# Tax Bill about to Pass (actually matters)



## wankerness (Nov 30, 2017)

Let's all take a look at something that will actually negatively affect all of us that aren't rich. The tax bill is going to pass at the end of this week unless a few senators suddenly grow a conscience. Those that voted against the health bills are all on board here (one cause it opens up drilling in the national park in Alaska, hilariously). This thing not only raises taxes on anyone making less than 50,000, but it makes steps towards criminalizing abortion, adds in the aforementioned drilling in Alaska, cuts taxes massively on the rich, vastly increases expenses for grad students, and massively increases the national debt (vastly more over time, so the ignorant won't be able to follow cause and effect and vote against those who passed it). The real pain kicks in at 2027, so whoever's in charge then will catch most of the flack. Clever.

Here's a good summary of it. Yes, this particular article is from a "biased" source. No, Fox news isn't covering jack about this since it's massively unpopular with EVERYONE and thus wouldn't have any spot on that channel as it makes their own guys look bad.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Some choice excerpts:


> Some of this re-engineering is straight out of the traditional Republican playbook. Corporate taxes, along with those on wealthy Americans, would be slashed on the presumption that when people in penthouses get relief, the benefits flow down to basement tenements.
> 
> Some measures are barely connected to the realm of taxation, such as the *lifting of a 1954 ban on political activism by churches and the conferring of a new legal right for fetuses* in the House bill — both on the wish list of the evangelical right.
> ...
> ...



This is calamitous and makes me really worried for where my parents are going to be, considering they'll be retired at that point and probably in retirement homes. I don't have any illusions about reaching the 1,000,000 per year income bracket by then, like I think many of the handful of rubes who support this bill do. Bleh.

Carry on!


----------



## bostjan (Nov 30, 2017)

Talk to your representatives about this. I'm in Vermont, so the people representing me are already decided against it, but it won't matter because of all of those states where people are more diverse, politically, who have elected republican congressmen.

This sort of tax structure was tested out in Kansas. It has failed horribly there. This bill has the potential to ruin the USA, economically, and I don't think that's hyperbole. What scant debate there has been about this has boiled down to democrats pointing out the reasons why it's bad, and the republicans saying it doesn't matter because it's passing anyway. Honestly, though, I think the republicans are correct; I don't think there is a way to stop this from happening.


----------



## MFB (Nov 30, 2017)

bostjan said:


> What scant debate there has been about this has boiled down to democrats pointing out the reasons why it's bad, and the republicans saying it doesn't matter because it's passing anyway. Honestly, though, I think the republicans are correct; I don't think there is a way to stop this from happening.



Yup, Republican victory lap


----------



## wankerness (Nov 30, 2017)

One thing that looks like a long shot is that there's some loophole where if they try to cram in certain items that have nothing to do with taxes (in particular, the oil drilling), they have to get 60 votes. If that is the case, I think they can probably easily just slice that off and pass it anyway. Scuzzy, but oh well, that would be a tiny victory.


----------



## Drew (Dec 1, 2017)

I literally can't keep up with this bill.  So, a lot has happened since wankerness's last post - the CBO released their macro effect study and estiumates that the effects of growth will generate $1 trillion less than the bill claims. Then the Senate parliamentarian determined that Corker's trigger provision to increase taxes if revenue targets weren't hit doesn't comply with reconciliation rules, so that's out. 

The GOP is frantically trying to patch together a bill that will get to 50 votes, and McConnell is preparing to bring this to a vote, so he seems to think he's got a chance... But I'll believe it when I see it. Same thing happened with the ACA, though McCain appears to be a committed yes note so unless he's trolling McConnell he won't be the surprise no.


----------



## thraxil (Dec 1, 2017)

But think of the poor private jet owners. They really need this tax cut. It's only fair to make the freeloaders with student loans and mortgages start paying their share to help them out.

(https://www.snopes.com/gop-tax-plan-include-tax-cut-private-jet-owners/)


----------



## Explorer (Dec 5, 2017)

Is it true that Republicans, in their haste to pass this bill, accidentally nullified all corporate tax deductions?


----------



## vansinn (Dec 5, 2017)

I do not specifically follow this taxation debate in the US, but just would like to add that we're seemingly seeing concerted efforts internationally on reducing taxation on the rich on behalf of the less fortunate.

Here in Denmark, a limited number of month ago, a related set of mechanisms were tried.
The numbers were presented as percentages, making it look like lower incomers would get a substantial tax reduction, while high incomers would get a - percentage-wise - rather insignificant tax reduction.

However, when looking at the raw numbers, that is, what the tax easings, when based on actual money on the bottom line, would create, high incomers would stand to have significantly more available, while, say, a nurse, would wind up with round about 1/6th of that (IIR the numbers correctly).

Now, this [Danish] scheme differs from the referred US model, as it actually would result in tax saving for most everyone, though quite small for most. As such, it was a scheme intended to disproportionally favor the rich.

It didn't pass, but just now it has been suggested to ease company taxation, claiming that this would benefit everyone - likely because it could be argued that such tax easing would generate more production and jobs.
Now, this actually could be true; however, it'll depend on obtainable global growth rates, which I do not see climbing too much in a foreseeable future, so again, it looks to me like another attempt on blessing the rich.

I don't mean to specifically enter this discussion on US taxation, jut air some internationalization comments


----------



## Drew (Dec 6, 2017)

Good Bloomberg piece this morning:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...raising-spending-warning-after-tax-bill-costs

Pertinent passage: 


> Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell promised Maine Republican Susan Collins that in exchange for her vote on the tax overhaul, he would put bipartisan health legislation on a must-pass bill before the end of the year. She said she’s spoken to President Donald Trump three times, as well as to GOP Senate leaders and been given assurances that an Obamacare-fix proposed by Republican Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Democrat Patty Murray of Washington will become law by Dec. 31.
> 
> “It’s a very clear commitment,” Collins said. “We have a solid commitment from the White House, so I feel confident” it will be pushed though Congress “by the end of the month.”
> Including this legislation on a spending bill is a non-starter for many House Republicans. Many of them said Tuesday they would under almost no circumstances vote for a continuing resolution that includes Murray-Alexander.
> ...



Trump may be doing a victory lap, but unless Alexander-Murray and some sort of DACA extension is included in a continuing resolution to keep the government open in the next 24 hours, then both Collins and Flake should probably be downgraded from "yes" to "maybe" votes when it comes to the final vote to send this to Trump's desk for a signature, and with a 51-49 vote, they've currently got a margin of only one. 

I still am of the mindset that this is more likely than not to get signed into law, but I think that it's a LOT less certain than most commentators are saying.


----------



## lelandbowman3 (Dec 19, 2017)

Currently hit some issues pointed out by some left-side opposition, having to do a re-vote when it gets finalized.


----------



## Drew (Dec 20, 2017)

It cleared the Senate, and the house will be a formality. So, the "Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to titles II and V of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018" is going to become law. 

Two observations: 
1) Say what you will about the (9 month long process involving lengthy debate, expert testimony, and a long and involved amendment process where the Democrats initially were successful in engaging the GOP before they decided a few months in that it was in their best political interest to present a united front against) ACA... The Republican Party is about to pass the first major rework of the American tax code in 28 years, a bill they only introduced 6 weeks ago, locked their Democratic colleagues entirely out of the drafting and revising process, rushed through so quickly that they accidentally set corporate AMT equal to the corporate rate, is passing with the unwieldy name above because the committee version of the bill was drafted so quickly that they didn't realize it violated Senate procedural rules in a number of areas, including the provision changing its name, and passed on party lines. The majority of the voting public, something like 60%, believes this bill mostly benefits corporations over individual tax payers, and even under the most generous assumptions, the middle class will see take-home pay increase by about the 1-2 percentage points lower their marginal rates will be, despite Republican promises that this will be the biggest tax cut for the middle class ever. The GOP is coming out of this looking both dishonest and incompetent, at a time where they're already far less popular than the Democratic party. 

2) McConnell is in a bind here. He basically promised Collins the world to get her support, but the House has indicated they have no interest in waving pay-go medicare cuts or taking up the Alexander-Murray bill. He'll have a narrow 51-vote majority come January, and if he's seen as making promises he can't keep to one Senator, he'll have way less leverage the next time around. I really don't see what he does from here, if he can't strong-arm the House into delivering for Collins. 



lelandbowman3 said:


> Currently hit some issues pointed out by some left-side opposition, having to do a re-vote when it gets finalized.



I mean, the provision changing the name falling afoul of the Byrd rule for not relating to revenue... The one silver lining here as a liberal making good money in a high tax state is that that's just fucking _hilarious_.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 20, 2017)

If i get laid off on Jan 1. for 6 months and i DONT have to pay a $950 fine at the end of the year for not having health insurance?.....thats a huge pro that i can see!


----------



## narad (Dec 20, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> If i get laid off on Jan 1. for 6 months and i DONT have to pay a $950 fine at the end of the year for not having health insurance?.....thats a huge pro that i can see!



If you get laid off on Jan 1st and on Feb 1st find out you have cancer, that would not be a huge pro for you. And continuing your trend of quoting incorrect numbers, the 2018 fee would likely be the same as 2017, i.e., $695.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 20, 2017)

narad said:


> If you get laid off on Jan 1st and on Feb 1st find out you have cancer, that would not be a huge pro for you. And continuing your trend of quoting incorrect numbers, the 2018 fee would likely be the same as 2017, i.e., $695.


Your right. If i got cancer on feb1 that would be not be a huge pro for me...................and technically you cant say my numbers are quoted incorrectly, then in the same sentence tell me what theyre "likely to be". And even if it were 695, are you seriously trying to justify that as a good thing?


----------



## narad (Dec 20, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> That would not be a pro for anyone..........................and technically you cant say my numbers are quoted incorrectly, then in the same sentence tell me what theyre "likely to be". And even if it were 695, are you seriously trying to justify that as a good thing?



Well I can, because your number was unfounded. Most recent sources state the plan was to continue 2018 at 2017 rates. In the same way it would be wrong to say, "i DONT have to pay the 1.3 million dollar penalty for not having insurance" -- you're pulling that number out of your imagination/asshole (*possibly same place).

It's not great that people have to pay a penalty for not having insurance, but this is the only way we're going to be able to move toward a more effective national healthcare policy.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 20, 2017)

narad said:


> Well I can, because your number was unfounded. Most recent sources state the plan was to continue 2018 at 2017 rates. In the same way it would be wrong to say, "i DONT have to pay the 1.3 million dollar penalty for not having insurance" -- you're pulling that number out of your imagination/asshole (*possibly same place).
> 
> It's not great that people have to pay a penalty for not having insurance, but this is the only way we're going to be able to move toward a more effective national healthcare policy.



1. I thought it was supposed to go up to 950, i didnt pull that number out of my ass.

2. Oh ok. Well I dont think a national healthcare policy is the way to go personally. I dont want a small group of men sitting at a round table dictating how healthcare is going to work for every single person in the entire country. Thats way well and beyond the scope of the function of the federal government.


----------



## narad (Dec 20, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> 2. Oh ok. Well I dont think a national healthcare policy is the way to go personally. I dont want a small group of men sitting at a round table dictating how healthcare is going to work for every single person in the entire country. Thats way well and beyond the scope of the function of the federal government.



Works well in other countries who have far higher general satisfaction with their healthcare services. Like I don't really care, as I don't hang around the US long enough to deal with the system, but it's clearly comparatively defunct against the healthcare systems I do use.


----------



## StevenC (Dec 20, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> 1. I thought it was supposed to go up to 950, i didnt pull that number out of my ass.
> 
> 2. Oh ok. Well I dont think a national healthcare policy is the way to go personally. I dont want a small group of men sitting at a round table dictating how healthcare is going to work for every single person in the entire country. Thats way well and beyond the scope of the function of the federal government.


1. If you're going to engage in political conversations, it's worth engaging in research and fact checking.

2. narad ninja'd me


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 20, 2017)

StevenC said:


> 1. If you're going to engage in political conversations, it's worth engaging in research and fact checking.
> 
> 2. narad ninja'd me


Gimme a D! gimme an I! gimme a C!gimme a K!

Lol oh hey nice of you to chime in SteveC! Im joking here.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 20, 2017)

sorry double post


----------



## narad (Dec 20, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> Gimme a D!.. I! ...C! ....K!



Probably should have gone with the health coverage instead of the penalty.


----------



## wankerness (Dec 21, 2017)

I love how their response to renewing CHIP (healthcare assistance for children nationwide), which is already depleted in some states, was "we can't, we don't have any money" right after they gave a hundred times that amount in in tax cuts to the rich. They already are spinning it as the democrats won't let them cut other programs to pay for it. Rich people are vastly more important than poor children, after all. This country is a nightmare right now.

I wonder how many more months it's going to be before they start cutting medicaid/medicare because "we don't have any money," and will blame THAT one on the democrats, too! GEE, I wonder if it could have anything to do with the trillion dollar tax break for the rich?!


----------



## Randy (Dec 21, 2017)

wankerness said:


> I wonder how many more months it's going to be before they start cutting medicaid/medicare because "we don't have any money," and will blame THAT one on the democrats, too! GEE, I wonder if it could have anything to do with the trillion dollar tax break for the rich?!



Paul Ryan said a week or two ago that they're planning an entitlement overhaul for 2018.


----------



## Drew (Dec 21, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> Well I dont think a national healthcare policy is the way to go personally. I dont want a small group of men sitting at a round table dictating how healthcare is going to work for every single person in the entire country. Thats way well and beyond the scope of the function of the federal government.



You live in Connecticut? I'm sure you'll be relieved to know that you don't have a small group of men sitting at a round table dictating how health care is going to work for every single person in the country, you have TWO small groups of men sitting at a round table dictating how health care is going to work for every single person in the state. 

http://www.ct.gov/cid/cwp/view.asp?q=254440


----------



## Drew (Dec 21, 2017)

Randy said:


> Paul Ryan said a week or two ago that they're planning an entitlement overhaul for 2018.


Political suicide if he does. It's extremely unlikely to make it out of the Senate with a 51-member majority, and it's just going to make the GOP look further out of touch with middle class American families, in the wake of ramming a wildly unpopular tax bill widely seen as a corporate handout through congress in six weeks.


----------



## narad (Dec 21, 2017)

Drew said:


> Political suicide if he does. It's extremely unlikely to make it out of the Senate with a 51-member majority, and it's just going to make the GOP look further out of touch with middle class American families, in the wake of ramming a wildly unpopular tax bill widely seen as a corporate handout through congress in six weeks.



Why would anyone believe in political suicide in the trump era?


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 21, 2017)

Drew said:


> You live in Connecticut? I'm sure you'll be relieved to know that you don't have a small group of men sitting at a round table dictating how health care is going to work for every single person in the country, you have TWO small groups of men sitting at a round table dictating how health care is going to work for every single person in the state.
> 
> http://www.ct.gov/cid/cwp/view.asp?q=254440


It should be up to the states though.

I see nothing wrong with corporate tax cuts, but the middle class should also see tax cuts, given the circumstances that be.

Ideally we should abolish the income tax and replace it with nothing


----------



## Drew (Dec 21, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> It should be up to the states though.
> 
> I see nothing wrong with corporate tax cuts, but the middle class should also see tax cuts, given the circumstances that be.
> 
> *Ideally we should abolish the income tax and replace it with nothing*


What sort of crazed neo-libertarian anarchist circle jerk do you live in?  How do you propose to run a government with no money?  

