Skip to content

The real honest question is; IF WE CAN GAIN FEDERAL REVENUE BY TAXATION ON “SOMETHING ELSE”, WHY WOULD WE NOT WANT PROSPERITY FOR ALL ?

November 20, 2015

“Yes, much to debate” First and foremost would be a definition of what TAXATION is being debated. Federal Personal Income Tax is a single standing item. It is a tax levied on individual members of the Sovereignty based solely on their annual income. Not how,why or where it comes from- it is numerical. It is an exact accounting of distribution of the entire group to each individual. This is but ONE stream of revenue by taxation any loss or gain can be negated by “other means of taxation

The real honest question is;
IF WE CAN GAIN FEDERAL REVENUE BY TAXATION ON “SOMETHING ELSE”, WHY WOULD WE NOT WANT
PROSPERITY FOR ALL ?

“WHY NOT TRUMP FEDERAL INCOME TAX PLAN or ANY PLAN THAT SIMPLY REDUCES TO ZERO ANY PERSONAL INCOME  FOR ANY INDIVIDUAL  FOR INCOME OF $60,000 / YEAR (as a standard of living expense“?, Justaluckyfool.

E.G.,WHAT IS WRONG WITH “The TRUMP TAX PLAN” ?
September 29, 2015
By
Alan Cole
FISCAL FACT No. 482: Details and Analysis of Donald Trump’s Tax Plan (PDF)
Key Findings:
Mr. Trump’s tax plan would substantially lower individual income taxes and the corporate income tax and eliminate a number of complex features in the current tax code.
Mr. Trump’s plan would cut taxes by $11.98 trillion over the next decade on a static basis. However, the plan would end up reducing tax revenues by $10.14 trillion over the next decade when accounting for economic growth from increases in the supply of labor and capital.
The plan would also result in increased outlays due to higher interest on the debt, creating a ten-year deficit somewhat larger than the estimates above.
According to the Tax Foundation’s Taxes and Growth Model, the plan would significantly reduce marginal tax rates and the cost of capital, which would lead to an 11 percent higher GDP over the long term provided that the tax cut could be appropriately financed.
The plan would also lead to a 29 percent larger capital stock, 6.5 percent higher wages, and 5.3 million more full-time equivalent jobs.
The plan would cut taxes and lead to higher after-tax incomes for taxpayers at all levels of income.
JUST HOW GREAT A PLAN IF WE REMOVE THESE TWO SENTENCES IN ONE SIMPLE MOVE:
REDUCE DEBT SERVICE TO ZERO !
However, the plan would end up reducing tax revenues by $10.14 trillion over the next decade when accounting for economic growth from increases in the supply of labor and capital.
The plan would also result in increased outlays due to higher interest on the debt, creating a ten-year deficit somewhat larger than the estimates above.

This is a proven method: Call the bonds and replace them with 0.25% interest bonds.
Then proceed to pay off the entire Federal Debt?

***The ease with which the government’s debt could be paid in this way was demonstrated in January 2004****
As the chairman of the Coinage Subcommittee observed in the 1980s, the entire federal debt could actually be paid in this way. The Federal Reserve has already established that it can issue $4.5 trillion in accounting-entry QE without triggering hyperinflation. In fact, it has not succeeded in triggering the modest inflation the exercise was designed for. As with QE, paying the federal debt in this way would just be an asset swap, replacing an interest-bearing obligation with a non-interest-bearing one. The market for goods and services would not be flooded with “new” money that would inflate the prices of consumer goods, because the bond holders would not consider themselves any richer than before. They presumably had their money in bonds in the first place because they wanted to save it rather than spend it. They would no doubt continue to save it, either as cash or by investing it in some other interest-generating securities.
The ease with which the government’s debt could be paid in this way was demonstrated in January 2004, when the US Treasury called a 30-year bond issue before its due date. The bonds were redeemed “at par” to avoid a 9-1/8% interest rate, which was then well above market rates. The Treasury’s January 15, 2004 announcement said that payment would be made “in book entry form,” meaning numbers were simply entered into the Treasury’s online money market fund (Treasury Direct). In effect, the money just moved from an online savings account to an online depository account, converting interest-bearing bonds into non-interest-bearing cash.
Where did the Treasury get the money to refinance this $3 billion bond issue at a lower interest rate? Whether it came from the private banking system or from the Federal Reserve, it was no doubt created out of thin air. As Federal Reserve Board Chairman Marriner Eccles testified before the House Banking and Currency Committee in 1935:
When the banks buy a billion dollars of Government bonds as they are offered . . . they actually create, by a bookkeeping entry, a billion dollars.
The US government can just as easily create this money by a bookkeeping entry itself. It can and it should, to avoid the interest charges that compound the national debt and make it unrepayable. Quoting Thomas Edison again:
If the Nation can issue a dollar bond it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good also. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the money broker collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20%. Whereas the currency, the honest sort provided by the Constitution pays nobody but those who contribute in some useful way.http://ellenbrown.com/…/how-obama-could-beat-the-debt-ceil…/

Comments by Justaluckyfool ( http://bit.ly/MlQWNs )
( “You are always welcome to share, copy, plagiarize, improve, etc..any comments.)
Read and challenge:
Frederick Soddy writings, namely “The Role Of Money”
(Entire book as a free download…) http://archive.org/details/roleofmoney032861mbp
FROM A GOOD PERSONAL INCOME TAX PLAN TO A
“AMERICA’S GREATEST PERSONAL INCOME TAX PLAN”.
(1)eliminate FICA on all income of all earnings less than $102K/year.
Giving an automatic 15% raise to all without any increase in money supply or any increase in labor cost.
(Create another 2 million jobs)
(2). Change tax code to : Federal Income Tax to be 1% for income up to $102,000.
with higher percentages for $103,000-500,000 then perhaps,30% thereafter.
Corporate taxes are not federal income taxes, they are  a separate item, perhaps based on percentage of profits.
(3). All taxpayers in the 1% bracket will receive a rebate in an amount equal to 6% of their income.
This is to balance their income so as not to be penalized by sales taxes..

The real honest question is;
IF WE CAN GAIN FEDERAL REVENUE BY TAXATION ON “SOMETHING ELSE”, WHY WOULD WE NOT WANT
PROSPERITY FOR ALL ?

NOW READ……

“QE”=”QE”,BE IT “People’s QE or BERNANKE “QE”,WORTHY OF TWO NOBLES ? PEACE & ECONOMICS?

October 31, 2015
Advertisements

From → Uncategorized

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: