known in trouble for that sort of thing did not get charged with money laundering. Is that expressly related to cash or just income generally?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So in my example above, the poor fellow who loses his $10,000 of discretionary income might utilize his remaining freedom of speech and voice his opposition to said theft, but cannot voice it nearly as loud as his $10,000 voices support of the theft in the form of a radio commercial or add in a newspaper by the looters.

Withdrawing $10,000 as a message is not even a tiny whisper and if undetected it is silence. Such people also don't speak up against taxation because they want to stay under the radar.

So we get this self-perpetuating system where money is taken and the means of disseminating information (schools, newspapers,etc) are owned or tightly controlled by those opposed to freedom. The stolen wealth and confiscated properties amount in actuality to a limitation on free speech. It's only a less obvious and more insidious way of doing it then an overt tyranny would attempt.

The only way an improvement can happen is through ideological change and one person's voice (not money) can do a lot. You live in one of the most free countries in the world, in the era of the internet, blogs, still enjoying free press. Every now and then you are notified about an Oist intelectual being on the radio or TV - considering how radical Oism is ...

That's an interesting evil little law. The couple people I have known in trouble for that sort of thing did not get charged with money laundering. Is that expressly related to cash or just income generally?

From Wikipedia

any financial transaction which generates an asset or a value as the result of an illegal act, which may involve actions such as tax evasion or false accounting. As a result, the illegal activity of money laundering is now recognized as potentially practiced by individuals, small and large businesses, corrupt officials, members of organized crime or of cults, and even corrupt states, through a complex network of shell companies and trusts based in offshore tax havens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do not believe that to be a correct use of the term in the current context. To equate being one's own victim with someone being an actual victim of wrong doing opens the law to all manner of irrationality including but not limited to the horrible laws I brought up earlier.

Were are not discussing here rights violations but the morality of this action (which may not be a rights violation). In this context it is proper to use the term "victim (an injured party) of his own irrationality". (minor point)

It can be immoral(not in your best interests) but that has no proper connection to it's legality. Any harm an individual incurs through their own actions is the only price which ought to be paid.

I agree.

That point was in response to the claim that tax evaders are "cheaters", which implies some harm to someone outside of themselves. Because the breaking of these laws only affects oneself, the comparison to cheating in a fair game with agreed upon rules is not helpful.

The intensional breaking of the law of the land aspect, as I have already explained, affects everyone and the only reason you may not feel its consequences is because others choose not to follow his lead of disobeying laws they don't approve.

Not paying taxes is not an act. It is a refusal to act. Refusing to act is categorically different from acting in order to enforce a law or break a law which restricts behaviour. It's a very clear differentiation.

Laws can only be broken by force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Withdrawing $10,000 as a message is not even a tiny whisper and if undetected it is silence. Such people also don't speak up against taxation because they want to stay under the radar.

$10,000 is not insignificant in terms of my average guy's capacity to proselytize. It is also much more then a whisper when 20 million people do the same thing. And it does send a message collectively. Look into the "tax gap" for confirmation.

edit:I wanted to add too, that the extra 40% of his income is what might allow him the time to right a blog or utilize the free speech which does exist. This is up an above any direct use he might choose to make with his income.

The only way an improvement can happen is through ideological change and one person's voice (not money) can do a lot. You live in one of the most free countries in the world, in the era of the internet, blogs, still enjoying free press. Every now and then you are notified about an Oist intelectual being on the radio or TV - considering how radical Oism is ...

From Wikipedia

I don't disagree with the notion that ideas are powerful, but the government here which controls over 90% of education is doing a fine job of making sure that very few in the general population have the prerequisite critical thinking skills to understand those ideas at all. If we have two statements. One of truth said in my backyard to 3 friends and one huge lie(say, free prescription drugs for the elderly is a good thing) said on national television to millions. One will have an impact and one wont, and it has little to do with the truth of it and a lot to do with method by which it is disseminated.

7 heavily regulated media conglomerates own 90% of the media market. I could argue as easily that an internet blog is a tiny whisper compared to that.

I think the truth wins out eventually, but I don't operate out side the context of my zeitgeist very often and I do not believe the slow dissemination of good ideas will likely make anywhere near the impact on my life that the other 40% of my money would. Likely these people think the same thing and act accordingly.

Laws can only be broken by force.

Moral laws can only be broken by force. Immoral laws are broken by ones existence.

The intensional breaking of the law of the land aspect, as I have already explained, affects everyone and the only reason you may not feel its consequences is because others choose not to follow his lead of disobeying laws they don't approve.