If you don't mind my asking, how old are you?


----------



## Drew (Dec 21, 2017)

narad said:


> Why would anyone believe in political suicide in the trump era?


Bet you a sick pack it blows up in Ryan's face if he tries.


----------



## narad (Dec 21, 2017)

Drew said:


> Bet you a sick pack it blows up in Ryan's face if he tries.



I would love to see it but I just have doubts that have been reinforced by a year of gigantic political blunders, tasteless comments, and blatant lies -- things which any given one would have been dealbreaker Howard-Dean-scream moments and have instead not just been downplayed, but twisted into some sort of positive. Still rooting for it though.


----------



## Drew (Dec 21, 2017)

narad said:


> I would love to see it but I just have doubts that have been reinforced by a year of gigantic political blunders, tasteless comments, and blatant lies -- things which any given one would have been dealbreaker Howard-Dean-scream moments and have instead not just been downplayed, but twisted into some sort of positive. Still rooting for it though.


Yeah, but somehow it seems that that shtick only works for Trump. Every other candidate who's tried to run as a Trump-esq figure (Gillispie and Moore being the two latest) has gotten their ass handed to them. Something, I hope, Bannon doesn't figure out until AFTER 2018.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 21, 2017)

Drew said:


> What sort of crazed neo-libertarian anarchist circle jerk do you live in?  How do you propose to run a government with no money?
> 
> If you don't mind my asking, how old are you?


Well how did governement function before the income tax law was created in 1913, the same year the federal reserve was created? (What a coincidence huh?! Let me guess thats just some right-wing whackjob-tin-hat conspiracy theory?! Lol. Btw, you think the trump tax plan was hastily pushed....... ............... the federal reserve act was signed in unconstitutionally, (by a democrat) unbeknownst to everyone over christmas break when everyone is home and unaware! Hows that for slick)?

There was no welfare, medcaid, social security to pay for. The government was limited in its responsibilities; like it should still be

We first need to establish the fact that government used to operate without forcefully taxing everyone. This income tax (amendment 16) was never legally ratified, so technically, and especially, we shouldnt be paying income tax!

So this "crazed neo-libertarian anarchist circle jerk" you speak of, used to exist!

And yes i do mind you asking how old I am. Only because you must be thinking "how old is this guy like 5?", in some condesending way. (I hope not, but it seems that way)

Also anarchists and libertarians are two different things.....not sure why you used them both in the same sentence


----------



## StevenC (Dec 21, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> There was no welfare, medcaid, social security to pay for. The government was limited in its responsibilities; like it should still be


If you want to live in 1913, be my guest. Medicine today is indescribably more advanced than in 1913 and as such more expensive. Literally everything was worse.


Unleash The Fury said:


> And yes i do mind you asking how old I am. Only because you must be thinking "how old is this guy like 5?", in some condesending way. (I hope not, but it seems that way)


Not to speak for Drew, but to me, it's ok for a child to be childish and naive. We were all stupider at one point.


----------



## narad (Dec 21, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> There was no welfare, medcaid, social security to pay for. The government was limited in its responsibilities; like it should still be



Yea, but then we didn't like people dying needlessly for rolling a bad hand in life, so we changed things. Everyone's for not having a safety net until they need it.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 21, 2017)

At SteveC


----------



## Descent (Dec 21, 2017)

StevenC said:


> If you want to live in 1913, be my guest.



Depends what you are offering. I'd take my ancestor's position in 2013 in a heartbeat.

Vast amounts of land, livestock, servants and employees, lived to be ninety something old in a house in a small town. Sure, never made it to Italy or Mexico or Spain, or traveled anywhere further than the State capital, but didn't really need to. Had to play a banjo since guitar wasn't as popular (that's downside).

Several market collapses and 2 World Wars with all my family working nonstop we can't seem to get to a 1/10th of his situation. He had it really tough.


----------



## Randy (Dec 22, 2017)

Drew said:


> Bet you a sick pack it blows up in Ryan's face if he tries.



Listened to a lengthy interview with McConnell on NPR this afternoon where he doubled down on this. Now in his telling of it, he insisted it'll have to be done "in a bipartisan way" if it'll have any longevity but we'll see how long they keep up that tack before they turn back to the budget reconcilation loophole to shove it through.

The Republicans are already in uncharted territory, with near record projections regarding turnover in Congressional and local elections in 2018. That didn't stop them from passing a widely panned tax bill. At this point, it's clear delivering on the platform/agenda is a kamikaze mission.


----------



## narad (Dec 22, 2017)

Descent said:


> Depends what you are offering. I'd take my ancestor's position in 2013 in a heartbeat.
> 
> Vast amounts of land, livestock, servants and employees, lived to be ninety something old in a house in a small town. Sure, never made it to Italy or Mexico or Spain, or traveled anywhere further than the State capital, but didn't really need to. Had to play a banjo since guitar wasn't as popular (that's downside).
> 
> Several market collapses and 2 World Wars with all my family working nonstop we can't seem to get to a 1/10th of his situation. He had it really tough.



It's easy to pick winners in retrospect. 

However, there's a lot of people for whom the thought of taking their ancestor's position in 1913 would be like proposing hell on earth. And a lot of would-be people who can't consider that proposition altogether because their "ancestors" died of treatable childhood illnesses, poor working conditions, poverty, starvation, etc., before procreating.


----------



## Drew (Dec 22, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> Well how did governement function before the income tax law was created in 1913, the same year the federal reserve was created? (What a coincidence huh?! Let me guess thats just some right-wing whackjob-tin-hat conspiracy theory?! Lol. Btw, you think the trump tax plan was hastily pushed....... ............... the federal reserve act was signed in unconstitutionally, (by a democrat) unbeknownst to everyone over christmas break when everyone is home and unaware! Hows that for slick)?
> 
> There was no welfare, medcaid, social security to pay for. The government was limited in its responsibilities; like it should still be
> 
> ...


The federal government had the authority to levy taxes under Article 1 Section 7-8 from the moment the Constitution was ratified, and while it primarily raised money via customs taxes, selling public land, and exise taxes, it could and did raise revenue through income taxes. It was temporally halted in 1894 when the Supreme Court deemed it unconstitutional, not because it wasn't allowed under Article 1 Section 7, but because they believed the taxes were not apportioned proportionately by population. The 16th Amendment, proposed in 1909 and ratified in 1913, dropped this requirement. I also have no idea why you think it wasn't legally ratified - it became law on February 3, 1919 when Delaware, the 36th of the 48 states then existing, voted to ratify it, and it was subsequently ratified by a further six states in the following month.

As far as the Federal Reserve, the Supreme Court ruled in 1819 in McCulloch v. Maryland that since Article 1 Section 8 gives the Federal government the power to tax and spend, borrow money, coin money, and regulate the value of money, and that since the Constitution also gives Congress the power to pass all laws necessary to enact the powers vested ion the constitution, then Congress had the authority to create a bank to execute the powers vested in Article 1 section 8. The Federal Reserve Act was the recommendation of the National Monetary Commission, created in 1908, and passed after months of hearings and debate. The Federal Reserve wasn't even the first Federal bank - the Second Bank of the United States was the subject of the 1819 lawsuit, which was enacted after the 20 year charter of the First Bank of the United States expired in 1811.

And the reason I question your age, is because between blatantly factually inaccurate posts like this and your belief that the dollar is somehow "the most un-sound currency you can think of," you have a combination of total ignorance of monetary policy and economic theory coupled with certainty that you know more than anyone else that makes me think you're about sixteen.


----------



## Drew (Dec 22, 2017)

Randy said:


> Listened to a lengthy interview with McConnell on NPR this afternoon where he doubled down on this. Now in his telling of it, he insisted it'll have to be done "in a bipartisan way" if it'll have any longevity but we'll see how long they keep up that tack before they turn back to the budget reconcilation loophole to shove it through.
> 
> The Republicans are already in uncharted territory, with near record projections regarding turnover in Congressional and local elections in 2018. That didn't stop them from passing a widely panned tax bill. At this point, it's clear delivering on the platform/agenda is a kamikaze mission.


1) that should have read six pack.  
2) Right now, the Democrats have the largest lead in a generic party preference horse race poll that an opposition party has ever had, +12 points in 538's weighted average, dating back as far as we have polling history, into the 1930s. Historically, party preference polls in December of the year before a midterm have had a fair degree of predictive power - if Ryan thinks he can force through social welfare cuts after a deficit-building tax bill favoring large corporations over everyday Americans, especially since Trump is pushing for infrastructure and setting up another internal GOP fight, then things could go from truly ugly to... Man, I'm searching for words.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin (Dec 22, 2017)

I just want to say that I really enjoy coming here to listen to others opinions about what is going on. It makes me stop and think. That being said, just sit tight. Try to not let this get you too upset. It won't last forever. It's only a matter of time before all of this backfires and the Country will come back from this huge regression. The Republican scheme is hopefully becoming more obvious to those that aren't rich and vote strictly Republican. In the meantime, I don't think I've ever laughed so much at politics ever! I wish Frank Zappa was alive, I can only imagine what he would have to say about this all.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin (Dec 22, 2017)

Daily double!


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 22, 2017)

Drew said:


> The federal government had the authority to levy taxes under Article 1 Section 7-8 from the moment the Constitution was ratified, and while it primarily raised money via customs taxes, selling public land, and exise taxes, it could and did raise revenue through income taxes. It was temporally halted in 1894 when the Supreme Court deemed it unconstitutional, not because it wasn't allowed under Article 1 Section 7, but because they believed the taxes were not apportioned proportionately by population. The 16th Amendment, proposed in 1909 and ratified in 1913, dropped this requirement. I also have no idea why you think it wasn't legally ratified - it became law on February 3, 1919 when Delaware, the 36th of the 48 states then existing, voted to ratify it, and it was subsequently ratified by a further six states in the following month.
> 
> As far as the Federal Reserve, the Supreme Court ruled in 1819 in McCulloch v. Maryland that since Article 1 Section 8 gives the Federal government the power to tax and spend, borrow money, coin money, and regulate the value of money, and that since the Constitution also gives Congress the power to pass all laws necessary to enact the powers vested ion the constitution, then Congress had the authority to create a bank to execute the powers vested in Article 1 section 8. The Federal Reserve Act was the recommendation of the National Monetary Commission, created in 1908, and passed after months of hearings and debate. The Federal Reserve wasn't even the first Federal bank - the Second Bank of the United States was the subject of the 1819 lawsuit, which was enacted after the 20 year charter of the First Bank of the United States expired in 1811.
> 
> And the reason I question your age, is because between blatantly factually inaccurate posts like this and your belief that the dollar is somehow "the most un-sound currency you can think of," you have a combination of total ignorance of monetary policy and economic theory coupled with certainty that you know more than anyone else that makes me think you're about sixteen.


Not sure where you got all this malarky. Did you get this from IRS.gov?

Yes i know the first bank tried and was never renewed. It nearly ruined the nations economy while enriching the bankers. But the fact that it was never renewed was the reason the war of 1812 was started. 

"as the Constitution explicitly vests Congress with the authority to issue the public currency, does not authorize its delegation, and thus should have required a new Amendment to transfer that authority to a private bank. But pass it Congress did, and President Woodrow Wilson signed it as he promised the bankers he would in exchange for generous campaign contributions." - All Wars Are Bankers Wars.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/SullivanVUSA.pdf

So here we have a federal judge saying it was never legally ratified among the number of states needed.

The funny thing about the internet is you can find sources to back any sides of an argument. I just know better than to believe the official conventional wisdom. People have went missing and been murdered after personally questioniong the IRS about the lawfulness amendment 16. That all the proof in the world to me.



 Allen Russo was the man found dead shortly after this video who "hung himself".


----------



## Drew (Dec 22, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> Not sure where you got all this malarky. Did you get this from IRS.gov?
> 
> Yes i know the first bank tried and was never renewed. It nearly ruined the nations economy while enriching the bankers. But the fact that it was never renewed was the reason the war of 1812 was started.
> 
> ...



Oh jeez, where to begin.

The war of 1812 was fought between the British and the US over trade issues, related to the blockade of France and their forcing US sailers into service, and the fact that they believed we were challenging their naval superiority. The Second Bank of the US was chartered _after_ the war of 1812, to help pay for it, but the fact the first bank wasn't renewed wasn't what the war was started over. You're putting the cart before the horse.

As for your "All Wars are Bankers Wars" quote:


Constitution Article 1 Section 8 said:


> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; ...To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

Congress is authorized by the constitution to engage in banking, and is authorized by the constitution to pass any laws they need to execute these powers. Since it's not practical for Congress to spend their days working as bank agents, they passed a law to create a central (not private, as your author alleges) bank to execute their duties for them. Can you explain to me how that's a violation of Article 1 Section 8?

And you think the 16th Amendment was never ratified by the necessary number of states? The Wikipedia page for the 16th Amendment helpfully lists the states in the order they voted to ratify the amendment. In 1913 there were 48 states; ratification occurred after 36 voted to ratify. How is there any confusion about this?

Also, you gave me a non-searchable PDF of a scanned transcript from a court proceeding about war powers - what am I supposed to be looking for here, exactly?

As you say, "you can find sources to back any argument on the internet." That's because some of them are bullshit. Some of them, however, are not. I'm giving you direct citations from the US Constitution, as well as lists of the order, number, and date of states to ratify the 16th Amendment. This stuff is pretty factually incontrovertible.


----------



## 1b4n3z (Dec 22, 2017)

Not sure why bother, but the eevil secret of fiat money and central banking is the first thing students are taught at a finance and banking course - it's the least opaque conspiracy of modern times. Of course it wasn't fully effective until a deposit guarantee was implemented and regulations imposed on the finance industry. 

Now of course we yearn for the mythical times of bank run every ten years. Well that's easy to arrange luckily


----------



## Randy (Dec 22, 2017)

Drew said:


> 1) that should have read six pack.
> 2) Right now, the Democrats have the largest lead in a generic party preference horse race poll that an opposition party has ever had, +12 points in 538's weighted average, dating back as far as we have polling history, into the 1930s. Historically, party preference polls in December of the year before a midterm have had a fair degree of predictive power - if Ryan thinks he can force through social welfare cuts after a deficit-building tax bill favoring large corporations over everyday Americans, especially since Trump is pushing for infrastructure and setting up another internal GOP fight, then things could go from truly ugly to... Man, I'm searching for words.



Like I said, it's a kamikaze mission. I'm seeing enough signaling the Republicans that this "bipartisan push" in 2018 is talking point they're all using, so clearly it's strategic and probably an obvious attempt at saving their skin. 

In that sense, you're probably right that a big, bold, branded entitlement overhaul isn't likely but starving of relevant agencies, mixed with a heavy handed tax cut in tandem looms large. Red district Republicans aren't going to willfully accept tax cuts with no spending cuts on entitlements and expect to save their jobs either; so you'll likely see entitlement reform through attrition or a threat of shutdown and subsequent extension every few months until something gives.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 22, 2017)

If Thomas Jefferson knew you were posting an "online version" of the constitution claiming it to be the truth, he'd be rolling in his grave.

http://libertyforlife.com/constitution/us-16th-failed-ratification.htm

And fwiw there are actually different versions of the constitution. The Constitution OF the United States vs. The Constitution FOR the United States of America. So its quite probable certain things were edited. Which takes me back to what i said that you can find "proof" to back up any argument no matter what side your on. One persons fact is another mans bullshit. But what you feel is the truth is whats important.

