parados wrote:Richard Saunders wrote:The dollar goes down in value because of inflation - because TOO much money is printed.
Yes, but there is a problem with your argument. The Fed Reserve ONLY prints money when requested to do so by the US treasury. The Fed Reserve doesn't print any money on its own. The inflation is caused by the US government requesting more money be printed not by the Fed Reserve printing it. The Fed Reserve can't force the US government to buy money just because they printed it.
Without the Fed Reserve the US government could still print TOO much money and cause inflation. In fact, without the Fed Reserve, inflation would be MORE likely because there would be no Fed Reserve to say no to printing money to prevent the inflation.
They work hand in hand on this. Without the Fed reserve the US govt COULD still print too much and cause inflation. Youre absolutely right. But at least they wouldnt have any debt from it. Now with the Federal Reserve we have the worst of both worlds.. INFLATION AND DEBT.
Richard Saunders wrote:
GDPGDP DATA LINK
2006-01-01 13008.4
2006-04-01 13197.3
2006-07-01 13322.6
2006-10-01 13487.2
That GDP data is in
Units: Billions of Dollars
Quote:
GNPGNP DATA LINK
2006-01-01 11342.7
2006-04-01 11408.5
2006-07-01 11458.5
Your GNP data is in
Units: Billions of Chained 2000 Dollars
So your trying to compare dollars that are adjusted for inflation to dollars that aren't adjusted. That's not a surprise considering your failure to understand how inflation works.
Lets compare chained dollars to chained dollars..
That would be here
http://forecasts.org/data/data/GDPC96.htm
Chained dollars for GDP.
Quote:2006-01-01 11316.413
2006-04-01 11388.077
2006-07-01 11443.543
Hmm.. it seems GNP is greater than GDP when we compare chained dollars to chained dollars. It was a shell game, after all, you were playing.
Richard Saunders wrote:parados wrote:Richard Saunders wrote:The dollar goes down in value because of inflation - because TOO much money is printed.
Yes, but there is a problem with your argument. The Fed Reserve ONLY prints money when requested to do so by the US treasury. The Fed Reserve doesn't print any money on its own. The inflation is caused by the US government requesting more money be printed not by the Fed Reserve printing it. The Fed Reserve can't force the US government to buy money just because they printed it.
Without the Fed Reserve the US government could still print TOO much money and cause inflation. In fact, without the Fed Reserve, inflation would be MORE likely because there would be no Fed Reserve to say no to printing money to prevent the inflation.
They work hand in hand on this. Without the Fed reserve the US govt COULD still print too much and cause inflation. Youre absolutely right. But at least they wouldnt have any debt from it. Now with the Federal Reserve we have the worst of both worlds.. INFLATION AND DEBT.
Wow, that ranks right up there with you comparing chained dollars to unchained dollars.
By taking on debt the US government is fighting inflation. It is when it prints money without taking on debt that it causes currency inflation. The US government would still have debt. They had debt in 1783 and there was no Federal Reserve. Debt is required for the government to pay for items it doesn't have enough tax money to pay for. If the government doesn't take on debt than it causes inflation of its currency that can spiral out of control and make the money worthless.
Has this thread become a second career for you Parados?
Do you think I can write this off on my taxes Set?
I'm sure we could work out something, Boss . . . we've got such a pool of experts on not paying your taxes right here in this thread . . .
In 1776, the year of the American Revolution, Adam Smith published "The Wealth of Nations", his seminal treatise on economics and taxation. The book instantly rocketed to the heights as the absolute authority on these subjects throughout the Western World. Among other elements of the broad subjects addressed in the work was a chapter on taxes in which "capitations" are discussed in detail.
Smith describes and analyzes capitations of various forms used throughout Europe, including those levied as a percentage of an individual's revenue. He observes that,
"The taxes which, it is intended, should fall indifferently upon every different species of revenue, are capitation taxes,"
"Capitation taxes, if it is attempted to proportion them to the fortune or revenue of each contributor, become altogether arbitrary. The state of a man's fortune varies from day to day, and without an inquisition more intolerable than any tax, and renewed at least once every year, can only be guessed at."
" Capitation taxes, so far as they are levied upon the lower ranks of people, are direct taxes upon the wages of labour, and are attended with all the inconveniences of such taxes."
" In the capitation which has been levied in France without any interruption since the beginning of the present century, the highest orders of people are rated according to their rank by an invariable tariff; the lower orders of people, according to what is supposed to be their fortune, by an assessment which varies from year to year."
Smith deplores this type of taxation as inequitable, inflationary, counterproductive, and destructive of liberty. Importantly, he makes clear that a capitation can take many different forms, all of which have in common only that they are levied upon and are measured by the exercise of a basic right, such as the right to life, liberty, the ownership of property, working, or engaging in trade. Capitations are alternately known as (and get their name from) "head taxes", because they fall directly upon the head of the citizen-- they must be paid by the citizen, and out of his or her own funds-- simply because that head is there, maintaining and exercising its natural powers.
All other forms of taxation are indirect, being laid upon a wholly optional activity and paid by someone other than the remitter. Indirect taxes generally take the form of a return to the sovereign of a portion of the benefit conveyed by a special privilege, such as the profits from trade across the national borders, or the salary or other revenue from a public office.
Indirect taxes can also be attendant upon the consumption of a taxed, optional article, by which transaction the vendor becomes liable for the tax, but it is paid with your money. Thus, while a tax on shopping would be a capitation, or direct tax; a tax laid upon some particular thing for which one might or might not shop at one's discretion would be indirect, and thus not a capitation.
Similarly, a tax upon being a postal inspector, to which no one has a right, is an indirect tax; while a tax upon being a graphic artist, to which anyone has a right, would be a capitation. A tax accompanying each transaction involving a taxable article that takes place in your store is an indirect tax, while a tax on having your store open for such transactions-- even if you might be able to recover it from customers on any particular day-- would be a capitation. Black's Law Dictionary, 5th edition, puts it succinctly, defining a "direct tax" as:
"One which is demanded from the very persons who it is intended or desired should pay it. Indirect taxes are those which are demanded from one person in the expectation and intention that he should indemnify himself at the expense of another".
The framers of the Constitution were avid and serious students of Smith's work, which even during the turmoil of the revolutionary war sold in America the equivalent of more than 233,000 copies, if proportioned to today's population; truly remarkable considering the size, depth, and serious demeanor of this 976 page work.
Are you saying they were wrong?
parados wrote:Richard Saunders wrote:
GDPGDP DATA LINK
2006-01-01 13008.4
2006-04-01 13197.3
2006-07-01 13322.6
2006-10-01 13487.2
That GDP data is in
Units: Billions of Dollars
Quote:
GNPGNP DATA LINK
2006-01-01 11342.7
2006-04-01 11408.5
2006-07-01 11458.5
Your GNP data is in
Units: Billions of Chained 2000 Dollars
So your trying to compare dollars that are adjusted for inflation to dollars that aren't adjusted. That's not a surprise considering your failure to understand how inflation works.
Lets compare chained dollars to chained dollars..
That would be here
http://forecasts.org/data/data/GDPC96.htm
Chained dollars for GDP.
Quote:2006-01-01 11316.413
2006-04-01 11388.077
2006-07-01 11443.543
Hmm.. it seems GNP is greater than GDP when we compare chained dollars to chained dollars. It was a shell game, after all, you were playing.
Well all I can say is I was wrong on my data for the GNP/GDP.. I had a very hard time finding it.. (I found those links back in November)
It does throw off charts I had made (ill have to re-do them now)
OKay so current GDP is 2006-07-01 11443.543
and current GNP is 2006-07-01 11458.5
I see a difference in GDP greater than GNP by about 13 Billion. But you notice how the gap is very narrow. I would think the GDP will be ahead of GNP this time next year.. My data is evidently faulty on this but the underlying premise is still correct. The GDP hides erosion of our economic base, I think thats clear just from the data it gathers and what it does and doesnt report.
parados wrote:Richard Saunders wrote:parados wrote:Richard Saunders wrote:The dollar goes down in value because of inflation - because TOO much money is printed.
Yes, but there is a problem with your argument. The Fed Reserve ONLY prints money when requested to do so by the US treasury. The Fed Reserve doesn't print any money on its own. The inflation is caused by the US government requesting more money be printed not by the Fed Reserve printing it. The Fed Reserve can't force the US government to buy money just because they printed it.
Without the Fed Reserve the US government could still print TOO much money and cause inflation. In fact, without the Fed Reserve, inflation would be MORE likely because there would be no Fed Reserve to say no to printing money to prevent the inflation.
They work hand in hand on this. Without the Fed reserve the US govt COULD still print too much and cause inflation. Youre absolutely right. But at least they wouldnt have any debt from it. Now with the Federal Reserve we have the worst of both worlds.. INFLATION AND DEBT.
Wow, that ranks right up there with you comparing chained dollars to unchained dollars.
By taking on debt the US government is fighting inflation. It is when it prints money without taking on debt that it causes currency inflation. The US government would still have debt. They had debt in 1783 and there was no Federal Reserve. Debt is required for the government to pay for items it doesn't have enough tax money to pay for. If the government doesn't take on debt than it causes inflation of its currency that can spiral out of control and make the money worthless.
The debt just gives the illusion of fighting inflation.. I used to believe all that stuff. But no more.
Quote:My data is evidently faulty on this but the underlying premise is still correct. The GDP hides erosion of our economic base, I think thats clear just from the data it gathers and what it does and doesnt report.
Your data is faulty but the premise which isn't supported by the data is correct? Perhaps your premise is also faulty because the data you based it on was faulty.
In 1947 the GNP/GDP ratio was 99.46% In 2006 it was 99.87%. Since 1947 it has been higher and lower. The lowest was in 1980 at 98.58% and highest in 2005 at 99.89%. It seems that GNP/GDP ratio has always been close and varied a little over the years, going up and down.
parados wrote:Quote:My data is evidently faulty on this but the underlying premise is still correct. The GDP hides erosion of our economic base, I think thats clear just from the data it gathers and what it does and doesnt report.
Your data is faulty but the premise which isn't supported by the data is correct? Perhaps your premise is also faulty because the data you based it on was faulty.
In 1947 the GNP/GDP ratio was 99.46% In 2006 it was 99.87%. Since 1947 it has been higher and lower. The lowest was in 1980 at 98.58% and highest in 2005 at 99.89%. It seems that GNP/GDP ratio has always been close and varied a little over the years, going up and down.
Precisely, because GDP and GNP measure different data. They dont want to measure goods and service production by American companies anymore, they just want to measure production within the borders.
This way if GM closes a mfg plant, but Toyota opens a new one, it doesnt really affect GDP whereas there will be a decline in GNP..
No different then when they use the imaginary basket of food to measure increase in food prices. Instead of letting the price show its true increase they will change a component like an 8oz steak and replace it with 8oz of hamburger meat, meanwhile the overall price of the basket stays lower, for a time.
It would seem to this reader that anything that close (<2%) on GNP and GDP doesn't mean a hill of beans to the casual reader.
Tryagain wrote:
The framers of the Constitution were avid and serious students of Smith's work, which even during the turmoil of the revolutionary war sold in America the equivalent of more than 233,000 copies, if proportioned to today's population; truly remarkable considering the size, depth, and serious demeanor of this 976 page work.
Are you saying they were wrong?
I wouldn't say they were wrong. I would say your reading of Smith is wrong. It is a 976 page work. Pulling a series of quotes out of context doesn't do his work justice nor does it show what the founders understood.
Lets look at what Smith said..
Quote:Before I enter upon the examination of particular taxes, it is necessary to premise the four following maxims with regard to taxes in general.
V.2.24
I. The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.
This is a maxim. You might want to look up the word. If the founders had highlighters this would have been made bright yellow in their copies of the book.
Now lets look at your mangled qoute and finish the first sentence to its complete paragraph.
Quote:
The taxes which, it is intended, should fall indifferently upon every different species of revenue, are capitation taxes, and taxes upon consumable commodities. These must be paid indifferently from whatever revenue the contributors may possess; from the rent of their land, from the profits of their stock, or from the wages of their labour.
I am curious as to where you think Smith says this?
Quote:Smith deplores this type of taxation as inequitable, inflationary, counterproductive, and destructive of liberty. Importantly, he makes clear that a capitation can take many different forms, all of which have in common only that they are levied upon and are measured by the exercise of a basic right, such as the right to life, liberty, the ownership of property, working, or engaging in trade.
I can find no reference by Smith to any of those items when he discusses capitation tax and its pitfalls. This is the reason Smith gives.
Quote:His assessment, therefore, must in most cases depend upon the good or bad humour of his assessors, and must, therefore, be altogether arbitrary and uncertain.
In order to attempt to tax the revenues of people, different governments devised different schemes, most of them involving taxing the person's position since it was hard to assess revenues. It is this taxation of the person rather than the revenues that Smith finds deplorable and counterproductive. Smith would appear to be all for taxing revenues if they can be figured in an equitable and fair way that is not more intrusive on the taxpayer than the tax itself.
Yes, and let me draw your attention to this part of the constitution.
Quote:Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
Now that we see that the constitution can be amended and any amendments become part of the constitution. So, in light of the fact that all amendments are part of the constitution lets see what the 16th says..
Quote:The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
It seems the constitution says an income tax can be laid without apportionment. No reasonable argument can be made to say it doesn't. Merely citing the first part without any subsequent amendments reveals complete ignorance concerning how the constitution works.
Quote:
Agreeing wholeheartedly with Smith's observations regarding the obnoxious character of direct taxes, and in keeping with the principles of individual liberty and limited government which inform the federal union, the framers of the Constitution explicitly prohibited non-optional individual federal taxes. They directed that should the government want to levy a capitation (which has the advantage, from the government's point of view, of being very broadly-based and productive of revenue), it could only take the form of an imposition upon the several State governments of a predetermined total amount distributed among them per each State's proportion of the national population.
Your statement is nonsensical and meaningless in light of the amendment process and the subsequent amendment. First of all the Constitution does not explicitly prohibit non optional individual income taxes. There is nothing that explicitly says that. There is nothing there that the courts have ruled says that. But even if they had explicitly prohibited income taxes the subsequent amendment removed that argument.
Quote:
For instance, the national government might impose a capitation of 10,000 dollars upon the practice of Carpentry.
That sentence shows a complete failure to understand the meaning of "capitation." You can't impose a capitation nor can you impose a capitation tax on the practice of carpentry. A tax on a certain type of labor is not a capitation tax, it is an excise tax and the courts have consistently ruled as much.
As for the rest, you misrepresent the ruling and what it said. The court in Pollock only ruled that income from property violated the direct tax ruling. No court has ever ruled that income from labor is a direct tax. Leaving out words to misrepresent what they said is nothing but a sham attempt to persuade the uninformed.
Why don't you ever link to the rulings so others can see what was said Tryagain? Is it because you are misrepresenting those rulings so often?
No, it is probably because he talks weird.
tryingtohelp wrote:No, it is probably because he talks weird.
as long as my labor is my property, it is a direct tax. I dont see how it can be an excise tax as there is no way for me to avoid it.
Richard Saunders wrote:tryingtohelp wrote:No, it is probably because he talks weird.
as long as my labor is my property, it is a direct tax. I dont see how it can be an excise tax as there is no way for me to avoid it.
What you can or can't see really has little to do with interpretation of the law or the constitution.
A tax on something you sell is an excise tax. If you sell alcohol, the tax on it is obviously an excise tax. If you don't sell it then you aren't taxed on it. If you sell your labor, you are taxed on the profits from selling it as income. If you don't sell your labor, there is no tax on the labor you keep.
parados wrote:Richard Saunders wrote:tryingtohelp wrote:No, it is probably because he talks weird.
as long as my labor is my property, it is a direct tax. I dont see how it can be an excise tax as there is no way for me to avoid it.
What you can or can't see really has little to do with interpretation of the law or the constitution.
A tax on something you sell is an excise tax. If you sell alcohol, the tax on it is obviously an excise tax. If you don't sell it then you aren't taxed on it. If you sell your labor, you are taxed on the profits from selling it as income. If you don't sell your labor, there is no tax on the labor you keep.
An excise tax doesnt have have to be laid on a privileged activity?
Richard Saunders wrote:
An excise tax doesnt have have to be laid on a privileged activity?
It depends on your definition of "privileged" I guess. This is from the IRS
Quote:Excise taxes are taxes paid when purchases are made on a specific good, such as gasoline. Excise taxes are often included in the price of the product. There are also excise taxes on activities, such as on wagering or on highway usage by trucks. Excise Tax has several general excise tax programs. One of the major components of the excise program is motor fuel.
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=99517,00.html
Wikipedia defines it this way
Quote:Constitutional law
In the U.S. constitutional law sense, an excise is essentially an event tax (as opposed to a state of being tax).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excise_tax
So selling your labor is an event and is taxed as an excise tax. Not selling your labor is a state of being and isn't taxed. You are not taxed for your potential labor.
