Is U.S. income tax invalid?

parados wrote:

Somehow Richard has this delusion that the Federal government could buy printing presses for zero dollars and get people to run them for zero dollars.

Even if the Federal government did the printing Richard it would cost at least 3 cents per bill and perhaps more.

You should really spend some time to look at the budget Richard. All our money does not go for debt. If we pay $100 for an item and then give it to someone else for something valued at $100, how much is the item we have worth?

You're negating the fact that the govt doesnt have to 'pay $100' if it issued its own money. It would be much better for the govt to pay 3 cents and issue the $100 on its own. Why is this so unbelievable for certain people to understand is beyond me.

parados wrote:

Somehow Richard has this delusion that the Federal government could buy printing presses for zero dollars and get people to run them for zero dollars.

Even if the Federal government did the printing Richard it would cost at least 3 cents per bill and perhaps more.

You should really spend some time to look at the budget Richard. All our money does not go for debt. If we pay $100 for an item and then give it to someone else for something valued at $100, how much is the item we have worth?

I bet you're one of those people who believe GDP and GNP are the same thing too and the govt just decided to use GDP now because its 'better' though what they've really done is hide the fact that foreginers are buying up more of America by changing the way they measure a particular set of numbers.

"The gold at Fort Knox" can be mostly imagination; where's the meat?

Richard Saunders wrote:

parados wrote:

Somehow Richard has this delusion that the Federal government could buy printing presses for zero dollars and get people to run them for zero dollars.

Even if the Federal government did the printing Richard it would cost at least 3 cents per bill and perhaps more.

You should really spend some time to look at the budget Richard. All our money does not go for debt. If we pay $100 for an item and then give it to someone else for something valued at $100, how much is the item we have worth?

You're negating the fact that the govt doesnt have to 'pay $100' if it issued its own money. It would be much better for the govt to pay 3 cents and issue the $100 on its own. Why is this so unbelievable for certain people to understand is beyond me.

When the government issues a $100 bill it has a value of $100. If it is only worth 3 cents then we would have inflation up the wazoo. That $100 bill has the same value whether I buy a product or use it to pay my taxes. The government accepts its value as $100. The government "guarantees" that it is worth $100. The government ends up paying $100 for every dollar it issues no matter who prints it. If the government didn't give us $100 in value for a $100 bill then money would be worthless.

There are many examples in history of governments no longer supporting their currency and inflation running rampant because of it. I am not negating anything. You are the one negating how the monetary system works. It doesn't change no matter who prints the money. The government has to hold the value of the money for redemption or the money is worthless. The money used to be supported by gold and silver held by the government. Now it is supported by the full faith and credit of the government.

When the government issued Silver notes printed by the Fed they didn't give the silver to the Fed bank to hold. They issued a credit to the Fed that could be redeemed for either that silver or the notes. It is accounting debits and credits that balance out. It is the same accounting system that the US government uses. They have a credit for all the dollars they have out circulating and a debit for the money they owe the Fed for those dollars. The money has the same value whether there is no Fed or 12 lending steps before it gets to the Fed.

"The gold at Fort Knox" can be mostly imagination; where's the meat?

Richard Saunders wrote:

parados wrote:

Somehow Richard has this delusion that the Federal government could buy printing presses for zero dollars and get people to run them for zero dollars.

Even if the Federal government did the printing Richard it would cost at least 3 cents per bill and perhaps more.

You should really spend some time to look at the budget Richard. All our money does not go for debt. If we pay $100 for an item and then give it to someone else for something valued at $100, how much is the item we have worth?

I bet you're one of those people who believe GDP and GNP are the same thing too and the govt just decided to use GDP now because its 'better' though what they've really done is hide the fact that foreginers are buying up more of America by changing the way they measure a particular set of numbers.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "now" since I can get GDP numbers from 1929 to this year for the US.

US GDP

As to which number is better to use, let's compare the two. GDP includes production from foreign investment in US but excludes US investment overseas. GNP excludes foreign investment in US but includes US investment in other countries. I think GDP is a better barometer of US production. That is what it is designed to show.

There are other, better numbers to use if you want to factor foreign investment in the US. Your arguments are simplistic at best Richard. You assume this conspiracy when all the figures can be found if you bothered to look. Nothing is being "hidden."

But currently the government has to pay debt to isue that currency. Having the 'full faith and credit of the govt' shouldnt require that.. If this country can issue a $100 Bond, then it can issue a $100 Bill.. And it unequivocally should NOT have to purchase its own currency with debt. Its a total crock. The fact that the personal income taxes pays for this whole scheme simply adds insult to injury.

The government still has a gold reserve at Fort Knox.

US Mint about gold

They used to have enough gold to back every dollar issued by the US government. That was when we were on the gold standard. I am sure Richard can give you the conspiracy spiel about Nixon and when we went off the gold standard in the early 70s.

Richard Saunders wrote:

But currently the government has to pay debt to isue that currency. Having the 'full faith and credit of the govt' shouldnt require that.. If this country can issue a $100 Bond, then it can issue a $100 Bill.. And it unequivocally should NOT have to purchase its own currency with debt. Its a total crock. The fact that the personal income taxes pays for this whole scheme simply adds insult to injury.

You continue to show you understand nothing about how a monetary system works.

The full faith and credit of the government is BASED on the payment of taxes. How would the government finance anything without taxes? Without taxes there would be no faith that the government could pay off its bonds or redeem its money. The dollar would be worthless.

YOu think GDP is a better barometer because that is what youve been subtlely trained to believe. And it might be more accurate to show production within the borders of our country but thats about it. It doesnt give the true picture on "American" production.

The shell game is most people dont even know there is a difference. The switch from GNP to GDP as our 'financial barometer' is no doubt done to hide the shrinking US economic base. As foreign production and outsourcing overtakes domestic production. YOu can go check the numbers out and you'll see. The GDP is higher than GNP. GNP will continue to shrink. ITs done to hide the truth from the people, else there is no reason to switch.

Richard Saunders wrote:

YOu think GDP is a better barometer because that is what youve been subtlely trained to believe. And it might be more accurate to show production within the borders of our country but thats about it. It doesnt give the true picture on "American" production.

The shell game is most people dont even know there is a difference. The switch from GNP to GDP as our 'financial barometer' is no doubt done to hide the shrinking US economic base. As foreign production and outsourcing overtakes domestic production. YOu can go check the numbers out and you'll see. The GDP is higher than GNP. GNP will continue to shrink. ITs done to hide the truth from the people, else there is no reason to switch.

Since it is a shell game shouldn't you reveal what is under the shell instead of just standing in the back and shouting "It's a shell game."

What is the GNP? Lets really compare it and see if you are correct. Like most conspiracy nuts, it's you that is playing the shell game. You can't stand revealing the true facts because when examined your arguments fall apart.

Give us the quarterly GNP for 2006 with a link. The numbers I have found show the GNP to be larger than GDP.

The dollar goes down in value because of inflation - because TOO much money is printed.