Drew, youve already insulted me twice by assuming my age. So for that reason, im out.


----------



## narad (Dec 22, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> Which takes me back to what i said that you can find "proof" to back up any argument no matter what side your on. One persons fact is another mans bullshit.



One person's fact is another man's fact because that is the definition of a fact.

i.e., You can find "evidence" to support any argument no matter what side you're* on. That doesn't mean your conclusion is equally as valid.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 22, 2017)

narad said:


> One person's fact is another man's fact because that is the definition of a fact.
> 
> i.e., You can find "evidence" to support any argument no matter what side you're* on. That doesn't mean your conclusion is equally as valid.


What i mean is just because you google search something and find it, doesnt make it a fact.


----------



## narad (Dec 22, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> What i mean is just because you google search something and find it, doesnt make it a fact.



Speaking of...



Unleash The Fury said:


> Allen Russo was the man found dead shortly after this video who "hung himself".




_Aaron_ Russo, the man in the video, died of bladder cancer.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 22, 2017)

narad said:


> Speaking of...
> 
> 
> 
> _Aaron_ Russo, the man in the video, died of bladder cancer.


Oh you know him? Try calling out the Fed yourself and see how long you last and then you two will be found dead of "natural causes".

Did i say his name was Allen instead of Aaron? If i did it was my bad. I must have subliminally been thinking of Russel Allen, which their names are similar


----------



## narad (Dec 22, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> Oh you know him? Try calling out the Fed yourself and see how long you last and then you two will be found dead of "natural causes".
> 
> Did i say his name was Allen instead of Aaron? If i did it was my bad. I must have subliminally been thinking of Russel Allen, which their names are similar



So if someone calls out the Fed and dies, you're basically unwilling to accept any form of death as anything less than murder. Suicide...cancer... all just typical Fed plots. I mean, what even are the odds of a 64 yr old white male dying of non-Fed causes? 

Classic case of bending normal observations to fit your pre-conceived belief of their causes. Essentially unfalsifiable.


----------



## Descent (Dec 22, 2017)

Well...considering that so many people were unhappy with the Democrats, main reason why we have the current man in office, I guess we'll just have to learn to live with the fact that both sides will screw us over until we're dead. It is time for 3rd party, long overdue.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 23, 2017)

Descent said:


> Well...considering that so many people were unhappy with the Democrats, main reason why we have the current man in office, I guess we'll just have to learn to live with the fact that both sides will screw us over until we're dead. It is time for 3rd party, long overdue.


Exaclty. The two party system doesnt work for the people. Its a grand design. One that pins half of society against the other half. Arguing back and forth. Killing each other over opinions. Its evident to me now more than ever after Trump took office. Because the people that loved Obama were all hunky dory for 8 years while everyone against Obama were crying the end of the USA as we know it. Now that Obama is out and Trump is in, the roles and claims have literally reversed. The nation flip flopped. The right are now saying the same thing the left was saying 8 years ago and vice versa. (Only difference being is the liberals actually shed tears over it. There were some ridiculous antics from the right when Obama won, but when Trump won, the left took butthurt to a whole new level.)

That being said, a third party will never happen. Not because it shouldnt happen, it just wont be allowed to happen. When Ron Paul ran back in 2012, he was winning the caucuses and everything in the beginning and they downplayed it like a motherfucker. Ita so fucking rigged.......they ousted him real quick!!! Ron Paul doesnt make for a good puppet the way Obama did.

The way i look at it, its like two trains; two completley different trains, but theyre both going in the same direction.


----------



## Hollowway (Dec 23, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> Exaclty. The two party system doesnt work for the people. Its a grand design. One that pins half of society against the other half. Arguing back and forth. Killing each other over opinions. Its evident to me now more than ever after Trump took office. Because the people that loved Obama were all hunky dory for 8 years while everyone against Obama were crying the end of the USA as we know it. Now that Obama is out and Trump is in, the roles and claims have literally reversed. The nation flip flopped. The right are now saying the same thing the left was saying 8 years ago and vice versa. (Only difference being is the liberals actually shed tears over it. There were some ridiculous antics from the right when Obama won, but when Trump won, the left took butthurt to a whole new level.)
> 
> That being said, a third party will never happen. Not because it shouldnt happen, it just wont be allowed to happen. When Ron Paul ran back in 2012, he was winning the caucuses and everything in the beginning and they downplayed it like a motherfucker. Ita so fucking rigged.......they ousted him real quick!!! Ron Paul doesnt make for a good puppet the way Obama did.
> 
> The way i look at it, its like two trains; two completley different trains, but theyre both going in the same direction.



Yeah, I think I generally disagree with some of your posts (I don't think the tax plan makes any sense for the country - just for the wealthy people that "paid" for it) I do agree with this. The two party system is broken, and BOTH are in support of big government. Just different flavors. I think this tax cut is a joke, because the GOP is just going to blow it all on pet projects and military contractors. I'm hugely in favor of small government, personally, but it pisses me off that republicans are only until they need big government. Like, in your case, if you didn't buy health care coverage, are you actually OK with dying? I don't think the government should force people to buy healthcare coverage, either. But since those same people seem to demand free health care when they're sick or dying, I get pissed off that I have to pay for it. I'm totally fine with making it mandatory for everyone, because the very people who say they don't want it go back on their word whenever they're sick. 

I would love to see the two party system challenged by Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders. At least those guys are principled and not in the pockets of Wall Street and other people. I have huge respect for those two, despite the fact that they're on completely opposite sides of the political spectrum, because they have integrity. I'm basically just done with the "lesser of two evils" business we have going now, because (with few exceptions) they're a bunch of sellouts on either side.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 23, 2017)

Hollowway said:


> Yeah, I think I generally disagree with some of your posts (I don't think the tax plan makes any sense for the country - just for the wealthy people that "paid" for it) I do agree with this. The two party system is broken, and BOTH are in support of big government. Just different flavors. I think this tax cut is a joke, because the GOP is just going to blow it all on pet projects and military contractors. I'm hugely in favor of small government, personally, but it pisses me off that republicans are only until they need big government. Like, in your case, if you didn't buy health care coverage, are you actually OK with dying? I don't think the government should force people to buy healthcare coverage, either. But since those same people seem to demand free health care when they're sick or dying, I get pissed off that I have to pay for it. I'm totally fine with making it mandatory for everyone, because the very people who say they don't want it go back on their word whenever they're sick.
> 
> I would love to see the two party system challenged by Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders. At least those guys are principled and not in the pockets of Wall Street and other people. I have huge respect for those two, despite the fact that they're on completely opposite sides of the political spectrum, because they have integrity. I'm basically just done with the "lesser of two evils" business we have going now, because (with few exceptions) they're a bunch of sellouts on either side.


I suppose i can see vouching for free healthcare, given the circumstances that be......... but they shouldnt be so....imo, as you basically just said also in so many words. Rand Paul ftw as far as i can see.


----------



## narad (Dec 23, 2017)

Descent said:


> Well...considering that so many people were unhappy with the Democrats, main reason why we have the current man in office, I guess we'll just have to learn to live with the fact that both sides will screw us over until we're dead. It is time for 3rd party, long overdue.



Yea, it's about time we got screwed over in at least three directions.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Dec 23, 2017)

If any of you believe that a third party is going to change anything, you're sadly mistaken. What can't be bought by money will be bought by threats.


----------



## Descent (Dec 24, 2017)

Well, Trump kinda played the role of 3rd party candidate that the establishment doesn't like rather well, so he was an inside man and outside man at same time 
Personally, I think Obamacare became the worst of all possible worlds, in effect forcing down what used to be called few years prior a "catastrophic" healthcare plan as general healthcare plan and forcing everyone to become a client, everyone minus our elected officials, they have much better health plan.
The catastrophic hc plan for those that don't know was sold to wealthy business owners that didn't want to pay high premiums and only would kick in when things got really bad, usually expenses over $10k. In most aspects this is what got sold to the general public as normal hc plan today.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Dec 24, 2017)

A 3rd party allows for nuance in all parties, instead of the all-or-nothing agenda driven politics a 2 party system blesses us with.


----------



## wankerness (Dec 24, 2017)

The South Park nihilism of both sides being equally bad is totally false. The stuff that has happened under Trump is a nightmare situation compared to the standard old crap that we'd have gotten under Hillary. She'd have continued to serve Wall Street, but she'd have paid lip service to the standard mildly liberal agenda and thus wouldn't have just transferred 1.5 trillion from the poor straight to the rich. And she wouldn't have been saber-rattling on twitter, wouldn't have openly endorsed child molesters, wouldn't have completely alienated every other first world country in the world, wouldn't have ditched net neutrality, wouldn't have tried to blow up the Israel/Palestine situation, wouldn't have just opened up as much national park territory for drilling as possible, wouldn't have just cut off funding for child health care to hold the conservatives hostage, etc.

BUT HER EMAILLLLLSSSSS

At least during the Bush years, the guy attempted to get along with countries and attempted to be presidential in his behavior. Like, when I recently read what he said about Muslims after 9-11 it actually shocked me. He was kind of a dope and an embarrassment, and this kind of division of wealth was increasing, but he wasn't trying to turn the country against itself or loudly proclaim that the news media was lying to everyone or refusing to work with other countries or espousing hateful opinions.

We're really in dangerous territory here and I'm terrified of what more can happen before 2020. I am not optimistic about 2018 given how Senate elections work. TWENTY FIVE democrats (2 are independents who vote w/democrats) have to hold their seats, and only EIGHT republicans can possibly be replaced by democrats. Of those 8, some are guys who have been there for years and years that are locks or are in states where you essentially have to be a child molester to lose an election against a democrat, so everyone's "we'll get em in 2018, we'll vote em all out" is blissfully ignorant. It would be NICE if all 100 seats were up at the same time, and if they were there'd be plenty of reason to be optimistic, but when it's only 33 and there are 25 places where things can go wrong and 8 places where things can possibly improve, it's easy to feel defeated. Cause if this doesn't flip the senate, it's another TWO YEARS of this same highway robbery.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2018

There's a chart towards the end there showing who's going where.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Dec 24, 2017)

^Thing is, it's not exactly untrue about both sides being equally bad. If it's bad, it's bad, regardless of how bad it is. Fuck that, how about some good? Oh that's right... Because neither side truly gives a shit about the people in this country and they would never allow a person who does to take power, and even if they did, the first time they try and get someone to pay their share of taxes or help out with this country's clusterfuck, they would end up getting assassinated. There are people out there that like this country just the way it is because it's in their best interest.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 24, 2017)

PunkBillCarson said:


> ^Thing is, it's not exactly untrue about both sides being equally bad. If it's bad, it's bad, regardless of how bad it is. Fuck that, how about some good? Oh that's right... Because neither side truly gives a shit about the people in this country and they would never allow a person who does to take power, and even if they did, the first time they try and get someone to pay their share of taxes or help out with this country's clusterfuck, they would end up getting assassinated. There are people out there that like this country just the way it is because it's in their best interest.


I whole heartedly agree. But dont tell this to narad or hell make a tin foil hat for you


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Dec 24, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> I whole heartedly agree. But dont tell this to narad or hell make a tin foil hat for you




They're free to believe what they will, I don't give a shit. What I believe is what I believe and I could be right, I could be wrong. It could very well be as simple as a bunch of jackasses who don't know any better holding every possible seat and they just don't know what to do with it, but I just highly doubt it. Everyone's got a superior to some degree.


----------



## wankerness (Dec 24, 2017)

PunkBillCarson said:


> ^Thing is, it's not exactly untrue about both sides being equally bad. If it's bad, it's bad, regardless of how bad it is. Fuck that, how about some good? Oh that's right... Because neither side truly gives a shit about the people in this country and they would never allow a person who does to take power, and even if they did, the first time they try and get someone to pay their share of taxes or help out with this country's clusterfuck, they would end up getting assassinated. There are people out there that like this country just the way it is because it's in their best interest.



You honestly think Donald Trump's presidency is exactly as bad as anyone else's would have been?

The "everything bad is equally bad" argument has always annoyed the crap out of me, and it's REALLY become prevalent recently with that #metoo thing where someone who touched someone's back once is thrown in the same category by those people as violent rapists, but that's something else  Some things are equally bad, others most definitely are not. That's why we have things like misdemeanors vs felonies.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Dec 24, 2017)

When it comes to running the country, I think it's been absolute shit for the last 9 years. I didn't like Obama's reign, I don't like Trump's reign, and I wouldn't have liked anyone else's who would have gotten on that fucking box that everyone "voted" for. Yes, that's right, I put voted with quotes, because if you honestly believe that there are true votes, I don't know what to tell you. And yes, I believe that Trump's "Presidency" is as bad as anyone else's would have been for reasons I have already stated.


----------



## StevenC (Dec 24, 2017)

PunkBillCarson said:


> When it comes to running the country, I think it's been absolute shit for the last 9 years. I didn't like Obama's reign, I don't like Trump's reign, and I wouldn't have liked anyone else's who would have gotten on that fucking box that everyone "voted" for. Yes, that's right, I put voted with quotes, because if you honestly believe that there are true votes, I don't know what to tell you. And yes, I believe that Trump's "Presidency" is as bad as anyone else's would have been for reasons I have already stated.


Not to be obtuse, but if the election is rigged, why not make the electoral college and popular vote match?


----------



## narad (Dec 24, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> I whole heartedly agree. But dont tell this to narad or hell make a tin foil hat for you



I think people find it comfortable to believe in conspiracy theories because it's like watching a Disney movie: everyone's good or bad and there's a reason behind everything. Part of becoming an adult is acknowledging that people are complex in their motivations and prejudices. You don't need the stone masons to explain a group of people systematically pushing policy that makes America to worse to many people -- in fact, they may actually believe they're making America better / truer to the founding principles by their actions.


----------



## Hollowway (Dec 24, 2017)

I despise Hillary, and I didn't vote for her. However, I do think Trump is having a worse effect on the country. Most of the rank and file republicans can't stand him, either. It's clear he doesn't care about, or understand, most of what is going on. I think there is more than one way to run a country successfully, and I'm never 100% sure if it's the Libertarian or Socialist side that makes the most "practical" sense. Certainly, in the world today, aspects of socialism (like many European countries) seems to work well. At least based on the population's life span, happiness, etc. But Trump isn't actually trying to do anything that would help this country. He SAYS (and said) he is, but constantly does the opposite. I have no idea how people can honestly believe that he is helping the middle class and the poor. He hasn't "drained the swamp" at all. In fact, he's doing just the opposite. He used to criticize Obama for golfing, but he golfs way more. He doesn't listen to his advisors, he won't take responsibility for anything, and doesn't research what he's supposed to be dealing with. I know loads of true republicans who just shake their head about what he's doing. The only people who are still fully behind him are the ones that aren't really looking at things with an unbiased view. And I do not believe he's playing 87 dimensional chess, or whatever bullshit people claim when he does stuff like support Roy Moore, and then say he only supported him because he knew he would lose. 
And as I said before, where are the actual republicans of the party? Where is the small government? Where is the no-handouts, pull yourself up by your own bootstraps sentiment that was the outlook of the republicans for decades? Anyone supporting Trump is either not publicly saying what they believe, or they have no core republican values. Trump is handing out more benefits to corps and special interests, going on a spending spree, and cracking down on higher education (taxing tuition), investing (the mandatory FIFO for capital gains), and doing very little to help the average citizen realize "the American Dream." I had very little problem with Obama (mainly that he was too timid) because I felt like the really cared, and actually stuck to a lot of democratic principles. Trump isn't that at all.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Dec 24, 2017)

StevenC said:


> Not to be obtuse, but if the election is rigged, why not make the electoral college and popular vote match?



