I Will Not Raise Taxes On the Middle Class

[FAADAN]

I hope that everyone here understands that inflation is a tax. For those who think that a percentage of your wealth is a "Fair Share," you will be happy to know that it hits the wealthy harder than the poor. The more money you have, the more inflation reduces your wealth. One of the prime reasons that the rich cannot hoard their money in a bank or under their mattress.

Money that the government prints to spend has to be repaid by labor of the citizens. With the effect of inflation, you are repaying that money in a form of reduced buying power. You pay more for everything that you buy so the Government can have more money to spend.

[Tutter]

Originally Posted by FAADAN

I hope that everyone here understands that inflation is a tax. For those who think that a percentage of your wealth is a "Fair Share," you will be happy to know that it hits the wealthy harder than the poor. The more money you have, the more inflation reduces your wealth. One of the prime reasons that the rich cannot hoard their money in a bank or under their mattress.

Money that the government prints to spend has to be repaid by labor of the citizens. With the effect of inflation, you are repaying that money in a form of reduced buying power. You pay more for everything that you buy so the Government can have more money to spend.

Inflation is a tax, and it hurts the rich more than the poor? Your opinions are...interesting.

[FAADAN]

Originally Posted by Tutter

Inflation is a tax, and it hurts the rich more than the poor? Your opinions are...interesting.

As far as the rich vs the poor, look at it this way. If you have $10 and it is now worth only $9 because of inflation, you have lost $1. If you have a $1,000,000, it is now worth $900,000. You have lost $100,000.

The Fed has been printing money at a record pace to buy treasury notes that are loans to the government so they can continue to spend. Every extra dollar they print, makes the previous one worth a little bit less. That, in turn makes your labor worth a little bit less. In essence, you have to work more for the same purchasing power so the government can continue to spend. A tax is basically a portion of your labor. When you have to work more for the same purchasing power, so the government can spend more, you are being taxed.

[skiracer]

this is not Faadans post. I quoted him initally but had to shorten it to fit so had to remove his part.

One extremely significant thing about paper money/currency which most people fail to understand: any government that utilizes paper as the medium of exchange, can print all the money needed (or desired) for free. United States Notes were just that: they were printed and spent on “infrastructure” for what the people would use, for free. (John F. Kennedy signed Presidential Executive Order #11.110, on June 4, 1963, that called for the US Bureau of Engraving to print more than $4,292,000,000 in $5 United States Notes, that would have been debt free, and would have by-passed the control of the owners of the banks that own “the Fed”, and who are the key people behind present day “Mystery Babylon”. The Kennedy Family were not angels, and were not perfect, but they were definitely “pro-American” and opposed to the controls the “money power” families had on America. People have been conditioned to believe many things about the Kennedy Assassinations, but few have bothered to closely examine the historical data around each event. And few know, or seem to care, that JFK signed an Executive Order that would have effectively eliminated the supposed need for the Income Tax that most people pay. Also, Ted was definitely not an angel, but he watched his two brothers get murdered, right in front of the American public, and then watched while the stories slowly changed, and the opinions of people were altered to fit the agenda of the “money power”. How many people would not have then “gone along to get along”, as Ted did? As Christians, we too easily forget one of God’s requirements, that we at least try to put the best construction on everything, and want to “throw dirt” too often. You can’t throw dirt without getting your hands dirty.) The following is a general scenario of how our Constitution and country has been changed, by those who control the “money” supply. There may be some specifics that are not quite correct, but I hope this will help those who can alter what they’ve been taught, and developed a distorted paradigm of economics and banking. (The following information is connected to Mystery Babylon.) Before the Federal Reserve began in 1914, there were two types of currency used in the United States of America: Silver Certificates and United States Notes. Silver Certificates were exchanged between the people, and could be exchanged for silver coin. A United States Note was printed for the federal, state, county, and city governments to pay for constitutional “infrastructure”, without debt. United States Notes paid for bridges, roads, schools, community centers, libraries, dams, etc. –all the things that people now are taxed for, was free by the use of United States Notes. They were not borrowed into circulation, but printed for the government, and spent on infrastructure where the contractors were given the notes, and the contractors then paid for the materials and labor with the notes. People and companies used United States Notes in a similar way and along with Silver Certificates, but the two types of currency were very different in nature. One was backed by silver; the other was backed by the wealth (gold reserves), “good faith” and credit of the United States. On December 22nd, 1913, Congress left Washington, D.C. for Christmas recess, but, the session was not adjourned, and “left open”, so, the next day, (I’ve read there were) three Congressmen met and passed the Federal Reserve Act, which transferred all of Congress’ control of the US monetary system over to the private “Federal Reserve”. I have read that the Federal Reserve is owned by the member banks, but, the member banks are owned by these families (or entities): Rockefeller, Goldman-Sachs, Lehman Bros., Rothschild, Warburg, Kuhn & Loeb, Schiff, Lazarre. The US government paid $.01 for each United States Note, whether it was a $1 or a $10,000 note, and all of them would be spent into circulation on what the public would use. And be drawn out of circulation through the Federal Excise Tax; not because the government needed the taxes, but as a way to make the United States Notes of value, and to have a complete cycle of use. After the Federal Reserve Act was initiated, what the federal, state, county, and city governments throughout the United States formerly obtained for free, they were suddenly required to borrow. And not just borrow, but were also charged “interest” (usury). Here is the one thing about “interest” (usury) that extremely few realize: if there is an “interest” of 5%, and $100 is borrowed, then $105 is owed, but, the $5 not being part of the “principle”, is technically not created or brought into the money supply, and must come from somewhere if the loan is going to be “paid off”. Think of it another way: if all of the money supply in the US that people could use were diminished to an extremely small amount of $1,000. And there were only ten people who were each get an equal amount, they would each get $100. If they received it free, did not owe interest on it, and could spend it without being required to pay it back, economically speaking, that would help the economy because there would be no debt connected to the money. If the “money” were Federal Reserve Notes, the people would only receive it by borrowing it, and would also owe interest. If each had to pay back what they borrowed, how could the economy be helped? It couldn’t. But it gets worse when interest (usury) is owed to the lender. If each person owed more than they borrowed, they owe more than what was created. At an interest of 5%, the ten people would owe $1,050, but the $50 was not part of the loan, and not really part of the money supply. So, someone will eventually lose what was put up as collateral. From 1914 until 1933, the US federal government borrowed Federal Reserve Notes from the Federal Reserve. There was no mechanism or method yet established for the US federal government to pay back what was borrowed from the Federal Reserve. In 1933, the owners of the banks that own “the Fed” secretly declared the constitutional united States of America bankrupt within (the original writing of) The War Emergency Powers Act of 1933, and what was a constitutional government was switched over to a corporation. The “Fed” kept loaning Federal Reserve Notes to the 48 Republics (called states); notes that cost “the Fed” $.01 each, but were loaned out at face value and charged interest (usury) also. In 1938, the 48 republic “states” were secretly declared bankrupt for failure to repay “the Fed”, and were silently changed to corporations. The courts were changed, case law, and much more. The Constitution became, i.e., only a historical document for reference purposes. The nation was then operated under various forms of commercial law. One primary point being, any government that uses paper as their medium of exchange, can have all the “money” they want printed for free. United States Notes were backed by gold stored in Fort Knox. After the federal US government was secretly declared bankrupt, the owners of the banks that own “the Fed” took ownership of that gold, being that the gold was the collateral for borrowing Federal Reserve Notes from 1914 to 1933, and never paying back “the Fed”. The “interest” that “the Fed” charges is paid back to them in a hidden manner. Those who have thoroughly examined the nature and history of the Income Tax should already know this. There are many “politicians” who know this, but keep silent –for various reasons. American citizens have been told repeatedly throughout their lives that the government needs to tax them, they need to pay their fair share, and their ministers (most of whom no absolutely nothing about how our form of government was set up, with “We, the people” over government, and no nothing about the real nature of our tax system) keep telling people what they all assume to be something it is not. The “money” is paper; the paper “money” was either backed by silver, or it was free to the government and backed by gold. The government did not need to tax anyone to pay for the free paper “money”, but only as a way to remove it from circulation. The Income Tax in one of the “planks” of The Communist Manifesto –graduated income tax. Virtually all of what is sent to the IRS is applied to the interest charged by “the Fed”, for the Federal Reserve Notes that government borrows (“borrower becomes servant to the lender”). No interest was connected to United States Notes, as they were debt-free currency, that were spent on what the public is now taxed for. If you did not have to pay Income Taxes, and a majority of other taxes that United States Notes formerly paid for, how much more would you have for finances? How much less stress would there be in our society and in our marriages…? How much do you think you might have to loan to your children instead of them needing to borrow from a bank (which borrows from “the Fed”)? Here’s the point of why I began all this: POPPY2 mentioned that the federal debt was 14 trillion; technically, all of that would be owed to “the Fed”, as a Federal Reserve Note is an IOU, meaning, whoever has a Federal Reserve Note really owes “the Fed” the amount of the note. (A lawful promissory note must state things on it that Federal Reserve Notes fail to do, and therefore, Federal Reserve Notes are not truly “lawful”, but instead have only been declared “legal” to make them appear “lawful”.) Back on point. It appears to me that, after the Iraqi Dinar which the US federal government is said to have is exchanged into “dollars” or credits for “dollars”, the 14 trillion of “so called” debt could actually be transferred to “the Fed”, and dispersed to the member banks, and then to the families that own those banks.

[Tutter]

Originally Posted by FAADAN

As far as the rich vs the poor, look at it this way. If you have $10 and it is now worth only $9 because of inflation, you have lost $1. If you have a $1,000,000, it is now worth $900,000. You have lost $100,000.

The Fed has been printing money at a record pace to buy treasury notes that are loans to the government so they can continue to spend. Every extra dollar they print, makes the previous one worth a little bit less. That, in turn makes your labor worth a little bit less. In essence, you have to work more for the same purchasing power so the government can continue to spend. A tax is basically a portion of your labor. When you have to work more for the same purchasing power, so the government can spend more, you are being taxed.

When you speak of inflation, purchasing power is usually the most prominent issue. If I have $10 and you have $1,000,000 and we are affected by inflation, it may be true that "on paper" you "lost" more than I did. When it comes to the ability to purchase shelter, food, and other necessary items, You are certainly in much better shape than I am! Therefore, I find it counter intuitive to conclude that inflation "hits the wealthy harder than the poor".

[FAADAN]

Originally Posted by Tutter

When you speak of inflation, purchasing power is usually the most prominent issue. If I have $10 and you have $1,000,000 and we are affected by inflation, it may be true that "on paper" you "lost" more than I did. When it comes to the ability to purchase shelter, food, and other necessary items, You are certainly in much better shape than I am! Therefore, I find it counter intuitive to conclude that inflation "hits the wealthy harder than the poor".

Your statement is true as far as creature comforts are concerned. However, the rich are paying a much higher amount. I was talking purely about amounts of money, not the effect on standard of living. I was also trying to illustrate why the rich cannot simply hoard their money and expect to keep it. They must invest it and grow it just to stay even.

[older than dirt]

Originally Posted by Tutter

Inflation is a tax, and it hurts the rich more than the poor? Your opinions are...interesting.

Not opinion! Any one with a brain can understand that. If you have no money, zero money, then inflation has zero effect on you.
If you have a bunch you lose a sizable amount.

I did not read the full thread before posting. This was my first reaction to the above post. Should be a common sense thing.

[Tutter]

Originally Posted by FAADAN

Your statement is true as far as creature comforts are concerned. However, the rich are paying a much higher amount. I was talking purely about amounts of money, not the effect on standard of living. I was also trying to illustrate why the rich cannot simply hoard their money and expect to keep it. They must invest it and grow it just to stay even.

Food and shelter are creature comforts? That's a quaint way of putting it.

My point remains, that inflation most strongly affects dollars that are being spent. The "value" of your money is lost when it is spent during times of rapid inflation. The millionaire will "lose" that 100,000 if he spends the whole million.

Anyone else want to chime in with an opinion about who inflation will hit harder, wealthy or poor?

[fruits&nuts]

Originally Posted by Tutter

Food and shelter are creature comforts? That's a quaint way of putting it.

My point remains, that inflation most strongly affects dollars that are being spent. The "value" of your money is lost when it is spent during times of rapid inflation. The millionaire will "lose" that 100,000 if he spends the whole million.

Anyone else want to chime in with an opinion about who inflation will hit harder, wealthy or poor?

It's a meaningless argument. Depending upon how you define your terms, both positions are true.

[fruits&nuts]

The real problem anyway is that those who are responsible for inflation are stealing from ALL of us. They are crooks. They should be jailed.