[ExI] relationships with money
danust2012 at gmail.com
Wed May 4 22:44:05 UTC 2016
On May 4, 2016, at 1:27 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace
> Subject: Re: [ExI] relationships with money, was: RE: extropy-chat Digest, Vol 152, Issue 3
> >>…In light of that fact, the answer to question: Do we take their money? I would suggest, eh… no. Definitely, no, unless every member of that “we” is ready to do life in the big house.
> >…Oh we do take their money - progressive taxes…
> Ja, but this conflates two different concepts: money owned and money in the process of being made. The way the US 16th amendment was intentionally structured, the Fed can only tax earnings, not what you have. The question was asked about having a certain amount, which the Federal government doesn’t even get to know, never mind take.
Who interprets the COTUS? Government courts. Good luck with taking away or limiting their power to confiscate.
> In light of that, listen carefully to the rhetoric of our current leading US presidential candidates, while struggling to ignore the obvious question: Sheesh a third of a billion yanks, are these yahoos the REALLY the best we can do? Can we have a do-over on the primaries if we throw out all the current contenders?
You presume most people want a radically different system. No. They might be able to recite some liberty rhetoric, but most people don't mind the system. At best, they want minor tweaks or for their favored hero to rule. We're that not the case, we'd have a very different system and a very different set of worries.
(Why is it, too, that every election cycle people start to seriously believe that choosing between Frick and Frack is the most important decision in the history of the universe? It's not. Get over it. It's BS, a distraction, and Frick and Frack are neither saints nor demons.;)
> No. OK, so listen to the rhetoric concerning the oft-repeated catch-phrase “millionezzz and billionezzz” and ask yourself what has that to do with tax structures? Nothing. The tax code and those forms we fill out have no line asking what we own, only what we made last year.
You're only looking at the federal government and one aspect of its taxing power.
> >…As for Dan's 'solution', stop having politicians that are bought, I beg answers to how to accomplish that… bill w
> That I may be able to answer once I see how this country deals with a glaring example of a politician setting up the infrastructure to be bought anonymously and legally (never mind the question of whether this particular politician was or was not bought, this particular politician set up everything needed to carry it out.)
Feature not bug. Having a strong national government -- i.e., COTUS -- setup a central power that could be so influenced. Tweaking around this is not going to do too much to change that or remove the temptation.
> So what do we do there? Is it analogous to that eccentric old guy down the street who has several hundred military-grade rifles, assault weapons as they are sometimes called, and half a million rounds of ammo? That’s all legal (in most US states), he hasn’t committed any crime with that collection or arsenal. But he damn sure could if he chose to, and we are wary of that guy, ja? He has empowered himself. We know he has enabled himself to go shoot up the local school or theatre. Dare we ask what religion he follows, or is that too un-PC? Would it matter?
Why would his religion matter? If someone pointed a gun at you, would you care what their religion was?
Sample my Kindle books via:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat