| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
candy bar
Joined: 03 Dec 2012
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2013 9:01 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| le-paul wrote: |
war is a business, it makes more money than is spent on it (at least or certain parties). Look at Vietnam, ww2 (US part in it), iraq, the war on terror. All US fabrications to spend money, making weapons or using up old munitions.
And taxing people to cover the debt wont work either. Its fundamentally the same issue. Where does the money come from? -the bank.
The bank needs to cancel its debts. Thats how to solve this problem. Maybe killing everyone who owns it would be a good start... |
So you are saying that the US part in ww2 was a US fabrication to spend money, make weapons, or use up old munitions?
I always thought its part had something to do with the bombing of Pearl Harbor or something related. I suppose those planes that bombed Pearl Harbor had American pilots flying them. Those sneaky fabricating Yanks~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
le-paul
Joined: 07 Apr 2009
Location: dans la chambre
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2013 10:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
well, from what i read, the americans ordered a trade embargo on japan and then told the japanese ambassador to leave the usa. i think the japanese may have guessed the usa's intentions.
whod have guessed that a governement would provoke a war!
anyway, were digressing from the thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 04, 2013 1:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| le-paul wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| le-paul wrote: |
i think (i have to check), in England, money is based on gold. In theory, you could go into a bank and ask for gold instead of money. Printed on the paper it says something like "i promise to pay the bearer.... So the money isnt money, its a guarantee of payment if you ever wanted to cash it in.
Its a little abstract but i suppose its worth something, whereas in the US, its kind of just printed proof of a debt.
Alot of people have predicted, that in the not too distant future, the American system will reach a point where it cant afford to make the debt repayments anymore and the system will crash. Probably taking the international market with it.
I hope i don't live to see that happen  |
"No country currently uses a gold standard as the basis of its monetary system"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard |
maybe ive misinterpreted what that link says ;
In 1844, the Bank Charter Act established that Bank of England notes were fully backed by gold and they became the legal standard. According to the strict interpretation of the gold standard, this 1844 act marks the establishment of a full gold standard for British money.
it seems that the uk does?
edit at/that |
It left the gold standard in 1931. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
le-paul
Joined: 07 Apr 2009
Location: dans la chambre
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 04, 2013 1:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| well, if what youre saying is that the worlds banks work on the same premise as the US federal bank, we're all f........... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
candy bar
Joined: 03 Dec 2012
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 04, 2013 2:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| le-paul wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| le-paul wrote: |
i think (i have to check), in England, money is based on gold. In theory, you could go into a bank and ask for gold instead of money. Printed on the paper it says something like "i promise to pay the bearer.... So the money isnt money, its a guarantee of payment if you ever wanted to cash it in.
Its a little abstract but i suppose its worth something, whereas in the US, its kind of just printed proof of a debt.
Alot of people have predicted, that in the not too distant future, the American system will reach a point where it cant afford to make the debt repayments anymore and the system will crash. Probably taking the international market with it.
I hope i don't live to see that happen |
"No country currently uses a gold standard as the basis of its monetary system"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard |
maybe ive misinterpreted what that link says ;
In 1844, the Bank Charter Act established that Bank of England notes were fully backed by gold and they became the legal standard. According to the strict interpretation of the gold standard, this 1844 act marks the establishment of a full gold standard for British money.
it seems that the uk does?
edit at/that |
Yes, may have misinterpreted what the link says |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
candy bar
Joined: 03 Dec 2012
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 04, 2013 2:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| le-paul wrote: |
well, from what i read, the americans ordered a trade embargo on japan and then told the japanese ambassador to leave the usa. i think the japanese may have guessed the usa's intentions.
whod have guessed that a governement would provoke a war!
anyway, were digressing from the thread. |
You are distressing from the thread by claiming the US fabricated ww2 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
le-paul
Joined: 07 Apr 2009
Location: dans la chambre
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 04, 2013 3:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| candy bar wrote: |
| le-paul wrote: |
well, from what i read, the americans ordered a trade embargo on japan and then told the japanese ambassador to leave the usa. i think the japanese may have guessed the usa's intentions.
whod have guessed that a governement would provoke a war!
anyway, were digressing from the thread. |
You are distressing from the thread by claiming the US fabricated ww2 |
 i hope it feels better later! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Taxing consumption at mid- to high-levels makes more sense than taxation of income at the mid-level, because income is inherently good, unlike consumption. At high levels, the taxation of income becomes inherently good because it reduces the income inequality which allows the rich to capture democracy and turn it towards their ends. |
In regards to sales tax, DC has an array of them. For bars and restaurants, sales tax is 10%. I think alcohol (in stores) is now the same- 10%. Soda has its own sales tax (I don't know the %) and for everything else minus groceries (0%), it is 6%.
Since I go out a lot, I really dislike the 10% BUT I admit it is good policy. Eating out and drinking booze is clearly not an essential life need and can easily be avoided. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lithium
Joined: 18 Jun 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:15 am Post subject: Re: How the U.S. can reduce the debt by $71 billion per year |
|
|
| Smithington wrote: |
It's simple: tax the churches. I honestly don't understand why the U.S., and other Western countries, don't close this archaic loophole. No group or institution should be given special status in a democracy. Especially so in a time of economic hardship. Don't churches want to pay their share? Don't they want to help reduce the debt, pay for hosapitals, schools and parks? This is not an attack on religious people, or even religion. It's a matter of wanting to level the playing field. By allowing religious institutions to avoid paying taxes the state loses 71.1 billion dollars - each year, every year. How can this be allowed to continue? Each decade that's 710 billion dollars in taxes not collected.
Isn't tax avoidance a crime for the rest of us?
In our struggle to bring down the national debt, it's time that we were all taxed fairly.
It's time to tax the churches. |
Your argument is invalid. You just described socialism; don't try to bring everyone up, just keep everyone equally miserable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ginormousaurus
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
Location: 700 Ft. Pulpit
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| How does taxing churches equate to socialism? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Should we scrutinize churches and charities more to make sure they aren't behaving as for-profit institutions and tax havens? Yes, absolutely. Organizations like Joel Osteen's would be obvious targets. But to tax all churches indiscriminately? I suppose if you're a vehement anti-theist, that idea might actually sound good.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
recessiontime
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 6:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| We should tax the churches. They aren't keeping their end of their deal by involving themselves in politics anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ginormousaurus
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
Location: 700 Ft. Pulpit
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 7:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Should we scrutinize churches and charities more to make sure they aren't behaving as for-profit institutions and tax havens? Yes, absolutely. Organizations like Joel Osteen's would be obvious targets. But to tax all churches indiscriminately? I suppose if you're a vehement anti-theist, that idea might actually sound good. |
Why shouldn't they be taxed? (Honest question, not being argumentative)
Do churches pay property taxes? If not, why not? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ginormousaurus
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
Location: 700 Ft. Pulpit
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 12, 2013 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Why not both? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