You keep saying that but I still don't believe it. How is anyone else negatively impacted by an individuals refusal to pay extortion money?

Edited by aequalsa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
$10,000 is not insignificant in terms of my average guy's capacity to proselytize. It is also much more then a whisper when 20 million people do the same thing.

If I was a person with a power to actually make a difference, for reasons I have already given - I would have never advocated for 2 people or 20 million people to intensionally break the law as means of "sending a message".

What I would not want to promote in a society is legitimizing the use of force (and breaking the law is force) over rational dialogue.

To attempt to achieve the good by force, by undermining a proper function of the government as an enforcer of an established law - when intelectual persuasion IS possible, is to reject reason as means with which men should deal with one another.

This is not something I would want to teach my child.

A proper action instead is to convince those 20 million people that the law is immoral and should not exist.

And it does send a message collectively.

It sends a message that the laws are there to be broken. Such thing carries consequences.

I don't disagree with the notion that ideas are powerful, but the government here which controls over 90% of education is doing a fine job of making sure that very few in the general population have the prerequisite critical thinking skills to understand those ideas at all.

People are not lacking in critical thinking skills - look at all the advances in science and technology just in the last decade alone. People are lacking the right philosophy - they are mixed/confused ideologically.

Also, I am a product of a public education system with the first 17 years spend in communism, next 3 in mixed-economy of NJ, rest in highly socialistic Canada. I am a walking proof, as many others here, that people are not products their environment.

7 heavily regulated media conglomerates own 90% of the media market. I could argue as easily that an internet blog is a tiny whisper compared to that.

I disagree. Internet has become a powerful source of information. People watch TV mostly for entratainment but when they want to find out/research something they turn on their computer. Joe Smith has gained the ability to reach masses from his own basement.

Edited by ~Sophia~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I would not want to promote in a society is legitimizing the use of force (and breaking the law is force) over rational dialogue.

So in your opinion, Ghandi was using "force" when he decided to show his disapproval of British rule by sitting around and fasting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So in your opinion, Ghandi was using "force" when he decided to show his disapproval of British rule by sitting around and fasting?

Which law was she breaking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a he.

I should not be posting past midnight.

But I am glad you mentioned this incident because "as a result of his actions a series of armed revolts against the British broke out, culminating in such violence that Gandhi confessed the failure of the civil-disobedience campaign he had called, and ended it". (Then he went back to it some years later).

Edited by ~Sophia~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I find disturbing throughout this whole thread is the speculating over the morality or immorality of putting ones life and limb on the line in order to avoid taxes. No-one in their arguments is demonstrating a context, the conditions or circumstances, people are simply arguing back and forth as if morality were a binary state -- rather than a continuum.

Think of what the following blanket binary morality type statement implies.

"Avoiding taxes is immoral because of the risk of losing life and limb, property, etc."

Here's an analogy to help you out.

"Killing is evil."

Some here are making the assertion that avoiding taxes requires that the tax avoider is literally putting life and limb literally be on the line.

Now there's a subtle difference between 'on the line' and 'risk'. When everything is on the line, everything is at a junction point where you whole life should turn south.

What constitutes "life and limb are on the line" is not "it's risky to avoid taxes" but if your life and limb are really on the line.

Using tax havens like Angolla for instance requires some capital, the type of people who use tax havens see it as economically feasible and worth the effort. You can never do enough research, something always can go wrong, but that's why you put some cash away or have friends who can pay bail.

Good tax havens border no countries, like Vanuatu, or Bermuda.

But Monaco and Angolla are still good, and if you get 'bail' you can still slip the border compared to an island nation that puts your face up all over their ports and airports.

I'd like to address bobsponge, in the first page of this thread he stressed that the Federal Reserve is a private company -- that is an illuminati New World Order conspiracy theory that is absolutely false.

Bobsponge also stated that 100% of the tax revenue in the United States is allocated to paying off the interest on the apparent debt the US has with the Federal Reserve [when infact the Federal Reserve somewhat provides/steals funds to provide debt free funding to the US government].

Just because the Federal Reserve is in the yellow pages under ''private does not mean it is a private company, this is the only argument that the conspiracy theorists cite which is half true and yet has faulty premises and is outright wrong in its conclusion.

The Federal Reserve has its priorities in this order:

-- Raise interest rates only when you can blame it on an exogenous factor, or if you do this during a rate cycle and gain confidence from the market, then you may be able to raise interest rates even if the public sees no inflation, yet are listening to your every word because of your excellent PR campaign. Keeping the 'hypnotist status' is the #1 priority of the Fed.

-- Trade Treasury Bonds, specifically, the Fed is always electronically purchasing Government bonds, not 'printing' excess cash. What causes inflation is not more physical cash in an economy chasing less goods, but the fact there's less goods because the Fed by using electronic book-keeping bought Government debt, which in turn is tied to a tangible asset, the best way to think about it in your head is

[[ GOVERNMENT BOND <-------------------- TANGIBLE ASSETS <-------------------- ECONOMY ]]

Think of it as the assets being ripped out of the economy, not excessive money losing value chasing less goods, it's a subtle difference, but it really does matter as the former comes before the latter -- the Fed is always BUYING Government debt out of thin air, it doesn't 'print excessive cash' when interest rates are low and causes ingenuine booms as if economies when left alone move sideways rather than up. The Austrian school is completely wrong about business cycles, and so are the interpretations of market cycles and inflation 'creating' by the schools who believe the Fed is a private company, rather than what it truly is, a Government institution that buys/funds Government by buying not bonds that return interest from the US government, but by using paper to fund the US government at no interest with the help of full monetary control of the banking system.

-- Managing the interbank Fed-Funds rate,

-- Influencing the interbank currency FX market, trades Foreign Currencies and even trades risky equities (I've even heard of the Fed buying pinksheet over the counter stocks).

Edited by Yankee White

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd like to address bobsponge, in the first page of this thread he stressed that the Federal Reserve is a private company -- that is an illuminati New World Order conspiracy theory that is absolutely false.

Prove that one, please.

a Government institution that buys/funds Government by buying not bonds that return interest from the US government, but by using paper to fund the US government at no interest with the help of full monetary control of the banking system.

That's got to be one of the funniest things I have ever heard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of voicing one's opinion against the government and immoral laws - isn't sedition law a violation of the right of free speech and unconstitutional under the First Amendment? It sure would make intelectual persuasion impossible.

What exactly is sedition law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A proper action instead is to convince those 20 million people that the law is immoral and should not exist.

It sends a message that the laws are there to be broken. Such thing carries consequences.

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt." ~Ayn Rand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I find disturbing throughout this whole thread is the speculating over the morality or immorality of putting ones life and limb on the line in order to avoid taxes.

While your views on the fed to not conform to my understanding of it, I agree with the rest of your statement regarding the importance of context in morality. So rather then make up a fictional tax evader, I will stick with my own example.

I consistently break osha regulations in my job because they often put me at risk and seriously hamper productivity. I simply follow my own judgement with no regard for the law. If I judge incorrectly, I will be the only one hurt. If everyone followed my example, a descent into anarchy, would not follow because of the nature of my "crime". It is of a different type in that I am not acting in some way which makes me my own government. It is a lack of certain actions on my part which is the crime. Not an act itself, and that is the key difference. I simply do not regard their existence.

So the question for me is, is it in my long-term rational best interests to follow the law if it puts me in danger. The answer for me is as obvious as an answer can be. Because I am in a situation like this where it is clearly not in my best interests to follow the law, I can understand situations in regard to other types of victimless(in the sense I mean it) crimes which would make illegal action proper and moral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So the question for me is, is it in my long-term rational best interests to follow the law if it puts me in danger. The answer for me is as obvious as an answer can be. Because I am in a situation like this where it is clearly not in my best interests to follow the law, I can understand situations in regard to other types of victimless(in the sense I mean it) crimes which would make illegal action proper and moral.

I think it matters if you are working alone in your basement, or you have employees working for you. If you have employees, and one gets injured on the job, are you not opening yourself up to a lawsuit? If you openly flaunt safety regs, and someone in your employ gets hurt, a good lawyer will have you for lunch. No? Isnt it possible that there can be victims where there is non compliance with osha rules? It seems to me that there is a difference between tax evasion and non-compliance with federal regulations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it matters if you are working alone in your basement, or you have employees working for you. If you have employees, and one gets injured on the job, are you not opening yourself up to a lawsuit? If you openly flaunt safety regs, and someone in your employ gets hurt, a good lawyer will have you for lunch. No? Isnt it possible that there can be victims where there is non compliance with osha rules? It seems to me that there is a difference between tax evasion and non-compliance with federal regulations.

