#IMF pushing for a revolution?


ArmstrongEconomics

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is always the cheerleader to raise taxes to support government they are instructing Germany to raise taxes and also talking about just imposing a 10% tax on all money on deposit in banks throughout Europe. Yes – you read that one correctly.

The IMF has told Germany it should raise its property tax, cut social welfare contributions and invest more to reduce income inequality. The demands are contentious in an election year. Once again the IMF has demanded higher taxes on savings deposits in Germany. Germany must do more for to raise taxes to impose more socialistic ideals to somehow tax the rich to create a broader participation of all citizens in the fruits of economic growth, if somehow raising taxes actually ever creates economic growth. The IMF warns that there is a relatively high tax burden on lower incomes with a comparatively low burden on assets.

The IMF argues for higher taxes on property are in fact necessary and that the government should demand higher wages to also give impetus to the growth in Germany, yet this is magically creating no inflationary impact. Years ago, Italy simply imposed a tax on money in one’s account. This was called a “capital levy”. This was a one-time charge as an exceptional measure to restore the sustainability of the debt. The IMF is also suggesting that measure be invoked to help the coming Sovereign Debt Crisis. The attractiveness of such a measure is that such a one-time tax can be levied before a tax evasion can even occur, especially if cash is eliminated and money can only exist in bank accounts. This requires the belief that this measure is unique and never repeated.

The IMF has already calculated how much the measure would cost every Eurozone citizen:

“The amount of the tax would have to bring the European sovereign debt back to the pre-crisis level. In order to reduce the debt to the level of 2007 (for example in the euro area countries), a tax of about 10 percent is needed for households with a positive asset. “

As you can see, there is NEVER any discussion about reducing taxes or the size of government. The solution is always to raise taxes and to not even look at the old Italian trick of a 10% seizure of all cash in your account. We highly recommend to diversify to assets that are MOVABLE and not subject to taxation merely to possess.

..

Advertisements

The Hunt for Taxes is Global


ArmstrongEconomics

Taxes are the root of all evil for this is the confrontation against the people that historically leads to civil unrest and then revolution. The American and French Revolutions were over taxes. Historically, even the Roman Empire was forced from time to time to grant tax amnesty as was the case in 119AD. You even have Roman Emperors such as Trajan (98-117AD) engaging in social legislation known as the Alimenta, which was a welfare program that helped orphans and poor children throughout Italy. The Alimenta provided general funds, food and subsidized education for children. The funding came from the Dacian War booty initially. When that ran out, it was funded by a combination of estate taxes and philanthropy.The state provided loans like Fannie Mae providing mortgages on Italian farms (fundi). The registered landowners in Italy received a lump sum from the imperial treasury. In return, the borrower was expected to pay yearly a given proportion of the loan to the maintenance of an Alimentary Fund – a kickback so to speak. Taxes and social programs have been around a very long time.

Today, debts are never reduced. Consequently, governments only raise taxes continually. We see this in some of the richest countries in the world. Now Singapore is passing three amendments expanding the power of the Ministry of Finance (MOF) under the Property Tax Act. This new legislation is one that will hand the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) more enforcement and investigative powers. Singapore government is using the law to force people to pay more in taxes. There will be no privacy. Under this legislation, the tax authorities will be able to summon people to appear personally before them and to provide all information. They will be interrogated orally for investigation be it their own taxes, or another person’s property/properties.

Governments are moving ever more closer to totalitarian states eliminating privacy and human rights. This is a global trend that will come to a head because governments will never reduce their costs and will always demand more and more taxes from the people until the bubble bursts.

..

The Income Tax Implies that Government Owns You


“…what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one more thing, fellow citizens a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.” – Thomas Jefferson (1801)


FEE

Jeffrey A. Tucker

The income tax is enshrined into law but it is an idea that stands in total contradiction to the driving force behind the American Revolution and the idea of freedom itself. We desperately need a serious national movement to get rid of it – not reform it, not replace it, not flatten it or refocus its sting from this group to that. It just needs to go.

The great essayist Frank Chodorov once described the income tax as the root of all evil. His target was not the tax itself, but the principle behind it. Since its implementation in 1913, he wrote, “The government says to the citizen: ‘Your earnings are not exclusively your own; we have a claim on them, and our claim precedes yours; we will allow you to keep some of it, because we recognize your need, not your right; but whatever we grant you for yourself is for us to decide.”

He really does have a point. That’s evil. When Congress ratified the 16th Amendment on Feb. 3, 1913, there was a sense in which all private income in the U.S. was nationalized. What was not taxed from then on was a favor granted unto us, and continues to be so.

This is implied in the text of the amendment itself: “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.”

No Limits

Where are the limits? There weren’t any. There was some discussion about putting a limit on the tax, but it seemed unnecessary. Only 1% of the income earners would end up paying about 1% to the government. Everyone else was initially untouched. Who really cares that the rich have to pay a bit more, right? They can afford it.

This perspective totally misunderstands the true nature of government, which always wants more money and more power and will stop at nothing to get both. The 16th Amendment was more than a modern additive to an antique document. It was a new philosophy of the fiscal life of the entire country.

Today, the ruling elite no longer bothers with things like amendments. But back in the day, it was different. The amendment was made necessary because of previous court decisions that stated what was once considered a bottom-line presumption of the free society: Government cannot tax personal property. What you make is your own. You get to keep the product of your labors. Government can tax sales, perhaps, or raise money through tariffs on goods coming in and out of the country. But your bank account is off-limits.

The amendment changed that idea. In the beginning, it applied to very few people. This was one reason it passed. It was pitched as a replacement tax, not a new money raiser. After all the havoc caused by the divisive tariffs of the 19th century, this sounded like a great deal to many people, particularly Southerners and Westerners fed up with paying such high prices for manufactured goods while seeing their trading relations with foreign consumers disrupted.

People who supported it – and they were not so much the left but the right-wing populists of the time – imagined that the tax would hit the robber baron class of industrialists in the North. And that it did. Their fortunes began to dwindle, and their confidence in their ability to amass and retain intergenerational fortunes began to wane.

Limit to Accumulation

We all know the stories of how the grandchildren of the Gilded Age tycoons squandered their family heritage in the 1920s and failed to carry on the tradition. Well, it is hardly surprising. The government put a timetable and limit on accumulation. Private families and individuals would no longer be permitted to exist except in subjugation to the taxing state. The kids left their private estates to live in the cities, put off marriage, stopped bothering with all that hearth and home stuff. Time horizons shortened, and the Jazz Age began.

Class warfare was part of the deal from the beginning. The income tax turned the social fabric of the country into a giant lifetime boat, with everyone arguing about who had to be thrown overboard so that others might live.

The demon in the beginning was the rich. That remained true until the 1930s, when FDR changed the deal. Suddenly, the income would be collected, but taxed in a different way. It would be taken from everyone, but a portion would be given back late in life as a permanent income stream. Thus was the payroll tax born. This tax today is far more significant than the income tax.

The class warfare unleashed all those years ago continues today. One side wants to tax the rich. The other side finds it appalling that the percentage of people who pay no income tax has risen from 30% to nearly 50%. Now we see the appalling spectacle of Republicans regarding this as a disgrace that must change. They have joined the political classes that seek advancement by hurting people.

The Payroll Tax

It’s extremely strange that the payroll tax is rarely considered in this debate. The poor, the middle class and the rich are all being hammered by payroll taxes that fund failed programs that provide no security and few benefits at all.

It’s impossible to take seriously the claims that the income tax doesn’t harm wealth creation. When Congress wants to discourage something – smoking, imports, selling stocks or whatever – they know what to do: Tax it. Tax income, and on the margin, you discourage people from earning it.

Tax debates are always about “reform” – which always means a slight shift in who pays what, with an eye to raising ever more money for the government. A far better solution would be to forget the whole thing and return to the original idea of a free society: You get to keep what you earn or inherit. That means nothing short of abolishing the great mistake of 1913.

Forget the flat tax. The only just solution is no tax on incomes ever.

But let’s say that one day we actually become safe from the income tax collectors and something like blessed peace arrives. There is still another problem that emerged in 1913. Congress created the Federal Reserve, which eventually developed the power to create all the money that government would ever need, even without taxing.

For the practical running of the affairs of the state, the Fed is far worse than the income tax. It creates the more-insidious tax because it is so sneaky. In a strange way, it has made all the debates about taxation superfluous. Denying the government revenue does nothing to curb its appetites for our liberties and property. The Fed has managed to make it impossible to starve the beast.

Chodorov was correct about the evil of the income tax. Its passage signaled the beginning of a century of despotism. Our property is no longer safe. Our income is not our own. We are legally obligated to turn over whatever our masters say we owe them. You can fudge this point: None of this is compatible with the old liberal idea of freedom.