Who's to say the numbers that were reported were the actual numbers?


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Dec 24, 2017)

narad said:


> I think people find it comfortable to believe in conspiracy theories because it's like watching a Disney movie: everyone's good or bad and there's a reason behind everything. Part of becoming an adult is acknowledging that people are complex in their motivations and prejudices. You don't need the stone masons to explain a group of people systematically pushing policy that makes America to worse to many people -- in fact, they may actually believe they're making America better / truer to the founding principles by their actions.




Except Disney isn't all that straightforward a lot of the time. I don't know what Disney movies you watch, but a lot of the ones I watched as a child, even the villains were multi-dimensional in their way of thinking and why they were the way they were. I just don't see why it's so hard to believe that there is an elite who gives far more of a fuck about how they're getting their money to afford their lifestyles than the way they get it. Once again, I could be right or wrong, you could be right or wrong.

In time, I don't think either of us will be proven either way, it's just something that some of us believe and we believe that most people are willfully ignorant and not open minded enough to even consider our point of view while I'm sure you think that we're absolute batshit crazy for thinking there are overly greedy people in the world, but either way, you're going to have to get it in your head that Government doesn't give a flying fuck about any of us and BOTH sides will lie, cheat, and steal. The only difference in the Republicans and the Democrats (civilian wise) is the difference in opinion about who should be lied to, cheated, and stolen from.


----------



## StevenC (Dec 24, 2017)

PunkBillCarson said:


> Who's to say the numbers that were reported were the actual numbers?


Nobody said that. I wasn't even assuming that.

Now, if I were running the world from the shadows I feel like it'd be easier to not add unnecessary extra steps. If every elected politician is in the pocket of billionaires, why go to the charade of making everything look so divisive? I feel like things would be smoother if it were all a conspiracy. I'd be genuinely disappointed if there turned out to be some ruling elite we don't know about, because they're doing a terrible job for how powerful they must be.

Though having said that, maybe I'm in on the whole thing and just dissenting to throw you off.


----------



## narad (Dec 24, 2017)

PunkBillCarson said:


> Once again, I could be right or wrong, you could be right or wrong.
> 
> In time, I don't think either of us will be proven either way, it's just something that some of us believe and we believe that most people are willfully ignorant and not open minded enough to even consider our point of view while I'm sure you think that we're absolute batshit crazy for thinking there are overly greedy people in the world,



I feel like this quote could be applied to oh so many ideological divides. Most obvious: religion or atheism? For me, I try to lead an objective, evidence-based life when it comes to how the world works. Because many things "could" be the way the world is, but very few of what could exist but can't be proved will actually be the case.

And that's a dangerous line of thinking, and a kind of funny spectrum of increasingly crazy ideas. i.e., Even among many believers in fanciful things, one group will be like, "Of course UFOs exist! The government has known for years!!" "Yea, and there are almost as many sightings of bigfoot!" "Yea! And my house is haunted!" [first group]: "uh, wait, what? We don't believe in ghosts." When your reality is shaped by 1% evidence and 99% speculation and faith, you easily wind up in weird places.


----------



## Ebony (Dec 24, 2017)

StevenC said:


> If every elected politician is in the pocket of billionaires, why go to the charade of making everything look so divisive?



The phrase "divide and conquer" comes to mind.


----------



## StevenC (Dec 24, 2017)

Ebony said:


> The phrase "divide and conquer" comes to mind.


The way Bill's talking, sounds like we're past the conquer bit already.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 24, 2017)

narad said:


> I feel like this quote could be applied to oh so many ideological divides. Most obvious: religion or atheism? For me, I try to lead an objective, evidence-based life when it comes to how the world works. Because many things "could" be the way the world is, but very few of what could exist but can't be proved will actually be the case.
> 
> And that's a dangerous line of thinking, and a kind of funny spectrum of increasingly crazy ideas. i.e., Even among many believers in fanciful things, one group will be like, "Of course UFOs exist! The government has known for years!!" "Yea, and there are almost as many sightings of bigfoot!" "Yea! And my house is haunted!" [first group]: "uh, wait, what? We don't believe in ghosts." When your reality is shaped by 1% evidence and 99% speculation and faith, you easily wind up in weird places.



Something i find funny is that the naysayers of conspiracy theories always use "UFOs and bigfoot" to make their case........the most popular ones. Id be a naysayer too if UFOs and bigfoot were all that was put in front of me or thats all i was exposed to. Those are the most "cooky" ones, so of course that makes it easy to dismiss and laugh at other conspiracies. I went into a bookstore years ago and asked the guy if he had any books on conspiracy or alternative theories in government, and he said oh you mean like UFOs and JFK? I shook my head, bit my tounge and said, yeah like that.

Like i said you have to put your head down in the pig bin and do your own research. You have to sit down by candlelight, with a book and magnifying glass, and do your own research and come to a conclusion only after you have looked at both "sides of the story". Dont dismiss alternative theories without having thoroughly read into them. Obviously there is alot of malarky out there, so take everything with a grain of salt. One might call me a conspiracy theorist but ironically, i dont go near or bother with the UFO and bigfoot stories.

But....... Do you really believe there are no conspiracies in government? In politics? In education? In health? In socio-economics?

And what exaclty do you expect there to be as for as evidence? What kind of evidence do you need to believe in any story? Do you expect someone on the inside to come forth and admit something is true?

For example how about Edward Snowden? Is he just a cooky whackjob or was he a whistleblowing hero who exposed Verizon for spying on its customers? Thats a pretty big conspiracy and its well known. I mean the cats pretty much out of the bag on that one. The average joe like me was saying for years that big brother is spying on everyone they can. Then Edward Snowden came out and blew the whistle, exposing Verizon. So did that actually confirm my belief? Or is that not enough proof for you to believe that?

All one needs to do is look at the symbolism and etymology. For starters, just look at the dollar bill. Why the pyramid? Why the all seeing eye? Why the miniature owl in the corner by the 1 in the corner of the bill? Why would the founders of the Federal Reserve use this symbolism? Why do a bunch of white guys from Germany and England care to use the symbolism of Egyptian style pyramids??? And go from there. Find out where those symbols come from, who uses those symbols elsewhere, and who those people pay allegiance to and why. Follow the money, follow the symbolism. These are important questions that everyone should be asking.

Why at Yale University in New Haven Connecticut is there such thing as a skull and bones lodge? Why the skull and bones symbol? Why the numbers 322 coinciding with the skull and bones. What does 322 mean? Is it not the brotherhood of death? Does the skull and bones not symbolize posion and death? Oh, then we find out that George w. Bush AND John Kerry attended school there and belonged to the same lodge? (Not to mention the atrocoties commited by Prescott Bush). Bush and Kerry are supposed to be adversaries right? One republican the other democrat, go figure! The skull and bones was also used by the Jolly Roger pirates i believe? Those pirates, so ive read, and so i believe, are agents sent out by the King of England in the 1500's to prospect new land and rape whatever resources they can. That was their job. The pirates of course in american culture were romanticized as swash-buckling, treasure-hiding sea-farers. They were savages! Then you realize that these people are also tied in with the British East India Company who exploited countries for and are heavily involved in the opium trade, and how much influence this particular group has had in the world.

Why do i believe in this stuff? Because the way the world is, it cant NOT be true.

These are all important questions that everyone should be asking.

I know this is quite a tangent, but im fired up. By the way, Merry Christmas everyone


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Dec 24, 2017)

^Pretty much everything that needs to be said about it. If people really want to believe that Government holds their best interests at heart, they're free to believe it, I'm just not as trusting as they are and I feel that many and myself have good reason to feel that way.

Also in reply to the question, why make everything so divisive, divide and conquer is one reason, another is to make it seem like you have a choice when you really don't.


----------



## narad (Dec 24, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> Something i find funny is that the naysayers of conspiracy theories always use "UFOs and bigfoot" to make their case........the most popular ones. Id be a naysayer too if UFOs and bigfoot were all that was put in front of me or thats all i was exposed to. Those are the most "cooky" ones, so of course that makes it easy to dismiss and laugh at other conspiracies. I went into a bookstore years ago and asked the guy if he had any books on conspiracy or alternative theories in government, and he said oh you mean like UFOs and JFK? I shook my head, bit my tounge and said, yeah like that.



I'm actually more inclined to believe in UFOs than to believe in a secret cabal of powerful world leaders that manipulate everything -- and like this is the best they've come up with?



Unleash The Fury said:


> All one needs to do is look at the symbolism and etymology. For starters, just look at the dollar bill. Why the pyramid? Why the all seeing eye? Why the miniature owl in the corner by the 1 in the corner of the bill? Why would the founders of the Federal Reserve use this symbolism? Why do a bunch of white guys from Germany and England care to use the symbolism of Egyptian style pyramids??? And go from there. Find out where those symbols come from, who uses those symbols elsewhere, and who those people pay allegiance to and why. Follow the money, follow the symbolism. These are important questions that everyone should be asking.



So they go through all this effort to secretly control everything, but that's all so easy so they had to drop some clues on the dollar bill? It doesn't make any sense. And also hilarious is the thought of keeping a system going for 250 years, as the world around them has completely changed, when basically everything has been uprooted in that time, they are the only constant. Oh, and also none of these guys ever had any form of conscience, and are again, two dimensional characters motivated only towards keeping power for themselves? ::sigh::

This is just a ridiculous thing thing to believe in the face of, "oh yea, the gigantic X industry is lobbying heavily for Y", and pays for ads, and pays for politicians, and pays for votes. Like if you look at the way the system works it's pretty obvious how it is currently being exploited for special interest, but it's not secret, it's right in front of your face -- and you still go looking for an alternative!!

-- to compare this sort of nutjoberry to Snowden is crazy. We all knew the government was monitoring communications of foreign citizens and diplomats. We also knew they were selectively monitoring US citizens domestically, that were flagged as potential terrorists. There's really nothing surprising to me in the reveal -- I think the people who were surprised don't really understand the technology.


----------



## StevenC (Dec 25, 2017)

That's not even close to what a pirate was...


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 25, 2017)

narad said:


> I'm actually more inclined to believe in UFOs than to believe in a secret cabal of powerful world leaders that manipulate everything -- and like this is the best they've come up with?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If someone came to me and told me something that was ass backwards/contrary to what ive leanered and believed my whole life, i would be so interested to learn more about if, wether i believed it or not. I would start to research it to see exactly what the hell said person is talking about. Because thats what open minded people do. Closed minded people just scoff at it and dismiss it.

Its hidden in plain sight. Its right there on the bill and just the like the other 99%, you dont care or believe it means something after all. So that has worked in their favor already.

Im not looking for an alternative as far as the symbolism because like you said its right in our faces. Only im questioning what they mean.

So then it must all just be there for show right? Maybe they had some computer algorithm randomly select some symbols. Maybe the drew pictures from a hat. It must be there for nothing. Carry on.

And about the spying thing, you are refering to the patriot act that allows gov to collect data from people. Well Ron Paul himself has said that the patriot act was written about 20 years ago, tucked away in a drawer, waiting for the right time to be bestowed upon the people. Id call that a huge conspiracy.


----------



## narad (Dec 25, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> If someone came to me and told me something that was ass backwards/contrary to what ive leanered and believed my whole life, i would be so interested to learn more about if, wether i believed it or not. I would start to research it to see exactly what the hell said person is talking about. Because thats what open minded people do. Closed minded people just scoff at it and dismiss it.



By that logic I would be forced to spend my entire life reading up on every religion ever created. We all have to prioritize, so if someone presented some alternative theory with tons of real evidence, I might give it the time of day. Frankly I think you're being closed minded to adopt a belief with so little evidence in the face of the overwhelming evidence for how things actually are and how unbelievably complicated it would be to carry out such large-scale manipulation.

And really I wouldn't care what you think but you keep turning every political thread into a conspiracy thread. There's already a place for that -- _it's the conspiracy thread_. It'd be like if I spent my day clogging up every pickup suggestion thread claiming it doesn't matter because magnets don't exist. Because this bill actually matters, and this nonsense really does not.

All I'm going to say is I pray there's never a day where I wind up accused of a crime in front of a jury of you and 11 like-minded people. "He admits that the last thing he said to her was '_see_ you later', and she was stabbed in the eye! Case closed in my book!"


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Dec 25, 2017)

Wow, that last paragraph was pretty off point, though it did make me laugh. I think there is a difference in showing distrust in Government and believing one way or another whether or not someone committed murder. That's a bit of a fucking stretch if you ask me.


----------



## narad (Dec 25, 2017)

PunkBillCarson said:


> Wow, that last paragraph was pretty off point, though it did make me laugh. I think there is a difference in showing distrust in Government and believing one way or another whether or not someone committed murder. That's a bit of a fucking stretch if you ask me.



There is a difference in showing distrust in Government and believing that government policy is determined for centuries by a secretive cabal of powerful men, forged in ivy league lodges, who undermine our entire democracy in a tradition that goes back to pirates. And who are brazen enough to spell out their existence on the dollar bill just so everyone on the planet can see it. And all the people that find out about it are assassinated (in ways that appear to be natural causes to the skeptics), except for all the people on the internet who talk openly about it. That's a bit of a fucking stretch if you ask me.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Dec 25, 2017)

Well I mean if they just start killing a shit ton of people who even know a little bit about it, it's going to be VERY fucking obvious that something's up and then the jig is up anyways. The only thing protecting them now is a bunch of sheeple who blindly follow them and call everyone else who tries to expose it "nuts." Ever wonder why certain entertainment forms on conspiracies and such are NEVER shut down? Because it'd be the biggest goddamn red flag visible to everyone this side of a functioning brain.


----------



## StevenC (Dec 25, 2017)

I always thought open mindedness was evaluating things fairly on their merits. Spending your whole life researching everything anyone says to you is more like gullibility. Spending all your time researching this stuff and still coming up with your answers is a broken bullshit-o-meter.

On the topic of this tax plan: Americans, I'm so sorry so much of your money is being taken from you and handed to billionaires. I'm so sorry any semblance of affordable healthcare is being taken from you. I hope you guys can bounce back soon and get some better politicians.

On the topic of a two party system: the alternative seems to result in governments that can't from coherent policy and are too weak to implement anything. At least in my recent experience. So maybe that'd work for you libertarians, but then it's just a government that's taxing you and doing nothing.

Things are complicated. Also, if I were some shadow government (which I stress again, I'm not), I don't think I'd care that much about symbolism. Seems like the time spent hiding clues could be spent on literally anything else.

Also, I typed this all on my phone, so persecute me if I've made any spelling or grammatical errors.


----------



## narad (Dec 25, 2017)

PunkBillCarson said:


> Ever wonder why certain entertainment forms on conspiracies and such are NEVER shut down? Because it'd be the biggest goddamn red flag visible to everyone this side of a functioning brain.