Let's not blur the issue. To clarify, as a self-employed contractor doing the labor myself, alone with no employees present, I am required by law to follow all osha safety regulations. I don't because very often the one size fits all rules don't apply and can put me at more risk then I would otherwise be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's not blur the issue. To clarify, as a self-employed contractor doing the labor myself, alone with no employees present, I am required by law to follow all osha safety regulations. I don't because very often the one size fits all rules don't apply and can put me at more risk then I would otherwise be.

I dont have a problem with that. And I wasnt trying to blur the issue. Besides, osha non-compliance isnt the issue, tax evasion is and I dont see a link between the two. But as long as we are talking about it, you are not likely to report yourself to osha, nor are you likly to file suit against yourself. Osha regs are designed to protect employees against evil and unscrupulous task masters like me. As a business owner, risk is the name of the game. If a crummy piece of equipment costs you a finger or two, you go on with life with a couple less digits. Those are the types of risks a business owner takes, but you cannot expect your employees to face those same risks. The day you hire your first employee, you would be crazy to continue to ignore the law.

But back to tax evasion....If it is a moral, victimless activity whose practitioners are modern day equvalents to Washington and Jefferson, why do you not join them in their evasion of the law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a problem with the discussion over breaking the law being force, because it ignores what *kind* of force we're talking about. Force as such is not evil -- it's the initiation of force that's evil. Obviously, retaliatory force in defense of one's life is supremely moral. Given that, the assertion that breaking the law = force is morally meaningless until you state what kind of force you're talking about. And to claim that breaking the law -- any law -- is tantamount to the initiation of force is obviously wrong, because there are too many examples of unjust laws. Is Microsoft guilty of "force" by breaking the antitrust laws? Is a political advocacy group guilty of "force" by breaking the McCain-Feingold laws restricting free speech? The examples abound. People exercising their legitimate freedom are not initiating force, regardless of what the government says.

The issue of tax evasion, as I see it, is an issue of context and hierarchy of values. Without establishing these, it doesn't do much good to declare either that tax evasion is rational or irrational. Basically, it's a tactical decision that is analogous to getting mugged. Consider the situation in which a mugger has a gun to your head and demands your wallet. What should you do? We've heard two answers:

1) To give the mugger your wallet is to sanction his evil, therefore it is irrational and you should refuse and accept the consequences.

2) To accept the consequences is to put your life in danger, therefore it is irrational and you should immediately and unconditionally comply.

Both of those answers are wrong, because both lack any context or consideration of hierarchy. Context involves all the facts: does the mugger have a gun, or is he wielding a stick, and am I unable to defend myself or do I have a black belt or a gun of my own, and do I have reasonable confidence in defending myself (or can I run away)? Hierarchy of values involves what I'm trying to achieve: is my wallet worth more than my well-being, is this an isolated threat or a recurring one -- what action is actually in my life-serving long term interest?

Depending on the answers to these questions, the *rational* action is different. If you can kick the mugger's ass, you should. If you he's crazy and will kill you, you shouldn't. In every case, the facts involved determine what the right, i.e. life-serving, choice is.

Given this, I see tax evasion as a tactical issue. If you think (based on very careful consideration of the facts) that evading taxation is life-serving in the long term, you should do it. If you don't, you shouldn't. It is certainly our right to keep our money -- the only issue is whether keeping the chunk the government is extorting is worth putting everything on the line, or whether it's a better strategy to "live to fight another day." I myself think the latter, but that's due to my context. For others, it may not be so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont have a problem with that. And I wasnt trying to blur the issue. Besides, osha non-compliance isnt the issue, tax evasion is and I dont see a link between the two. But as long as we are talking about it, you are not likely to report yourself to osha, nor are you likly to file suit against yourself. Osha regs are designed to protect employees against evil and unscrupulous task masters like me. As a business owner, risk is the name of the game. If a crummy piece of equipment costs you a finger or two, you go on with life with a couple less digits. Those are the types of risks a business owner takes, but you cannot expect your employees to face those same risks. The day you hire your first employee, you would be crazy to continue to ignore the law.

But back to tax evasion....If it is a moral, victimless activity whose practitioners are modern day equvalents to Washington and Jefferson, why do you not join them in their evasion of the law?

I have hired employees and as much as I would like to see them not endanger their lives, I have to enforce the irrational rules. And osha regs do not protect employees. There has been no decrease in work related injury or death since its inception. Its purpose is to impose extortionate fines and confiscate wealth. Unless the owner is on the job, he has very little control over whether his employees obey the rules. If they do not and they are caught, the owner gets huge fines. Big fines...$20K,50K,70k and up. Regarding ignoring the law for employees, my only motivation for doing so would be, because the law puts them in more danger. But this is off subject ranting...the real crime is that they can also fine me for me. And I don't have to report myself. They just have to drive up and take a video of me not complying with their edicts.

The reason I don't evade taxes is that I am, as far as i can tell, about as sharp as a marble and lack the prerequisite knowledge or creativity to do so without being caught. For me it would not be a rational act. For someone else it could though. I can however, often avoid following osha regs which put me in danger, (for myself) without being caught. So my estimation is, that if it makes me safer, no one else is harmed by it and I believe that I can realistically avoid being caught, it is in my best interests.

The issue of tax evasion, as I see it, is an issue of context and hierarchy of values.

I am in complete agreement with the content of your post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's with people saying "if tax evasion is moral, then..."

Morality is not a binary state, it is a continuum and it depends entirely upon the circumstance.

For instance killing is moral under certain circumstances, but you can never say "Killing is Evil" as a blanket condemnation.

This thread has gone from tax avoidance to tax evasion, avoiding taxes is completely legal, tax evasion is not.

For instance if I were of British domicile (income made outside of Great Britain is not taxed under certain circumstances for individuals who have worked abroad for 5 years depending on the nature of their work, etc) I could setup a company in Monaco and trade the futures markets all day long without being taxed and could never be taken to court for it.

In my country, Australia, we may be taken to court, but there's a tax haven offshore called Vanuatu, it's about a 3 hour flight from where I live, there's a financial center and you can setup your business, it is the tax haven where WinMX and KazaA have setup shop, it is the only nation on Earth (with some exceptions for Bermuda) which has laws against anyone giving account information to any foreign law enforcement agency, meaning if I were taken to court for tax avoidance, no-one in Australia would be able to prove anything other than money laundering -- which is a separate charge and why you should transfer funds with someone you trust rather than alone or without a head screwed to your shoulers.

Tax evasion is different however, in that its illegal, whilst tax avoidance is not, under certain circumstances in Australia with tax avoidance I could be in a courtroom where the judge rules that what I'm doing is perfectly legal, as it is (and this is why you should get a good accountant and lawyer).

----

For those confused about the Federal Reserve, videos such as Money Masters can be persuasive, yet full of errors.

Bobsponge, you asked me to prove that the "Federal Reserve is a Corporation in which the US government allocates 100% of its tax revenue to pay its 'debts' off to" is an Illuminati Conspiracy theory.

I googled and made sure I pressed "I'm feeling lucky"... here is what I got...

~Illuminati News ~

A Phone Call To The Federal Reserve Bank in San Francisco

- from Dan Benham, Nov 24, 2005

(Posted here: Dec 04, 2005)

The following is a conversation with Mr. Ron Supinski of the Public Information Department of the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank. This is an account of that conversation.

CALLER - Mr. Supinski, does my country own the Federal Reserve System?

MR. SUPINSKI - We are an agency of the government.

CALLER - That's not my question. Is it owned by my country?

MR. SUPINSKI - It is an agency of the government created by congress.

CALLER - Is the Federal Reserve a Corporation?

MR. SUPINSKI - Yes

CALLER - Does my government own any of the stock in the Federal Reserve?

MR. SUPINSKI - No, it is owned by the member banks.

CALLER - Are the member banks private corporations?

MR. SUPINSKI - Yes

CALLER - Are Federal Reserve Notes backed by anything?

MR. SUPINSKI-Yes, by the assets of the Federal Reserve but, primarily by the power of congress to lay tax on the people.

(bold added)

Notice the title? "Illuminati News"

The Federal Reserve System is not a Private Corporation that debauches the money supply and buys treasury bonds out of thin air and then turns around and charges the US government for doing it (at, perhaps a lower interest yield?)

If such were the case, the US treasury would work around the Federal Reserve System by debaunching the money supply itself and buy treasury bonds if it wanted to.

Putting all this aside, the Federal Reserve was setup to serve the US government, for the same reason the treasury would need a few more resources to do the work around [of a private central bank] for such a big country, the US government needed a few more resources than the treasury to create an authority which controlled the money and credit of the United States, interest rates, etc, and regulated all the banks -- so the USA created the Federal Reserve to serve as such an authority, which as a public institution, would serve the USA, the United States created the Federal Reserve over the first world war with highly complex fiat to fractional reserve systems and member bank and international services. The Federal Reserve doesn't charge the US government, rather, it provides interest free debt, it is the monetary unit of the United States of America, most Mixed Economies today have a central bank, think of what banks do, they do quite alot, now imagine how busy a central bank would be as a regulatory and monetary public government institution

One of the keen players behind the creation of the Federal Reserve was a European banker shocked at what he thought were banking problems in the early 20th century (if that banker existed today, he'd be like your average economist, focusing on everything inverted, i.e.: thinking that raising taxes increases wealth, etc). This banker I think is Paul W or something, was good intentioned.