You doubt it? Listen to Thomas Jefferson from his inaugural address of 1801. What he said then remains true today:”…what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one more thing, fellow citizens a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.”

..

A robbery by any other name


How Governments Justify Theft is a Fallacy: Wealth Was Created before Taxation

TheDailyBell

Do we owe society taxes?

Tax day is tomorrow. Some people get excited because they will get money back which the government withheld–a clever trick that makes people feel less oppressed and plundered by filing taxes.

Something the regressive left likes to say is that taxes are justified because of the infrastructure of society, provided by the government, makes all earning possible. It is, therefore, only fair to share some of that wealth to continue funding the common property. They say the rich would never have gotten rich without government provided services, and that is why they owe the government.

An up and comer on the left who we will unfortunately not stop hearing from anytime soon has weighed in on why we owe taxes to society. This is an old but relevant quote since progressive champion Elizabeth Warren will probably be a White House contender soon enough. While running for Senate she said:

There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody! You built a factory out there, good for you, but I want to be clear, you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that mauraduing bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did… But part of the underlying social contract is that you take a hunk of that, and pay forward for the next kid that comes along.

I think she slipped up there. Do you see it? Warren says that if the government didn’t provide security for the factory, the business owners would have to “hire someone to protect against” marauding bands. And she is correct in that.

What she leaves out is that their money is already stolen to pay for the police. So why on earth would they say no thanks to a service for which they were forced to pay? (Well, I guess because the police do a terrible job. Most factories do in fact hire their own security in addition to the police that “the rest of us” paid for.)

And this is the whole issue: Which came first, the government or wealth?

Clearly, a business first has to have money in order to be taxed. And it makes sense to think that since the infrastructure already exists, it helps people to earn money. And it does, but it was all paid for first by privately produced wealth.

Think about it, the very first tax payers were farmers that were conquered by herders and forced to pay a share of their yield to the nomadic invaders. The herders realized they could make this a regular thing if they didn’t murder all the farmers, and thus government was born.

Not murdering the people was the first service which government ever provided. Boy, are we lucky to have them!

Ironic that Warren says taxes are paid to basically prevent from happening the very thing which began the existence of government. It was extortion from the very beginning. The farmers paid protection money to their government.

Who was the main threat? The government. The mafia does the same thing.

But looking at the first taxpayers shows that they necessarily had to have earned something and created wealth before they were taxed on it.

And this means we are building on a stolen foundation. It means we didn’t need the government to make wealth creation possible in the very first place. Based on the very function of government, which only came into existence after the first farmers had created wealth, this proves that it is possible to create wealth without that magnificent infrastructure for which “the rest of us” paid.

Warren said it herself when she admitted the factories could simply purchase their own protection. But what they are really paying for, is protection from the people they are paying, the government.

So is taxation the price we pay for the society government has built around us? Without a doubt, certain things taxes pay for are used by everyone living in society and thus contribute to business, like roads for shipping.

And even though the government is used to providing these things, the question remains are taxes what we owe to society for the opportunity to do business? Or did wealth have to be created first before taxes could be paid?

Justifying the Upward Redistribution of Wealth

Everything government does is done with tax dollars, therefore first something of value had to be created before they could tax anything.

So then why do people argue that we owe the government taxes because they have made everything we earn possible?

We wanted to add a Bernie Sanders quote since he was vocally against the wealthy. He is one of the most powerful U.S. Senators at this point, with his unspent war chest of individual campaign donations, and an army of useful idiots.

But it turns out the man said remarkably little for how much he talked. It was all catch phrases and the same repeated lines about how immoral it is to be wealthy. The rich need to pay their “fair share” he says, but that doesn’t actually answer the question of why anybody should have to pay taxes. We all need to be robbed equally?

There are certain ways to become wealthy which are immoral, such as securing government contracts, government bailouts, government grants, government loans, and government subsidies. But Bernie’s support for higher taxes would only exacerbate that upward transfer of wealth.

Sanders actually never tried to justify why the rich owe taxes, his only criticism seemed to be that they were wealthy. He repeated over and over that they basically stole this wealth from the middle class, but offered no real examples other than the Wall Street bailouts (which yes, were theft on their part, but again that was a government transfer of wealth, which giving the government more power would only increase).