On the other hand, if there's no conspiracy, there'd be no one bothered to then request that such sites get shut down...



StevenC said:


> Also, if I were some shadow government (which I stress again, I'm not),



Exactly what a shadow government employee would say! #woke


----------



## StevenC (Dec 25, 2017)

PunkBillCarson said:


> Well I mean if they just start killing a shit ton of people who even know a little bit about it, it's going to be VERY fucking obvious that something's up and then the jig is up anyways. The only thing protecting them now is a bunch of sheeple who blindly follow them and call everyone else who tries to expose it "nuts." Ever wonder why certain entertainment forms on conspiracies and such are NEVER shut down? Because it'd be the biggest goddamn red flag visible to everyone this side of a functioning brain.


Nah man. It's because some people read fantasy novels and some people live fantasy novels.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Dec 25, 2017)

There would be no such things as conspiracies if there were never any reasons for them to exist.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Dec 25, 2017)

StevenC said:


> Nah man. It's because some people read fantasy novels and some people live fantasy novels.



I don't know what else to tell you. Clearly you're not taking this seriously to even consider:


----------



## StevenC (Dec 25, 2017)

PunkBillCarson said:


> There would be no such things as conspiracies if there were never any reasons for them to exist.


Yeah, but analogously, in science when people hypothesize incorrectly based on legitimate observations, they hold their hands up and admit defeat when they turn out to be wrong.

There's no shame in jumping to the wrong conclusion, it's when holding onto those conclusions flies in the face of everything else we know that there's a problem.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Dec 25, 2017)

That's just it, though! This isn't some scientific theory that's turning out to be wrong. You're being fed what everyone WANTS you to believe. All we're asking is to open your mind a little. Trust me, I wish it was as simple as "hey you can trust the Government, they're here to take care of us" and I'm sure that at times there is occasionally somebody who genuinely does, but when someone starts taking care of us, they get assassinated or bought off. If somebody told me with absolute certainty today as in there could be no doubt whatsoever that what we think is happening isn't, then I would be willing to concede, throw up my hands, and admit I was wrong, but there's way in hell I'm willing to take the word of people that I don't trust on that.


----------



## narad (Dec 25, 2017)

How can you post in a thread when you're "out"? These are the conspiracies I'm concerned with.


----------



## StevenC (Dec 25, 2017)

You ever play a Mario game and you try to make a jump that's just a bit too far? Well, when you can show me something that doesn't remind me of some of the more faith based parts of Lost Levels, then I'd be willing to concede, throw my hands up and admit I was wrong.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Dec 25, 2017)

narad said:


> How can you post in a thread when you're "out"? These are the conspiracies I'm concerned with.



He presented a point that I felt I had to counter, so I was back in. Happens on Shark Tank all the time.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 25, 2017)

This thread is about a tax plan that everyone is bitching about because they think Trump is out to get them and fuck them....................but that would be a conspiracy! 

Dont you see the irony in you calling me out about me talking about conspiracies?


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Dec 25, 2017)

StevenC said:


> You ever play a Mario game and you try to make a jump that's just a bit too far? Well, when you can show me something that doesn't remind me of some of the more faith based parts of Lost Levels, then I'd be willing to concede, throw my hands up and admit I was wrong.




You can either believe me or your lying eyes and ears.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Dec 25, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> This thread is about a tax plan that everyone is bitching about because they think Trump is out to get them and fuck them....................but that would be a conspiracy!
> 
> Dont you see the irony in you calling me out about me talking about conspiracies?




Government doesn't fuck people, dude. They're always straightforward and forthcoming about everything they do.


----------



## StevenC (Dec 25, 2017)

PunkBillCarson said:


> You can either believe me or your lying eyes and ears.


And why are mine the lying ones?


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Dec 25, 2017)

StevenC said:


> And why are mine the lying ones?



Because you're still looking at the back of your eyelids.


----------



## narad (Dec 25, 2017)

PunkBillCarson said:


> Because you're still looking at the back of your eyelids.



https://www.reddit.com/r/im14andthisisdeep/


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Dec 25, 2017)

narad said:


> https://www.reddit.com/r/im14andthisisdeep/




And this is how you know that you're wrong and that I'm right. You're resorting to petty trolling to try and get your point across. I think it's safe to say that you're sufficiently blinded.


----------



## Randy (Dec 25, 2017)

I dabble in conspiracies as mostly a function of observation of human psychiatry and because I enjoy "what ifs".

The thing I absolutely can't resolve, say there is a gigantic Rothchild/Bilderberg/Rockefeller conspiracy for the entire world to be run by a single group for all of modern (ancient?) history. So fucking what? Your parents grew up in that world, your grandparents grew up in that world, so on and so on. 

Despite all these machinations, we still live generally long, healthy and fulfilling lives. We're free to do a lot of awesome things, procreate, pursue careers or artistic endeavours of our choosing, and it's been that way for thousands of years. If the invisible hand that are our slave owners are so deviant and scary, why have they allowed us countless generations of mostly decent lives? What kind of Utopia are you thinking we'd be living were it not for the NWO?


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Dec 25, 2017)

Randy said:


> I dabble in conspiracies as mostly a function of observation of human psychiatry and because I enjoy "what ifs".
> 
> The thing I absolutely can't resolve, say there is a gigantic Rothchild/Bilderberg/Rockefeller conspiracy for the entire world to be run by a single group for all of modern (ancient?) history. So fucking what? Your parents grew up in that world, your grandparents grew up in that world, so on and so on.
> 
> Despite all these machinations, we still live generally long, healthy and fulfilling lives. We're free to do a lot of awesome things, procreate, pursue careers or artistic endeavours of our choosing, and it's been that way for thousands of years. If the invisible hand that are our slave owners are so deviant and scary, why have they allowed us countless generations of mostly decent lives? What kind of Utopia are you thinking we'd be living were it not for the NWO?




It's rapidly degrading though. Ever notice how people from back when keeping saying that it's getting worse and worse and more people are dying, getting sick, and slowly but surely this is becoming a world of zombies. Tell me how far you can walk without running into someone glued into their phone. That's what they want. Enslavement and so far, from all the deniers and the "fuck it just let it be" that I've seen in the last couple of hours, they're doing a pretty damn good job, I'll give them that.


----------



## narad (Dec 25, 2017)

Randy said:


> If the invisible hand that are our slave owners are so deviant and scary, why have they allowed us countless generations of mostly decent lives? What kind of Utopia are you thinking we'd be living were it not for the NWO?



For real. Invisible hand + a decent amount of hard work has been pretty good to me. And I'm far, far, far better off than most people born into poverty in non-invisible-hand countries. If I didn't have to read so much fabricated politics in the newspaper, I might even be pro-invisible hand.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Dec 25, 2017)

narad said:


> For real. Invisible hand + a decent amount of hard work has been pretty good to me. And I'm far, far, far better off than most people born into poverty in non-invisible-hand countries. If I didn't have to read so much fabricated politics in the newspaper, I might even be pro-invisible hand.




Well listen, little Bo Peep, you keep carrying on like a good little sheep, stay inside your well-designed keep, for what you sow here, you shall reap.


----------



## StevenC (Dec 25, 2017)

PunkBillCarson said:


> It's rapidly degrading though. Ever notice how people from back when keeping saying that it's getting worse and worse and more people are dying, getting sick, and slowly but surely this is becoming a world of zombies. Tell me how far you can walk without running into someone glued into their phone. That's what they want. Enslavement and so far, from all the deniers and the "fuck it just let it be" that I've seen in the last couple of hours, they're doing a pretty damn good job, I'll give them that.


https://xkcd.com/1601/


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Dec 25, 2017)

Hey, if that's what you want to believe that's all on you.


----------



## Randy (Dec 25, 2017)

PunkBillCarson said:


> It's rapidly degrading though. Ever notice how people from back when keeping saying that it's getting worse and worse and more people are dying, getting sick, and slowly but surely this is becoming a world of zombies. Tell me how far you can walk without running into someone glued into their phone. That's what they want. Enslavement and so far, from all the deniers and the "fuck it just let it be" that I've seen in the last couple of hours, they're doing a pretty damn good job, I'll give them that.


 You don't need some big elaborate conspiracy to feel like things are going "downhill" and just because you feel that way doesn't necessarily make it true either.

I'm not some big science/technology fetishist, but it's undeniable the amount of enhancements to human life through the last few decades. Even your example, I'll gladly take a device "that turns people into zombies" if the flip side of it is that I can call AAA if my car breaks down in the rain on the side of the road in the middle of the night or I can call an ambulance if a loved one had a heart attack somewhere other than in my house.

You're going to have to have a complaint a little less abstract than people being universally distracted to convince me the modern age is measurably worse than what preceded it.

To that end, I've met a lot of people on the internet who became friends in real life. If this theory about some kind of forced isolation through technology is true, they're doing a piss poor job since my "tribe" (theoretically the band of people I could team with if some authoritarian regime sought to imprison us) is larger with the use of technology, not smaller. Anyone from this site who's gone to a concert and picked out someone else from the forum while talking at the merchandise booth knows this to be true.

If the complaint is that it's rude for people to be on their phones while there's other people around, the point is well taken but there's zero utility in drawing some overarching point from it. People will use anything to distract them. Sometimes the company you're forced to keep isn't as interesting as the company on the other end of the telephone. 

Like I said, I dabble in conspiracies. I find some things interesting and in some extreme cases, at best you have whistle blowing (see: Watergate) but typically you just have a Rube Goldberg contraption of logic just to explain otherwise mundane things.

I'm personally not a big fan of the volatility of the job market or the economy as a whole of the last 15 - 20 years, and I think we do get overtaxed for the quality of representation and services we get, but that doesn't need an explanation beyond basic greed and laziness that's existed since the dawn of time. You don't need an invisible hand to do any of that.


----------



## Drew (Dec 26, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> If Thomas Jefferson knew you were posting an "online version" of the constitution claiming it to be the truth, he'd be rolling in his grave.


Well, it's a little hard to share a paper copy with you, considering this is a conversation we're having over the internet.  Still, will you take a picture of the original? And, is there a particular place where you think the excerpts I've shared are inaccurate?



Unleash The Fury said:


> What i mean is just because you google search something and find it, doesnt make it a fact.


I hope you appreciate the extreme irony of this statement. 

But, what the fuck, let's go with it. Just because it's available on the internet doesn't automatically make it NOT a fact either, or clearly the sources you're sharing are factually inaccurate, as well (which as it happens they are - narad has already pointed out the guy who was "murdered" for questioning the Fed actually died of natural causes, but that's neither here nor there). Rather, there's a whole lot of information out there, and some sort of determination has to be made over what's reliable and what isn't. There's a bunch of ways you can be increasingly sure you're working with reliable information, but as a general rule working with original source documentation (for example, the US Constitution) is generally pretty reliable. Is it possible that the site I linked you to had an incorrect copy of the constitution on it, differing in content from the original? Sure, it's possible... But the passages I quoted correspond closely with my memories from studying US history, from seeing the original in Washington, from conversations with constitutional law scholars, and the changes made in the 16th Amendment make sense when evaluating the original article, so for the passage I quoted to be a fabrication, it would have to be a pretty massive internet-wide conspiracy, so wide that even your "conspiracy theory busting" Liberty for Life website doesn't talk about how Article 8 doesn't give the power to levy taxes, and they themselves would have to be in on the conspiracy for what I shared to be false. Which, I think you'll agree, seems a stretch.

Now, on that site... They give 10 possible reasons for a ratification to be ignored, including: _"Approval, but with change in wording, accepted as ratification of original version," "Approval, but with change in spelling, accepted as ratification of original version," "Approval, but with change in capitalization, accepted as ratification of original version," "Approval, but with change in punctuation, accepted as ratification of original version." _This represents the bulk of the reasons for throwing out ratifications.

So, I'd say that's nitpicking, and arguing that minor spelling, punctuation, and capitalization differences mean the Amendment shouldn't be considered ratified isn't a sound objection. You're going to disagree, of course. However, let's take this another step back - the Constitution was ratified in a similar manner to Amendments, and came into effect after the vote to ratify of 2/3rds of the member states. And, as you yourself point out, there are slight differences in wording, spelling, and capitalization in different copies of the original _Constitution_, and very likely were slight differences, therefore, in the versions voted on to ratify. Do those slight differences invalidate the whole consitution, and mean that the document our government was found on and which you view as the basis for the belief that the 16th Amendment was, as you put it, "unconstitutional," _never actually became the law of the land in the United States? 
_
Of course not. Because that whole line of argument is absurd. And, as a general rule, if the best argument you can make against something is "everything on the internet is false!" rather than actually making an argument on a factual basis... It's probably because you're arguing for a position that CAN'T be substantiated by fact. Worth thinking about.


----------



## vilk (Dec 27, 2017)

_Obviously, baseless rumors are especially true when they coincide with my preexisting opinions and biases. Duh!! If you don't believe me, then prove the negative of this totally foundation-less rumor that I typed on the spot based on a Youtube video I saw! C'mon, sheeple! Sad. 

_
On a related note, have you noticed that rainy days make you feel sad or cold? That's because The Weather Channel puts gervnerment chemicals in the rainclouds to control your mind. Why the hell you think it's cold and depressing when it rains? It seems so obvious. If you fold up a 1950s $2 bill, you can see a gervnerment rain cloud chemical upsidown in the mirror on the corner


----------



## Randy (Dec 27, 2017)

Alright, enough of the sniping. We literally just went over this and it goes both ways. The threads getting locked for a little while and we'll try this again to see if we can get on topic and more importantly, maintain some decorum.


----------



## Randy (Dec 29, 2017)

Alrighty, lets give this another shot, shall we?


----------



## narad (Dec 31, 2017)

Randy said:


> Alrighty, lets give this another shot, shall we?



Everyone's too scared hahah


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 31, 2017)

^ And with good reason. Well...........unless your on the left then you have nothing to worry about. (It seems)

Everyones already expressed their opinion. And unless 100% of the people that contribute to this thread identify with the same political ideology, theres always going to be head bashing. Might as well not even bother then.


----------



## Randy (Dec 31, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> ^ And with good reason. Well...........unless your on the left then you have nothing to worry about. (It seems)
> 
> Everyones already expressed their opinion. And unless 100% of the people that contribute to this thread identify with the same political ideology, theres always going to be head bashing. Might as well not even bother then.



Pro-tip: Last guy you sparred with (USmarine) is not a lefty. You're not conservative either, near as I can tell you're an anarchist. All the people even remotely taking your side are doing so in a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" way because there is absolutely not rational underlying ideology to anything you've posted in this subforum.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Jan 1, 2018)

Randy said:


> Pro-tip: Last guy you sparred with (USmarine) is not a lefty. You're not conservative either, near as I can tell you're an anarchist. All the people even remotely taking your side are doing so in a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" way because there is absolutely not rational underlying ideology to anything you've posted in this subforum.


Really you think im an anarchist? I am not.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Jan 1, 2018)

^I am not trying to tell you what to do but it seems you thoroughly enjoy being on this site, so I implore you not to go down the same path I did yesterday. I don't disagree with you on a lot of this, I just don't want to see you get banned.


----------



## Drew (Jan 2, 2018)

Unleash The Fury said:


> Really you think im an anarchist? I am not.


I'd be curious to hear what your ideology actually is, then. 

You want large chunks of federal law overturned, including the (Constitutionally granted) ability of the federal government to levy taxes, and apparently you're also calling for the abolition of the US central bank. I can't see how you could do either, much less both, without destroying the value of the US Dollar and leading to a full-scale collapse of the federal government - at a minimum, we'd have to default on our outstanding debt, as well as no longer be able to pay US troops and public sector employees. I guess I'm willing to hear out arguments that you're not advocating for anarchy, but in practice it seems like the dissolution of the federal union is the pretty clear ending of a lot of the steps you're advocating for.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Jan 3, 2018)

Drew said:


> I guess I'm willing to hear out arguments that you're not advocating for anarchy, but in practice it seems like the dissolution of the federal union is the pretty clear ending of a lot of the steps you're advocating for.


You "guess"? It sounds like youve already made up your mind about where you think i stand.


----------



## StevenC (Jan 3, 2018)

Unleash The Fury said:


> You "guess"? It sounds like youve already made up your mind about where you think i stand.


You asked a question, he answered it rationally based on what you've told us. He asked you a question*, and you're dodging it. If can't form your own coherent ideology, how is anyone else supposed to figure it out for you?

(*A question can be asked without a question mark)


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Jan 3, 2018)

Wow. Just wow.

1. My question wasnt even for him.

2. My question wasnt for you.

3. this thread was temporarily locked so that should have been the hint for everyone to cool off. Yet Drew is still persistent on finding out what my political ideologies are (which I find cute, btw), after insulting me previously by asking me my age twice.

4. Why do you care exactly?

5. You really should get cheerleader of the year because youve earned it. You never have anything to add. You just sit back and wait for someones rebuttal so can click the like button. You must be sick from all the popcorn youve been eating by now.

So 1+2+3+4+5 = 

@Randy. Im trying to be good and lay low but people want to keep things going and stay off topic


----------



## StevenC (Jan 3, 2018)

Unleash The Fury said:


> Wow. Just wow.
> 
> 1. My question wasnt even for him.
> 
> ...



Welcome to group discussions.
See 1.
a) I didn't comment until you made two low effort posts that step around two points directed at you, the flagrance of which I see as the opposite of cooling off. Not to mention it was Randy who both locked this thread and started the line of enquiry/contemplation. b) "Cute" has as much connotation of infancy as you think Drew had when asking your age.
I care because not answering the question seems equivalent to trolling. I've been part of this thread for a few pages now (on entering you called me a dick, you might recall), so in the spirit of actual discussion, I care.
And finally, for someone who constantly complains about being insulted you don't extend the same courtesy you demand.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Jan 3, 2018)

StevenC said:


> Welcome to group discussions.
> See 1.
> a) I didn't comment until you made two low effort posts that step around two points directed at you, the flagrance of which I see as the opposite of cooling off. Not to mention it was Randy who both locked this thread and started the line of enquiry/contemplation. b) "Cute" has as much connotation of infancy as you think Drew had when asking your age.
> I care because not answering the question seems equivalent to trolling. I've been part of this thread for a few pages now (on entering you called me a dick, you might recall), so in the spirit of actual discussion, I care.
> And finally, for someone who constantly complains about being insulted you don't extend the same courtesy you demand.


Ive already disclosed in this thread or another (basically everyone that contributes in this political section, contributes to all these threads. I see the same people involved in every single thread. So if he missed where said what my beliefs are, oh well.

Basically, I dont feel like going through it again explaining myself. This thread has been exhausted. Hence the low effort posts

The dick joke was more reffering to you being a cheerleader, hence the emoticons. And if I recall, by my definition, you were being a dick. Cheerleaders have to spell something right?


----------



## StevenC (Jan 3, 2018)

Unleash The Fury said:


> Ive already disclosed in this thread or another (basically everyone that contributes in this political section, contributes to all these threads. I see the same people involved in every single thread. So if he missed where said what my beliefs are, oh well.
> 
> Basically, I dont feel like going through it again explaining myself. This thread has been exhausted
> 
> The dick joke was more reffering to you being a cheerleader, hence the emoticons. And if I recall, by my definition, you were being a dick. Cheerleaders have to spell something right?


And you're being a child.


----------



## bostjan (Jan 3, 2018)

On topic...
California, it seems, is going to try a tax loophole where you can donate your state tax and they'll match it dollar for dollar, such that you can deduct it from your federal tax. New York has said they might do the same. It'd be a way for Blue states to get back at the TOP for raising taxes on them, but it'll probably face a court battle.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Jan 3, 2018)

bostjan said:


> On topic...
> California, it seems, is going to try a tax loophole where you can donate your state tax and they'll match it dollar for dollar, such that you can deduct it from your federal tax. New York has said they might do the same. It'd be a way for Blue states to get back at the TOP for raising taxes on them, but it'll probably face a court battle.


Source please?


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jan 4, 2018)

Unleash The Fury said:


> Source please?



https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/31/business/high-tax-states-law.html


----------



## Randy (Jan 4, 2018)

Bravo on everyone who helped get things back on topic. 

Its late and I'm on my phone, so it's too difficult to do a full clean up of this thread but I'm making it known here, I don't mind drifting mildly OT if it's at least modestly related but if we're going to get back into personality discussions, take them to PMs. That's the policy going forward. No more name calling and dissecting people on the open forum.

Also, the wheels turn slow but there are unbiased bans coming down for some of the shit that went down in the last week that will make clear this new policy (it's actually not new, just needed to be dusted off because of the volume of OT lately and yes that goes both ways)


----------



## Drew (Jan 4, 2018)

Unleash The Fury said:


> Wow. Just wow.
> 
> 1. My question wasnt even for him.
> 
> ...


Actually, he posted more or less what I would have, though I probably would have phrased it a little more tactfully. 

But, to answer your question, yeah. I don't expect to be persuaded, but I promise to make an honest attempt to hear you out and give your argument fair consideration, provided at least you can stop jumping down my throat long enough to explain what you DO consider yourself.


----------



## Drew (Jan 4, 2018)

bostjan said:


> On topic...
> California, it seems, is going to try a tax loophole where you can donate your state tax and they'll match it dollar for dollar, such that you can deduct it from your federal tax. New York has said they might do the same. It'd be a way for Blue states to get back at the TOP for raising taxes on them, but it'll probably face a court battle.


I also saw a proposal being floated around that would allow you to make a charitable donation to the state in lieu of paying state income taxes, on CNBC a couple days back, which may be what you're referring to as well. Other states could definitely follow suit.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Jan 4, 2018)

Drew said:


> Actually, he posted more or less what I would have, though I probably would have phrased it a little more tactfully.
> 
> But, to answer your question, yeah. I don't expect to be persuaded, but I promise to make an honest attempt to hear you out and give your argument fair consideration, provided at least you can stop jumping down my throat long enough to explain what you DO consider yourself.



I dont consider myself to be affiliated with any political party. Though I do agree with most libertarian ideologies. (A "true" libertarian wouldnt believe in having any borders, and im not sure if i agree with that.)

As for the fed, I cant put it better than the man himself.


Yes, you are correct that by ousting the fed right now everything would collapse. Absolutley. But i think as crazy as it may sound, that thats what we actually have to do to fix the economy. This system needs to be uprooted and needs to go back to its true roots to issuing its own greenback-esque, sound money. Its not necessarily loaning money at interest thats the problem, the problem is when the banks lend out your money. Because then everything at that point is like you said, based in "good faith". And that only goes so far when given the congress gave the control of our money supply, unconstitutionally, to a secretive banking cartel. Ron said that "much of our prosperity is based on borrowing rather than a true increase in production." Its true. 

The fed is literally "banking" on the fact that everyone isnt going to come into the bank to withdrawl all their money at the same time. The name of the game is fractional reserve banking. But to add to the problem, this government keeps spending and borrowing to no end. So the fed keeps issuing more money, devaluing the dollar everytime they do. Like Dr. Ron Paul said, the dollar today is worth about 4 cents due to what it was when it was created in 1913 (adjusted to inflation).

Two presidents were assaissinated for trying to prevent these type of banking systems from having control. ""Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" — Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild. Quotes like this should scare people because such a banking system shouldnt have so much power and influence. Woodrow Wilson officially signed in the fed, and was quoted later on regretting that decision and he basically didnt realize what he had just done. Our forefathers warned us of these venomous types of banking systems.

I remember Trump saying during the campaign that he would default on all our debt I believe. I dont see him doing that though.

Your right, getting rid of the fed would cause everything to tank. But keeping things status quo with more quantitative easing will make the bubble bigger and bigger and will inevitably burst eventually. So there i think a complete overhaul, of some sort, which would be absolutley catastrophic, is needed. I dont have all the solutions, but this system is not working. I agree with you in that the fed is doing a good job in keeping things afloat........the problem is, its all artificial. But weve already been down this road.

"But how will services be paid for?" I believe weve been down this road as well. As far as the army, im not sure if your referring to a "standing" army or not, but all i know is that we shouldnt have 800 military bases around the world! So we can worry about how to fund the army once we get rid of all of those bases that are not in the United States.

Having a standing army is expensive. Always being in a state of war is expensive. Maybe we dont need to have either. We dont always need to be the offending aggressor all the time.

And ill admit, i couldnt find any "proof" that the 16th amendment was never legally ratified. Though i still believe we shouldnt be paying a "Federal" income tax.


----------



## Drew (Jan 4, 2018)

I'm literally face-palming as I read that. Partly because of what it DOES contain, and party because you STILL didn't answer my question of what your idealogy actually is, if not anarchy.  You just explained a lot of what you're _opposed to_, but nothing you're actually _for. 
_
Anyway, forget I asked. Don't feed the trolls, folks.

EDIT - you also probably don't actually understand what the consequences of a sovereign default would be for everyday citizens like you and I. Venezuela and Argentina are pretty instructive here - the former is experiencing hyperinflation (expected to break 30,000% this year) as its currency collapses thanks to defaulting earlier last year, whereas Argentina is finally recovering from their default in late 2001, was only able to access the bond markets again within the past year (because no one was crazy enough to buy their bonds before), and they too experienced a period of severe inflation, running as high as 20% a _month_ for a while in the early 2000s. As it happens, defaulting on debt is actually staggeringly _bad_ for the strength of a currency, rather than making it more sound.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Jan 4, 2018)

And im literally LOL because you apparently dont understand that the ideology of a libertarian is one that believes in LIMITED government. Ive never said i wanted NO government at all. So im still laughing at you thinking im an anarchist, when i have never said anything remotley close any beliefs that anarchists have.

The funny thing is, is Ive answered your other questions but you must have glazed over that part


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Jan 4, 2018)

Drew said:


> I'm literally face-palming as I read that. Partly because of what it DOES contain, and party because you STILL didn't answer my question of what your idealogy actually is, if not anarchy.  You just explained a lot of what you're _opposed to_, but nothing you're actually _for.
> _
> Anyway, forget I asked. Don't feed the trolls, folks.
> 
> EDIT - you also probably don't actually understand what the consequences of a sovereign default would be for everyday citizens like you and I. Venezuela and Argentina are pretty instructive here - the former is experiencing hyperinflation (expected to break 30,000% this year) as its currency collapses thanks to defaulting earlier last year, whereas Argentina is finally recovering from their default in late 2001, was only able to access the bond markets again within the past year (because no one was crazy enough to buy their bonds before), and they too experienced a period of severe inflation, running as high as 20% a _month_ for a while in the early 2000s. As it happens, defaulting on debt is actually staggeringly _bad_ for the strength of a currency, rather than making it more sound.


Where and when did i specifically advocate for defaulting on debt? Did you read my post or just glaze over it? And ill add to that, that if you are one who wants this country to head more toward socialism, then we will end up exactly like Venezuela


----------



## bostjan (Jan 4, 2018)

Unleash The Fury said:


> Your right, getting rid of the fed


Watch your "your" and "you're" - I don't think @Drew has the right to get rid of the fed, unless he's more powerful than I ever had imagined. 

@Drew : I think him saying he's for rather extreme libertarian principles should say it all - libertarians generally favour less regulation, and the more extreme the libertarian, the fewer regulations. I guess a libertarian taken all the way 100% would be an anarchist...sort of. I do think that we libertarians do tend to agree that there is a role for government in protecting the lives of their own citizens, at least.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Jan 4, 2018)

bostjan said:


> Watch your "your" and "you're" - I don't think @Drew has the right to get rid of the fed, unless he's more powerful than I ever had imagined.
> 
> @Drew : I think him saying he's for rather extreme libertarian principles should say it all - libertarians generally favour less regulation, and the more extreme the libertarian, the fewer regulations. I guess a libertarian taken all the way 100% would be an anarchist...sort of. I do think that we libertarians do tend to agree that there is a role for government in protecting the lives of their own citizens, at least.


Im typing from my cell phone, so please tolerate my unintended mis-spellings and improper punctuations


----------



## 1b4n3z (Jan 4, 2018)

Unleash the Fury, if you will, what does getting rid of the central bank and fractional reserve banking do to the economy? What does it mean in terms of income growth, distribution and stability? People must know!


----------



## StevenC (Jan 4, 2018)

Unleash The Fury said:


> Im typing from my cell phone, so please tolerate my unintended mis-spellings and improper punctuations


Admittedly, my European socialist lifestyle has afforded me a fancy phone, but when I type "youre" it autocorrects to "you're".


----------



## Drew (Jan 4, 2018)

Unleash The Fury said:


> Where and when did i specifically advocate for defaulting on debt? Did you read my post or just glaze over it? And ill add to that, that if you are one who wants this country to head more toward socialism, then we will end up exactly like Venezuela


I'm a financial professional - while I believe in the value of social safety net programs, I also sure as shit am pro market.  

Well, you seem dissapointed that Trump didn't follow through with his pledge to default on the debt... But, over and above that, doing away with federal taxation would rob the federal goverment of virtually all of its revenue, and the US Treasury needs revenue to meet debt service, so... yeah, you either advocated for defaulting, or you advocated for a series of policies which would _lead_ to defaulting, without being aware that a default would be the inevitable conclusion. 

But, neither here nor there. So, you're not opposed to ALL government, then, just LIMITED government? What sort of government do you think is the Goldilox amount, then? Where do you see it organized geographically, how do you see it generating and spending money, what do you think it should be responsible for? Basically, what do you want government to DO?


----------



## Drew (Jan 4, 2018)

bostjan said:


> Watch your "your" and "you're" - I don't think @Drew has the right to get rid of the fed, unless he's more powerful than I ever had imagined.
> 
> @Drew : I think him saying he's for rather extreme libertarian principles should say it all - libertarians generally favour less regulation, and the more extreme the libertarian, the fewer regulations. I guess a libertarian taken all the way 100% would be an anarchist...sort of. I do think that we libertarians do tend to agree that there is a role for government in protecting the lives of their own citizens, at least.


At a minimum, as I understand libertarianism (and correct me if I'm wrong), it's essentially a belief in property rights, that the government doesn't have the right to your property or to tell you what to do with it. Which requires SOME form of government, to protect the rule of law.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Jan 5, 2018)

Drew said:


> I'm a financial professional - while I believe in the value of social safety net programs, I also sure as shit am pro market.
> 
> Well, you seem dissapointed that Trump didn't follow through with his pledge to default on the debt... But, over and above that, doing away with federal taxation would rob the federal goverment of virtually all of its revenue, and the US Treasury needs revenue to meet debt service, so... yeah, you either advocated for defaulting, or you advocated for a series of policies which would _lead_ to defaulting, without being aware that a default would be the inevitable conclusion.
> 
> But, neither here nor there. So, you're not opposed to ALL government, then, just LIMITED government? What sort of government do you think is the Goldilox amount, then? Where do you see it organized geographically, how do you see it generating and spending money, what do you think it should be responsible for? Basically, what do you want government to DO?


I want them to do what they were originally supposed to do. I also want them to let banks and business fail instead of bailing them out.

Also just remember, the federal income tax wasnt fully implemented until the 1900's; so they have operated for quite some time prior to the federal income tax


----------



## Drew (Jan 8, 2018)

Unleash The Fury said:


> I want them to do what they were originally supposed to do. I also want them to let banks and business fail instead of bailing them out.
> 
> *Also just remember, the federal income tax wasnt fully implemented until the 1900's; so they have operated for quite some time prior to the federal income tax*


No it wasn't.  The first income tax occured during the Civil War, and while it took the 16th Amendment to settle the question of constitutionality of the method of levying the tax, income taxes were in use WELL before the 1900s.  

And, you're still telling me what you want governments to NOT do. What do you actually want them to do? What services should the government provide?


----------



## bostjan (Jan 8, 2018)

I think he's referring to the personal federal income tax during peacetime, and by fully implemented, he means fully implemented without the courts knocking it down. 

Personal federal income taxes were passed in congress for the War of 1812, just to raise money for the war, but the war ended before the taxes could be collected, so it was a moot issue. Again, during the Civil War, but again, because of the circumstances between the people, the states, and the federal government, around the Civil War, the efficacy of the tax is questionable, and it went away at the end of the war. Congress tried again just before the turn from the 19th to the 20th Century, and the courts declared it unconstitutional, so Congress responded by amending the Constitution so that they could implement the tax without the courts nullifying the laws. State income taxes were another topic entirely, as was business tax, so the statement is fairly narrow, but, indeed, it is what most people mean when they say "the federal income tax wasn't fully implemented until the 1900's," which is factually correct when all of those little caveats are included.



Drew said:


> And, you're still telling me what you want governments to NOT do. What do you actually want them to do? What services should the government provide?



I'm kind of shocked that this would be considered a rational demand, as worded. It'd be like reading the ten commandments in the Bible: "thou shalt not this and thou shalt not that, oh, and also make sure you keep the Sabbath," and Moses said "I cannot accept those rules, because it wasn't descriptive enough about what I _*can*_ do."

Some people are democrats. It's easy enough for those people to enter a political discussion by saying, "Hi, I am a Democrat."
Some people are republicans. It's easy enough for those people to enter a political discussion by saying, "Hi, I am a Republican."
Some people might identify with one of these two parties, but disagree with a couple of things, but it's just easier to say one or the other.
Then you have independents, who, evidently, are required to explain their entire detailed set of political beliefs before they can enter the discussion?! That's a little frustrating for me, as someone who disagrees equally with both parties and also sometimes agrees with one party with one issue yet with the other party on another issue.

Personally, I see no problem in taking the stance of "I don't think the federal government should be allowed to _verb_." If that precipitates a counter argument of "well, we kind of need _verb_ in order to have _noun_," then that's a great way to have a discussion.


----------



## StevenC (Jan 8, 2018)

bostjan said:


> Personally, I see no problem in taking the stance of "I don't think the federal government should be allowed to _verb_." If that precipitates a counter argument of "well, we kind of need _verb_ in order to have _noun_," then that's a great way to have a discussion.


Entering a discussion about specific taxes by saying "there should be no taxes" and then repeating it endlessly isn't a great way to have a discussion either.


----------



## Randy (Jan 8, 2018)

bostjan said:


> Personally, I see no problem in taking the stance of "I don't think the federal government should be allowed to _verb_." If that precipitates a counter argument of "well, we kind of need _verb_ in order to have _noun_," then that's a great way to have a discussion.





StevenC said:


> Entering a discussion about specific taxes by saying "there should be no taxes" and then repeating it endlessly isn't a great way to have a discussion either.



Okay, so here's a compromise... if you are opposed to a federal income tax, how do you prescribe the federal government fund itself and *whatever* programs you think it should administer?

Is that fair?


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Jan 8, 2018)




----------



## narad (Jan 8, 2018)

There goes the military.


----------



## Randy (Jan 9, 2018)

Okay, so, anarchist confirmed then. Moving on.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Jan 9, 2018)

^ Fwiw I believe the caption should instead read "Without federal income tax, how would things get paid for?".

I do believe in some government. Just minimal. I want them to make sure the court systems are fair and just; that is their job.....obviously we need some form of military to protect from enemies both foreign and abroad. I just dont want my taxes to fund an army that has 800 bases around the world.

That chart is not a representation of libertarianism, but i think its funny anyways.


----------



## StevenC (Jan 9, 2018)

I don't know how things are in America, but where I come from the police force has a tendency to work better for one part of the community than the other. Therefore, I would prefer not to have a private police service.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jan 9, 2018)

StevenC said:


> I don't know how things are in America, but where I come from the police force has a tendency to work better for one part of the community than the other. Therefore, I would prefer not to have a private police service.



Yeah, it's like that over here just significantly worse. :/


----------



## StevenC (Jan 9, 2018)

Also, a private police service sounds like an ineffective way for a judiciary to operate.


----------



## bostjan (Jan 9, 2018)

The line between extreme libertarian and anarchist is typically regarded as a publicly funded military/national guard and police department.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems like there's a little bit of a dogpile going on here. I won't comment as to how much deserved or undeserved it is, whether it be directed at me or toward @Unleash The Fury , but:



StevenC said:


> Entering a discussion about specific taxes by saying "there should be no taxes" and then repeating it endlessly isn't a great way to have a discussion either.


I thought that the discussion was about the income tax, and making the argument of the form "you are opposed to peacetime personal income tax" = "there should be no taxes" (repeated endlessly) is simply a hyperbole, and I don't think it makes for an argument that will be respectful to both parties involved.



Randy said:


> Okay, so here's a compromise... if you are opposed to a federal income tax, how do you prescribe the federal government fund itself and *whatever* programs you think it should administer?
> 
> Is that fair?


As pointed out already, the USA existed for over a hundred years without implementing a peacetime personal income tax. We have a lot, and I mean _*a lot*_ more federal programs now than we had before there was a peacetime personal federal income tax. I believe that there are serious problems with each of these programs, so they either need to be repaired or eliminated. I understand that eliminating them all indiscriminately would be a huge shock to the US economy at the fundamental level, so I would never suggest that; however, some programs that are flawed at their very premise should be re-evaluated to determine what problem they intended to solve, and then that problem should be addressed another way. This is such a broad topic (how do we fund government programs in general) that it's bound to be a wall of text that follows, if I'm even going to attempt to discuss this can of worms.

For example, social security. The premise is that the federal government takes control of everyone's retirement accounts. Young people pay in, and old people take money out. The program also costs some money to operate. Well, to be frank, this program simply cannot work unless the population is increasing, and honestly, it shares too much strategy with the Ponzi Scheme to not shock anyone with half a thought about what it actually is. So, IMO, the whole thing needs to go away - actually, I think it's simply a matter of time before it has to go away or at least be restructured to siphon off tax funds from the general fund in bulk. At any rate, it was a bad premise from the beginning. Just save your own money. People who don't save their own money for retirement shouldn't have a proper retirement. If you are disabled from working, that's not "retirement," so let's keep comparing apples to apples before anyone goes there. Others who face financial hardships should rely on the community, since this is a community issue and not a government issue. If an entire community faces financial hardship, from what we've seen, the federal government bats somewhere between 0 and 10% at effectively helping the community out of trouble, so the communities would be better off asking each other for help.

Health care is an issue that I think you could be very logical about and end up in one of two opposing stances; however, I feel quite strongly that the healthcare industry itself is taking advantage of sick people. Healthcare is way more expensive than it ought to be. Sure there is an advantage in keeping a high cashflow into the healthcare industry to bud new innovations, but frankly, when medical companies are using public funds to research whether Spiderman could actually stick to a wall, or whether a healthy diet gives people a lower mortality rate than a junk food diet, etc. It's a waste of fucking money, and when the funds come from the government, we are all paying for those shit studies. When these things are privately regulated, there are still problems when there is an excess of money flowing in. It's probably a very unpopular rationalization, but it's simple deduction that making laws to make sure that healthcare providers are financially accessible to everyone, without any regulation on how much the actual costs are, just contributes to the excess costs overall. It's like if I made bread cost $5000 per loaf, and then had a tax in effect such that anyone who can prove that he or she cannot afford a $5000 loaf of bread gets a tax credit to make that bread cost $2500, $1200, $600, or $300, depending on the maximum amount that person can afford. Well, shit, the bread is still way more expensive than it ought to be, the breadmakers are going to be raking in barrels of cash, and people are still going to have a hell of a time budgeting bread into their diets. We're going through the same thing with healthcare in the USA. The healthcare economy is sooo bloated with red tape and we are just adding more and more red tape to try to manage the existing red tape. Eventually, the whole thing is going to burst and we'll have a serious problem. The tug-o-war going on between the Dems and the GOP over addressing the problem or not will just lead to endless compromises that yield a half-assed attempt which will ultimately just accelerate the problem.

The postal service is pretty essential. It does predate the peacetime personal federal income tax a bit, even though it is a publicly funded federal program, but now its funding is quite visibly not keeping up with federal spending in general. Maybe some of you were around when there was a serious discussion about charging a fee for emails. I mean, providing someone with electronic mail might not be as expensive as mailing a physical letter, but it does cost something to whomever provides the service, yet email ended up being free to send and receive. Hmm, the private sector won that round, since there is no better price for users than free. For parcels, USPS is competing with DHL, UPS, FedEx, etc., and the postage rates are all on par with each other. If the post office shut down today, I think UPS et al would be able to start offering an envelope delivery service to the public in a matter of months or maybe weeks, but they'd probably lose some significant portion of important letters and bills in the changeover. At any rate, even as a former postal worker, I think that life could continue without the postal service, should funding dry up.



StevenC said:


> I don't know how things are in America, but where I come from the police force has a tendency to work better for one part of the community than the other. Therefore, I would prefer not to have a private police service.



The police services in the USA are typically funded by the city or town (or municipality). There are also state-funded police, who typically are responsible for rural areas and interstate highways. We have some jurisdiction problems as a result. Maybe I'm on the interstate highway in the city of St. Clair Shores, Michigan, and I get pulled over by a cop from the City of Detroit, and he writes me a ticket for going 68 miles per hour in a 65 mile per hour zone. (This happened to me years ago) According to the City of Detroit, he was within his jurisdiction to do so. According to the State of Michigan, he did not. The conundrum for me is to choose to stick to the principles of logic and have the state and the city hash it out for years while I rot in a jail cell in a city that is notorious for having like 3 murders per day on average, or to pay the ticket and have the problem continue for everyone else. At the time, I chose the latter option. There are also jurisdiction problems in Vermont, where I live now, because no one seems to know where the legal town limit (border) lies. Sometimes people call the police and are told that it's not in their jurisdiction, even when it is, which means that no one will help. Obviously, if you have a lot of social status, this is far less likely to happen.

I could rant for hours about why the policing culture in the USA is totally fubar. I know it's not even close to being the worst, but honestly, when I lived in Detroit and Indianapolis (actually moreso in Indy), I felt I was more likely to be harmed by the police than by a criminal. The police are often stressed out and on edge in cities like those, at least when they are responding to a 911 call. And, in the 1980s and 1990s in Michigan, it was "acceptable" for the cops to shoot a suspect who was trying to evade, armed or not. That's changed now, but back then when it was just one person in an encounter with a cop, the cop would be able to kill the person and, if no one was around to see, the cop could just say that the person tried to run away and that would be the end of it. So, it has been getting a lot better than it used to be, but I think we have a really long way to go before we are near "ideal."


----------



## vilk (Jan 9, 2018)

When we look at the ratio at which we spend on military, I think part of the solution is glaringly obvious. If we cut our military spending _in half_, we'd still have _by and far_ the largest military budget, and also *hundreds of billions of dollars* to put to better use.

Maybe it's only me, but I feel like people my age who have seen the infrastructure of the USA go downhill while we spend like fiends on a war that we basically don't care about whatsoever is going to see greatly reduced military budgets in the future. It's desensitized me or something. I don't even care if everyone in whatever sovereign nation(s) have some problem, it shouldn't be the responsibility of the American government to bail them out. If some people want to donate to private paramilitary companies that go out and kill the "bad guys" in whateverstan then by all means burn that skrilla, but I think it's morally/ethically corrupt to use the money of pacifists to fund a war they don't want. Spending that money on a national defense force is just fine, but spending on foreign wars of aggression? It's unacceptable.


----------



## bostjan (Jan 9, 2018)

vilk said:


> When we look at the ratio at which we spend on military, I think part of the solution is glaringly obvious. If we cut our military spending _in half_, we'd still have _by and far_ the largest military budget, and also *hundreds of billions of dollars* to put to better use.
> 
> Maybe it's only me, but I feel like people my age who have seen the infrastructure of the USA go downhill while we spend like fiends on a war that we basically don't care about whatsoever is going to see greatly reduced military budgets in the future.


+3.6x10E74

Obamacare was estimated to cost $110B/year. According to William Hartung, the military wastes a $33B on spoiled surplus supplies. So...

If just running the military at the size it is without ordering excess supplies that pass their shelf lives before use could pay for one third of the ACA, imagine how much money the USA could save by scaling back international operations and simply focusing on domestic defense.


----------



## Randy (Jan 9, 2018)

bostjan said:


> As pointed out already, the USA existed for over a hundred years without implementing a peacetime personal income tax.



Not to totally sidestep the rest of your argument but the minutae doesn't matter a whole lot when this is a large enough fallacy on it's own.

Stating the obvious but you've pointed out that a government in a world entirely different from now, 100+ years ago was able to exist without a "peacetime person income tax", which is an entirely different argument from saying it's practical in 2017. ALSO stating the obvious, they had it that way and obviously decided it was in their best interest to implement the tax; which I'm sure was a hard sell, so they must've had good reason why the current system was necessary.

Also, you're both starting to REALLY piss me off with "OMG, this is too OT, these arguments are unfair" stuff. We're actually down to talking tax in a tax thread and you're still pulling this shit. You're not the fucking moderators and you don't decide what's too far off-topic, I do and if you don't like it,don't fucking come in here.


----------



## narad (Jan 9, 2018)

StevenC said:


> Also, a private police service sounds like an ineffective way for a judiciary to operate.



Hey, works great for the US penal system.

huehue...penal system...


----------



## bostjan (Jan 9, 2018)

Randy said:


> Not to totally sidestep the rest of your argument but the minutae doesn't matter a whole lot when this is a large enough fallacy on it's own.
> 
> Stating the obvious but you've pointed out that a government in a world entirely different from now, 100+ years ago was able to exist without a "peacetime person income tax", which is an entirely different argument from saying it's practical in 2017. ALSO stating the obvious, they had it that way and obviously decided it was in their best interest to implement the tax; which I'm sure was a hard sell, so they must've had good reason why the current system was necessary.
> 
> Also, you're both starting to REALLY piss me off with "OMG, this is too OT, these arguments are unfair" stuff. We're actually down to talking tax in a tax thread and you're still pulling this shit. You're not the fucking moderators and you don't decide what's too far off-topic, I do and if you don't like it,don't fucking come in here.