Bobsponge, you must have watched some conspiracy theorist movie such as Money Masters, as you mentioned in the first page of this thread that you'd prefer we move back to an Abraham Lincoln style Government Printed Greenback, Abraham Lincoln was an anti-capitalist who debauched the money supply to fund his war, no matter which way you look at it, the Federal Reserve system for all its differences, in essence, is doing exactly the same as Abraham Lincoln did when he created the greenback and bent all the laws of economics on the side of destruction as he debauched the money supply, one of the key reasons the US went back to a gold standard after Lincoln was that hyperinflation he caused was still being felt.

There's an illuminati conspiracy theory that Abraham Lincoln was shot by a man who had ties to European Central Bankers, it's actually the same theory, because the nuthead conspiracy theorists would rather "American money" over supposedely private European control over the US money supply (like they had apparently did in Europe, when infact all their central banks always have been Public, not private).

There used to be a video on Google that shot down every error in this conspiracy theory and focuses on how the Rothchilds were really mediocre losers who had virtually no power and influence over the political-economies of Europe, many of their quotes are taken out of context, for instance, one of the Rothchilds made a comment such as "give me control of a nations money and credit and I care not who writes the laws" -- the context wasn't "Rothchild controls a private central bank" but that of a remark made with academic humor at the hypothetical scenario of a private corporation or individual controlling a nations money and credit.

Whilst Bobsponge prefers a Paper Fiat currency such as the Greenback, as he expressed in the first page of this thread, I prefer a Gold Standard, and one instituted and standardized by the private sector with absolutely no government interference in its creation.

#edit: The only true thing about Europeans in regard to pre-1913 American monetary history is that they were so infuriated at the unprecedented economic growth of the United States because of the gold standard that they were clamoring to put a leash on the growth of the United States, and they were probably a big part indirectly in the conclusion, a conclusion they would consider successful -- a Federal Reserve.

There was fear all over Europe that the United States would become the next great power, and even with a Federal Reserve -- today Europe as a whole has almost half of Americas military might and is a regional superpower with the EU and a global superpower with the EURO.

Edited by Yankee White

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

double post, woops

#by the way, I'm working on a book on business cycles, it'll probably take 15 years to finish, I know all about this stuff, I can understand how, without some of my knowledge some Austraians, Keynsians, non-Objectivists, Monetarists, etc would fall into the "Federal Reserve" = "Private" trap. So I can understand it, but it usually takes alot more research and understanding of Government funding.

At Yankee White Asset Management, we have calculated the US total debt as $76.05 trillion as at March 16, 2007.

In October 2006, we calculated it to be $55 trillion.

In December 2006, the treasury for the first time released information on its social security and medicaid liabilities, adding the $35 trillion and using the statements in the Comptrollers report and in other Government documents, we calculated that the total US debt according to the US government was in December 2006, $53.1 trillion.

Keep in mind that in October 2006, we didn't have the official accounting, so we're pretty close with this stuff.

The most fascinating physical reality to observe, beside a skyscraper in my opinion is the effect of inflation on business cycles and its massive distortions in the economy -- to me it has to be the most fascinating subject matter.

Edited by Yankee White

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What's with people saying "if tax evasion is moral, then..."

Morality is not a binary state, it is a continuum and it depends entirely upon the circumstance.

For instance killing is moral under certain circumstances, but you can never say "Killing is Evil" as a blanket condemnation.

This thread has gone from tax avoidance to tax evasion; avoiding taxes is completely legal, tax evasion is not.

I don't think it was ever so much as a legal question, though. Also, I think a major part of the "tax evasion is moral" argument is the idea that

there
isn't
any circumstance in which forced taxation is moral, ergo the ethical status of evading a forced tax is not dependent on the circumstance.

While I'd be in about 90% agreement with that idea, I'm sure of its veracity.

Whilst Bobsponge prefers a Paper Fiat currency such as the Greenback, as he expressed in the first page of this thread, I prefer a Gold Standard
Hmm, did bobsponge say that? At any rate, I'm with you (as most folks here are) on preferring something non-govermentized like gold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...