Turns out what Bernie was doing has been done since the beginning of government. Jared Diamond explains the origins of Chiefdoms in his book Guns, Germs, and Steel:

These noble and selfish functions are inextricably linked, although some governments emphasize much more of one function than of the other. The difference between a kleptocrat and a wise statesman, between a robber baron and public benefactor, is merely one of degree: a matter of just how large a percentage of the tribute extracted from producers is retained by the elite, and how much the commoners like the public uses to which the redistributed tribute is put…

Make the masses happy by redistributing much of the tribute received, in popular ways. This principle was as valid for Hawaiian chiefs as it is for American politicians today.

Clearly, Bernie is a big fan of the redistribution method; his free college proposals sound pretty good to his young target demographic.

So basically, these “progressive” stars are actually regressing to the oldest forms of government which always looted and tricked the masses into supporting their power grabs and wealth confiscation.

The government didn’t create the wealth in society, and they didn’t even make that wealth creation possible. They simply stole the wealth that others created and redistributed it in obvious and popular ways. They monopolized mechanisms like roads and security in order to make it seem like the government is the only method of laying the infrastructure to create wealth.

But clearly wealth came before taxation, otherwise, there would have been nothing to tax! The premise of their justification for theft is a fallacy.

..

Obama wants Worldwide Taxes


Malaysian premier Najib played golf with Obama in Hawaii and the GST was enforced on April 01, 2015 in spite of protests by the people.

The GST is just the beginning of …a world tax system


 

Armstrong Economics

Obama is calling for tax reform worldwide the same as his socialist IMF candidate Christine Lagarde. Obama said “There is no doubt that the problem of global tax avoidance generally is a huge problem.” This whole issue always focuses on people not paying whatever the government demands. It never addresses government squandering money. Obama went on to say “We shouldn’t make it legal to engage in transactions just to avoid taxes.” He further added that “the basic principle of making sure everyone pays their fair share”. These statements are so dishonest and Orwellian it is frightening for the less educated cheer. If one of your parents was American and you were born in Canada and paid taxes their your whole life, the IRS is after them because all Americans owe taxes to Washington even if you never lived here or used any services to justify paying your “fair share” or something you do not use. This statement is so twisted because it is government who sees whatever you earn as their’s and it is they who want a share of your earnings regardless if it is fair. They rob us of money we pay into Social Security and never allow the average person to earn money for retirement. The “rich” get rich from investment, not wages. They rob the citizen of that money and then promise to given they payments in the future never investing anything.

When will the ignorant wake up?

..

The #GST is just the beginning…of a world tax system


Armstrong Economics

Why Largarde Stayed at the IMF? To Increase its Global Power

Christine Lagarde, Managing Director, International Monetary Fund, spoke at the IMF Arab Fiscal Forum: Fiscal Policy and Growth in Abu Dhabi on February 22, 2016. Her message was clear – forget downsizing government or reforming anything, just raise taxes. She opened the conference saying:

This event is taking place at a pivotal moment not only for this region but for many other countries that have seen fiscal issues rise to the top of their policy agendas.

Or, to be more precise, it is taxation that has risen to the agenda in many countries. If you wonder why this issue has become so important, let me assure you that this is nothing new in the history of mankind!

Largarde is calling for international taxation. She has threatened every tax haven with being sanctioned and removed from the Swift System unless they give up everyone. She has done far more damage to the world economy than any previous director. We have anemic economic growth and rising tax enforcement depriving us of our free society and the free movement of people as well as capital. If you owe taxes, government simply revokes your passport precisely as passports began to prove you owed the state nothing and could travel. She concluded her address calling for global tax enforcement and raising of taxes, not reforming government in the least. She said:

“Political economy…proposes two distinct objects: first, to provide a plentiful revenue or subsistence for the people…and secondly, to supply the state or commonwealth with a revenue sufficient for the public services.”

My main message today is this: creating successful 21st-century economies requires robust government revenues and an international tax system that works for everybody. These ingredients are essential for growth, fairness, and development.

They provide the fertile ground for the prosperity of nations. And we at the IMF are ready to play our part for the benefit of our membership.

Focus on what she said: “robust government revenues and an international tax system.” Those who feared a one-world government may be incorrect insofar as politicians will never surrender all power to some central body. But the one-world government Largarde is trying to create is a one-world tax authority. That is why she remained at the IMF. Freedom is but a fleeting dream that vanishes day by day before our eyes.

Just open your eyes before you cannot. EVERY career politician is against Donald Trump. Why? They are afraid he may end their gravy train. It does not matter who they are left or right; career politicians are against Trump. I would not doubt some plot to stop him.

..

The Many Ways the State Taxes the Poor


 

bf Ludwig Von Mises Institute

by , October 27, 2014

 

taxMost defenders of the state assume that government services help the poor. And, sometimes, some poor people do benefit financially from government programs. But there’s a hidden cost: taxation and mandatory programs (Social Security, for instance) that hurt the needy by restricting their choices. Government taxes away income that low-income households could invest in improving their lives. At the same time, state-sponsored benefits create incentives that keep the poor trapped in poverty.

Many assume that government barely taxes the poor, but the reality is otherwise. The poorest fifth of Americans pay 16 percent of their incomes in taxes (including federal, state, and local). One in six dollars they earn goes straight to the government. For a family living at the margin, those taxes can be the difference between food on the table and hungry children.

Admittedly, a big chunk of government expenses is for programs designed to help the poor. But even when this money actually helps — and it rarely does — it’s important to note the pernicious effects of taxation. Consider: every dollar of taxes is one dollar that a worker must give to the government first, regardless of whether that dollar could help him feed his family or improve his livelihood. If a poor man is faced with the choice of paying taxes or starting a business, he had best choose the former, otherwise he’ll go to jail.

This is true for the wealthy as well. But poor people live closer to the margin. More of their money is taken up with fixed bills like rent and food. This leaves them less discretionary income to, for instance, invest in a business. Because their pool of discretionary income is smaller, taxes cut deeper into it.

Mandatory government programs, such as Social Security and Medicare, compound the choice-restricting effects of taxation. Social Security, for instance, forces people to save for retirement regardless of whether or not that money could be better spent in another way.

Saving for retirement is generally a good idea; most people anticipate needing a monetary cushion to see them through their golden years. But it’s not the best approach for everyone. The young woman with terminal cancer, for instance, probably won’t be around to enjoy the fruits of Social Security. She can best maximize her happiness by spending that money now, whether it’s on fun experiences, or on taking care of her children, or on better medical treatment. Similarly, for the destitute man who can afford to either save for retirement or feed his children, it takes a heartless bureaucrat indeed to force him to do the former. Yet that is precisely what Social Security does.

Many poor people eventually want to start a business or learn new skills. Both take start-up capital. Imagine that John, a retail worker barely making ends meet, wants to learn to code so that he can find a better job. Most learn-to-code programs, such as Code School, aren’t free. Investing in such a program could significantly increase Johdn’s value and salary, allowing him to improve his finances both now and later. But faced between paying 7 percent of his paycheck to Social Security, or investing that 7 percent in learning new skills to build a career, John has to choose the former or go to jail.

Each individual has his or her unique circumstances. For some, saving for retirement right now might be smart. For others, that money could be better spent on something else. By mandating retirement savings, government robs individuals of the freedom to make their own decisions.

I’ve focused on Social Security, but other government programs have the same effect. Obamacare requires that people buy insurance or pay a fine, even if insurance isn’t in their best interests. Medicare forces the poor to put aside part of their money today to pay for their health care costs in old age — regardless of whether or not that decision is best for the man or woman in question.

But what about programs that give the poor money, like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and unemployment benefits? Even these programs create perverse incentives, trapping men and women who use them in poverty.

Because government assistance has built-in cutoff points, it creates de facto high marginal tax rates for the poor. If Jane makes $10,000 per year at McDonald’s, she might rely on programs like Medicare and welfare to make ends meet. But imagine she has the option to switch industries and take an entry-level job in a new career (for example, marketing) that pays $25,000 per year. If she takes the new job, she could end up bringing in $2,540 less on net. She might get $15,000 more from her employer, but she’ll lose $17,540 through a combination of higher taxes and reduced government benefits.

For Jane, the economically rational decision is to keep flipping burgers and not move to a new position. Government incentives reward her for staying in a dead-end job. By obeying these incentives, she misses out on all the promise inherent in a real career. People in marketing tend to be in demand in almost every company, and have more choice in where they want to work. They can earn promotions and climb the corporate ladder. These options aren’t available for a fast-food worker. Government programs give Jane the financial incentive to stay in her current position, restricting her long-term options.

Government programs, well-meaning or not, serve to trap the already downtrodden. By contrast, the market creates freedom and options and promotes upward mobility.

.

home
..