Tax Bill about to Pass (actually matters)

[Unleash The Fury]

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]

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

1. Welcome to group discussions.
2. See 1.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. And finally, for someone who constantly complains about being insulted you don't extend the same courtesy you demand.

 

[Unleash The Fury]

1. Welcome to group discussions.
2. See 1.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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]

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]

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]

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]

Source please?

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

 

[Randy]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.