It is a different world now, and there is no nation on earth quite like the USA, but there are still a few sovereign nations that do not collect a personal income tax, most of them either in the Middle East or the Caribbean, but there are also a couple others. But as I was trying to explain in my wall of text, it's really just about balancing the budget: less money in means less money out. If the federal government spends more, the states should be spending less, so I think that's why we've moved more toward a federal income tax as power has shifted more and more toward federal government. My personal issue is that the federal government doesn't do a very good job handling these programs efficiently, so a lot of tax revenue simply ends up being wasted.



bostjan said:


> Maybe it's just me, but it seems like there's a little bit of a dogpile going on here. I won't comment as to how much deserved or undeserved it is, whether it be directed at me or toward @Unleash The Fury



That was a regrettably vague statement on my part. I was trying to say something halfway clever about the political philosophies of the forum in general manifesting against another political philosophy with which two forum users seem to identify, yet probably don't really represent, but I got really lazy with that and it came out totally wrong. Sorry about that.


----------



## Randy (Jan 9, 2018)

bostjan said:


> If just running the military at the size it is without ordering excess supplies that pass their shelf lives before use could pay for one third of the ACA, imagine how much money the USA could save by scaling back international operations and simply focusing on domestic defense.



Well THIS is an entirely different kettle of fish than frontloading your arguments about the federal government by calling into question "peactime personal income tax" as a whole.

I'm a Democrat, not ashamed to say that but it's inaccurate to interpret that as thinking it means I'm "tax and spend, tax and spend, redistribute wealth, etc". There are hilarious levels of waste, fraud and abuse in government, in every agency, every department and at every level. My close family has worked in public office a lot of my entire life, as have close friends and I've worked WITH government and on a number of campaigns. I understand the number of ways the government can waste money, and it's not like I (or any reasonable person) agree with this continuing.

Actually, I think *most* major parties and even the bigger independent parties are a lot closer on these issues than they seem sometimes. We all understand the importance of the military and police, we understand the importance of roads and bridge, the importance of healthcare, etc. There's just a difference in opinion of what's the most efficient way of doing so; whether that's in reference to cost effectiveness or quality of services.

My position, I don't think our tax system is insanely, wildly out of whack. There's not much I want to do with my life that's entirely out of reach on a fair income in the current system, or like I'd be living like a king if there were no taxes at all. My biggest issue is that, for WHAT we pay, the quality of services we get in return is piss poor. I don't mind paying $10 for a cheeseburger at a decent restaurant, but I'm not going to pay $10 for a McDonald's cheeseburger. Once that comes into focus, you have a choice of deciding if the quality of the service is too low, or the tax burden for it is too high; to me, that's decided on rationally arriving at the importance of the service that's in question and objectively analyzing what's a fair level of service for all who participate. 

The problem we currently have is these insanely wild ideological swings every couple years, mixed with "career government workers"/departments with bloated budgets and a healthy dose of corruption. Republicans come in and overspend on their pet projects, which bloats the budget to them to an unreasonable level, people get sick of that so Democrats take control and overspend on THEIR pet projects but the departments protest so the opposing department budgets never shrink back to their original size, and everything just gets bigger and bigger, while the quality of service stays the same or gets worse. The only difference between me and Libertarians in that regard is that I don't think the solution is slashing the budget and tax system to zero; its to audit the departments top to bottom, eliminate what's necessary to shrink some (or a lot) of them back to realistic size and place an increased focus on results and on stability.


----------



## jaxadam (Jan 9, 2018)

Randy said:


> it's practical in 2017.



It's 2018 bro.


----------



## Randy (Jan 9, 2018)

jaxadam said:


> It's 2018 bro.



Yeesh, you're right. That last thing I want to do is put more time back on the clock.


----------



## Randy (Jan 9, 2018)

bostjan said:


> That was a regrettably vague statement on my part. I was trying to say something halfway clever about the political philosophies of the forum in general manifesting against another political philosophy with which two forum users seem to identify, yet probably don't really represent, but I got really lazy with that and it came out totally wrong. Sorry about that.



NP. Things come across a lot different in typing sometimes. I get your point better now and I hope my last post (the longer one) clarifies that understanding.


----------



## Drew (Jan 9, 2018)

Randy said:


> Okay, so, anarchist confirmed then. Moving on.


No shit, right? 



bostjan said:


> I think he's referring to the personal federal income tax during peacetime, and by fully implemented, he means fully implemented without the courts knocking it down.
> 
> I'm kind of shocked that this would be considered a rational demand, as worded. It'd be like reading the ten commandments in the Bible: "thou shalt not this and thou shalt not that, oh, and also make sure you keep the Sabbath," and Moses said "I cannot accept those rules, because it wasn't descriptive enough about what I _*can*_ do."


Two things - maybe I'm being unfair by taking him at face value, but if UtF says "there was no income tax before the early 1900s," to me, that sounds like he believes there was no income tax before the 1900s. That's categorically untrue.

And, your second question, put it back in context - "I'm not an anarchist, I think there should be some limited government." "Ok, sure. What do you think that government should exist to do?" "I think it shouldn't do this, this, and this." It's a totally fair question to someone who claims they believe there should be a government and they're not actually an anarchist, because, well, I don't think it's wildly unfair to argue that anything you think should exist should exist for a _reason_, you know?

I don't think there's dog-piling going on, per se, so much as a broad attempt to get UtF to commit to what he actually believes in, if not anarchy. But, if this is dogpiling, it's certainly not aimed at you nor is it aimed at libertarianism. 

EDIT - and just saw your apology for the vagueness there. That makes my explanation less necessary, but whatever - carry on.


----------



## Drew (Jan 9, 2018)

Randy said:


> Not to totally sidestep the rest of your argument but the minutae doesn't matter a whole lot when this is a large enough fallacy on it's own.
> 
> Stating the obvious but you've pointed out that a government in a world entirely different from now, 100+ years ago was able to exist without a "peacetime person income tax", which is an entirely different argument from saying it's practical in 2017. ALSO stating the obvious, they had it that way and obviously decided it was in their best interest to implement the tax; which I'm sure was a hard sell, so they must've had good reason why the current system was necessary.
> 
> Also, you're both starting to REALLY piss me off with "OMG, this is too OT, these arguments are unfair" stuff. We're actually down to talking tax in a tax thread and you're still pulling this shit. You're not the fucking moderators and you don't decide what's too far off-topic, I do and if you don't like it,don't fucking come in here.


Also, the bigger change IMO between ther 1800s and the 1900/2000s is probably the _mix_ of taxation. In the 1800s we did have periodic income taxes levied, but we relied much more heavily on trade tarrifs, excise taxes, duty taxes, stamp taxes, etc, and other forms of taxation on economic activity. In tthe 1900s and onwards we moved from taxing activity to taxing the gains from activity, which from a pure market standpoint I'm a fair amount more comfortable with, because it discourages economic activity less than a gains-based approach to taxation (if you're taxed on the income you gain from engaging in a particular transaction, then high volume, low profit transactions still make economic sense, whereas in a transaction-based taxing structure, the tax costs of transaction quickly make the activity uneconomical. Income tax is essentially a taxation on outcomes, rather than on process, and places the highest taxes (in dollar terms) on the best outcomes, rather than the most attempts. It's a little more pro-growth than a transaction-based tax, which is what we relied on before income tax became more broadbased.


----------



## bostjan (Jan 9, 2018)

1. So, under the new tax laws, I don't think I'll see much of a change in my income taxes, overall. I think it looks like I'll be paying a little less base tax and a little more in fees and whatnot. I don't think anyone within the USA would consider me rich by any standard, since I essentially have <1% of my income left after I pay my bills, groceries, and taxes, and I don't have a TV or any leisure expenses other than guitar picks and strings every once in awhile.

I'm curious as to how many people on this forum would be affected, but I don't want to get personal and actually ask. 

2. 



Randy said:


> Well THIS is an entirely different kettle of fish than frontloading your arguments about the federal government by calling into question "peactime personal income tax" as a whole.



As far as eliminating the personal income tax from federal law - honestly, it's a hypothetical discussion at [almost] every level. No congressman would vote to nuke the tax completely, so it's just an academic discussion. I do think, from a purely mathematical perspective, the libertarian philosophy could work if enough people were behind it, but in reality, the majority of people in the USA will always demand government services, so this sort of hard-line libertarianism will never get anyone anywhere. If you want government services, you have to pay for them with taxes. I would like to think that any modern libertarian would identify and acknowledge that reality. Then again, I still voted for Gary Johnson, even though I personally think the guy would be a disaster as president (I just happened to think that every candidate that was actually on the ballot would have been a disaster for different reasons, and that the disaster Johnson would have caused would have been one that I could have been better equipped to handle).

3. 



Randy said:


> My position, I don't think our tax system is insanely, wildly out of whack. There's not much I want to do with my life that's entirely out of reach on a fair income in the current system, or like I'd be living like a king if there were no taxes at all. My biggest issue is that, for WHAT we pay, the quality of services we get in return is piss poor. I don't mind paying $10 for a cheeseburger at a decent restaurant, but I'm not going to pay $10 for a McDonald's cheeseburger. Once that comes into focus, you have a choice of deciding if the quality of the service is too low, or the tax burden for it is too high; to me, that's decided on rationally arriving at the importance of the service that's in question and objectively analyzing what's a fair level of service for all who participate.



I agree. It's not that bad. It wasn't that bad before. Maybe it is a little worse for some people now than it was before, especially those in states like NY, NJ, CA, and new england. I kind of hate to see things go in the wrong direction even when it's not that bad, though.

The government is terribly inefficient at many many things, but, to be fair, they are the most efficient option at some things. I certainly don't want to give up most government services myself. If I were the president, I would try to push for careful reforms. That is, keeping things as they are whilst trying to figure out the ideal place for things to be and then figuring out how to bridge between without causing the US to collapse before changes could take effect. I disagree with Trump most where he wants to go into things swinging without really providing the public with any logical rationale.

4.



Randy said:


> The only difference between me and Libertarians in that regard is that I don't think the solution is slashing the budget and tax system to zero; its to audit the departments top to bottom, eliminate what's necessary to shrink some (or a lot) of them back to realistic size and place an increased focus on results and on stability.



Well, hmm, I think it's safe to say that political opinions are a sort of spectrum in several dimensions rather than a black and white right or left. I really don't think that Libertarian ideology gets that extreme, or at least I didn't think so until 2016 or so, even if it does admittedly lean more that way than any of the "other third parties."

There's freedom, and there's chaos. Personally, I define freedom recursively. Freedom is the ability to do whatever you want, so long as it does not limit another person's freedom. It's a bit sticky, since every freedom we have has to mould around everyone else's freedoms. An anaolgy: you can swing your arms around all you want, as long as no one else is near you. As soon as your arm's reach overlaps with another person's arm's reach, your freedom is changed a little to make sure everyone still has equal rights. I think a "libertarian" would be keen on that definition, but probably democrats and republicans would sometimes agree as well with that sort of approach. 

But there are so many different kinds of "libertarians" (wikipedia) that it's maybe become a silly term to use anymore.

When it comes to specific policies, I bet that you and I would generally not differ too much.

5.



Drew said:


> Two things - maybe I'm being unfair by taking him at face value, but if UtF says "there was no income tax before the early 1900s," to me, that sounds like he believes there was no income tax before the 1900s. That's categorically untrue.
> 
> And, your second question, put it back in context - "I'm not an anarchist, I think there should be some limited government." "Ok, sure. What do you think that government should exist to do?" "I think it shouldn't do this, this, and this." It's a totally fair question to someone who claims they believe there should be a government and they're not actually an anarchist, because, well, I don't think it's wildly unfair to argue that anything you think should exist should exist for a _reason_, you know?



I was putting a hell of a lot of words into another person's mouth, regrettably. The "infographic" provided after the fact pretty much served me those words I said on a plate with a little ketchup on the side to eat them.

I used to be a card-carrying Libertarian, with a capital L, and since the Bob Barr era, I've forgotten, on occasion, that I've drifted far away from the party's current platform, and especially from some of the other idealists who identify with the party.

6.



Drew said:


> I don't think there's dog-piling going on, per se, so much as a broad attempt to get UtF to commit to what he actually believes in, if not anarchy. But, if this is dogpiling, it's certainly not aimed at you nor is it aimed at libertarianism.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Jan 9, 2018)

Drew said:


> No shit, right?
> 
> 
> Two things - maybe I'm being unfair by taking him at face value, but if UtF says "there was no income tax before the early 1900s," to me, that sounds like he believes there was no income tax before the 1900s. That's categorically untrue.
> ...


I did answer your question. You must have missed it.


----------



## Drew (Jan 16, 2018)

bostjan said:


> I was putting a hell of a lot of words into another person's mouth, regrettably. The "infographic" provided after the fact pretty much served me those words I said on a plate with a little ketchup on the side to eat them.
> 
> I used to be a card-carrying Libertarian, with a capital L, and since the Bob Barr era, I've forgotten, on occasion, that I've drifted far away from the party's current platform, and especially from some of the other idealists who identify with the party.
> 
> 6.


...and this is why, while I think you're completely and utterly wrong, I'd still happily grab a beer with you if the opportunity ever presented itself.


----------



## Drew (Jan 16, 2018)

To, ahem, go briefly back on topic, Gov. Cuomo just released his FY19 state budget, which includes 1) the creation of a new employer-based payroll tax to alleviate the impact of the state tax cap, and 2) the creation of two charitable funds New Yorkers can donate to in order to fund the state's education and health care needs, respectively, and in return can receive a state tax credit. Charitable deductions are of course still federally tax deductible.


----------



## bostjan (Jan 16, 2018)

Drew said:


> To, ahem, go briefly back on topic, Gov. Cuomo just released his FY19 state budget, which includes 1) the creation of a new employer-based payroll tax to alleviate the impact of the state tax cap, and 2) the creation of two charitable funds New Yorkers can donate to in order to fund the state's education and health care needs, respectively, and in return can receive a state tax credit. Charitable deductions are of course still federally tax deductible.





bostjan said:


> On topic...
> California, it seems, is going to try a tax loophole where you can donate your state tax and they'll match it dollar for dollar, such that you can deduct it from your federal tax. New York has said they might do the same. It'd be a way for Blue states to get back at the TOP for raising taxes on them, but it'll probably face a court battle.



I hope Vermont follows that path as well, but knowing how VT is about taxes, they probably won't.


----------



## Drew (Jan 16, 2018)

bostjan said:


> I hope Vermont follows that path as well, but knowing how VT is about taxes, they probably won't.


Your property taxes are high enough that this could have an outsized impact on you. I know a few other states, CA most notably, are exploring similar avenues. 

Whether or not it'll withstand IRS scruitiny or legal challenge is another question, but I believe Louisiana did something similar to the "charitable donation" thing a number of years ago and the IRS signed off on it, so there's actually a reasonably clear legal precedent for that aspect.


----------

