The irony of the cry for less government

a huge military to protect a tiny libertarian govt and 330 million people is not something libertarians conservatives and Republicans object to.

 

I agree with that comment, but emphasizing that a person does not owe their success to "society" or the government, and society and the government do not have any claim to a persons success.

 

More government just leads to equal poverty for everyone. Quit trying to justify being a lazy bum and stealing from your betters. Go get a job.

 

Far as I know taxes are only levied to fund government...

 

Are you really the naive? With lots of money, way beyond the reach of most. I would suggest that if you want to have the details then you do some research starting with the cost of the patent.

 

No...I mean in reality...and try history...government costs always increase because population increases as well as demand...

 

I'm not sure what world you live in but it's definitely not reality. When was the last time the poor paid taxes? Welfare benefits are not taxable. Looking up tax rates on the net is very simple, you should try it before making idiotic statements.

As to the soup, of course the rich pay more. You reach for a can of trash called Campbell's for $0.50 and they reach for the can of Wolfgang Puck Organic for $3.00. More than likely they would go to a restaurant and pay $7-10 for fresh organic soup.

 

I'm not your search engine, either look it up for yourself or continue to ignore reality.

 

translation: as a typical liberal I can t answer the question but will hold my position anyway because I don't really believe in reason; I just know in my heart I"m right. Ever see a conservative who has to run from a debate?

 

so are you saying its ok to discriminate against the rich?? Would it be ok to discriminate against their practice of religion too?[/QUOTE]

 

no my question was if you are comfortable with the rich paying more for govt are you also comfortable with them paying more in a supermarket for a can of the same soup that anyone else buys.

 

The issue is, is it rising on a per capita basis. If it is that's a huge problem for our founders, if its rising becuase there are more people then its not a problem for our founders. Do you understand now?

 

As long as people get rich under Republican capitalism that is a very good thing. If you invent something like an affordable smart phone that makes everyone richer you can be very rich too. We want to give every possible incentive, for example,to the people who are working hard to cure the heart disease or cancer that we will all get one day. Do you understand?

 

all agree, and??????????????????? do you know what a strawman is?? Its very bad when you cant see your own strawman.

 

I wasn't arguing with you so no it isn't a strawman. I was clarifying you are speaking to the wrong person and then stated my position. Your "strawman" is a strawman.

 

You said "toss them overboard" you were pretending that someone wanted to toss people overboard when no one did. You created a strawman.

 

It's "crazy" to love freedom and allow for everyone to peacefully follow their own conscious. Command and control of the lives of strangers is "normal". Well, call me crazy then. I'd rather be crazy and kind than "normal" like you and desire violent sociopaths to rule over me and everyone else.

 

Yes, we want to take over the world and leave everyone alone. That's intolerable to "normal" people who need rulers to tell them how to behave.

 

our Founders were extreme libertarians and they created the greatest country in human history by far. Their Constitution has one major purpose: prevent liberal govt.

 

Apologies for the length, I hope you find this interesting.

We tend to think of taxes and spending like this:


The reality is that taxing and spending isn't circular, it's linear. Like this:


The difference between taxes and spending are the assets that the private sector uses as money. The problem is, there is so much money in circulation mixed with so much private debt, we cannot "see" the linear nature of the system.

In the chart above, you have to imagine it's year 1 of the US government. I have to sterilize it a bit to make it easier to "see".

So the government starts at zero and creates $75 million and spends that $75 million provisioning itself (the gov). Of that $75 million all but $2 million is taxed back. Now the private sector has $2 million dollars it can use or save.

The next year, companies get a little more efficient (so they can be more productive with the same number of people), but the number of working aged people increases so that also adds to the amount of potential productivity that can be done. So the government spends $77 million and taxes back $74 million leaving $3 million plus the 2 million it left the year before. The extra money does not cause price inflation if there are enough people and real resources to put that money to use.

Now the government has a debt of $5 million, but the private sector has $5 million in assets.

Now, imagine a year where productivity per person increases AND the number of people increase but politicians, worried about the debt, tax more than they spend. Now, if private industry is more productive and/ or the population increases, then there is more potential productivity, but $1 million fewer dollars in the economy to consume it.

Notice that spending ALWAYS comes before taxes (and that is true to this day), how can taxes fund spending?

Taxes do not, at the federal level fund spending. State level yes, the federal level no.

What is the difference?

The Federal government can create and spend currency as it wants (the US government is currency issuer). Looking at my chart, the problem of taxation should be obvious. If the gov spent $80 million and didn't tax anything, then the economy, coming into year 3 would have $5 million dollars, but if it spent $80 million and taxed none of it back, the private sector would have $85 million dollars and inflation would undermine the system. **The economy would have more than $5 million in circulation because of private debt, but that's related but different in a way that I can explain at the end.

Thus, taxation is necessary as a way to prevent inflation, not as a way for the government to fund itself.

Understanding this, the new question becomes, if the government doesn't need money to fund itself, but failing to tax would create inflation, how much money should the government create and leave in the economy (by spending more than it taxes)? Who should it take taxes from?

This is where description on how the system works becomes prescription on how we should enact policy.

If you believe that giving money to the wealthy creates jobs, you might support taxing more (relative to their income) from those in the bottom 90% of the economy. If you believe that when the bottom 90% has more money they use that money to increase demand and in turn that creates jobs, then support higher taxes (again as a percentage of income) on those in the top 10% (just remember the point of taxing the wealthy isn't to pay for government, but prevent inflation).

** Ok, so banking... Most of the money we use comes from a private sector bank, When I buy a car, I borrow money and I spend it and someone earns it as an income. But, the bank went negative, that is, the bank carried a liability equal to the amount they lent me. Thus, in the net money created by borrowing is offset by the liability created by the bank to make the loan. So all the money created by banking exists only as long as the loan that creates it. When the loan is repaid, the money created is functionally removed.

Think about it like this. If you added 100 gallons to a pool, the level of the water would rise. However, if yo borrowed that water and promised to repay it at 10 cups per day, then the water you borrow has to be equal or greater than the water you owe, or the level in the pool will decline.

Hope that makes sense, but like most of the posts I create, even if you accept what I've told you, I'm sure you have even more questions.

 

liberals often like violent sociopaths like Hitler and Stalin. Thats why they spied for them and even gave Stalin the bomb while he was slowly starving 120 million to death! Do you know why Bernie Sanders honeymooned in the USSR?

 

makes no sense of course which is why you needed so much gibberish to explain it!!

Here's a way to get your ABC's down:

Federal Spending: Where Does the Money Go
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal.../spending/
‎
In fiscal year 2014, the federal government will spend around $3.8 trillion. ... type ofgovernment spending, and they are officially called "tax expenditures" within ...
‎Borrowing and the Federal Debt - ‎Where Does the Money Come ...

 

It's crazy to be crazy, yes.

You can call it whatever else you want but it's still crazy.

 

You could have said all that in 1 or 2 sentences.

 

1) if they pay debt or give or away more more food stamps economic activity stays the same based on same money being in circulation

2) if saving, velocity decisions, etc did change economic activity Fed's job would be to, in effect,
overrule politicians to maintain steady economy activity

Do you understand?